RESPONSE TO GUY ABOUT THE GOMEZ

A while Back I did a blog entitled, "The Go-mess Bible." I received a response in the comment box by a man named Mr. Wilps. I promptly emailed him in return to his comments. But my response to him didn't appear on my blog. So I thought I'd post my response to him here, so people who read my blog and his comments could see the rest of the story...

"Mister Wilps, Thanks for reading my blog and writing back with your thoughts. I appreciate you doing so. Thanks also for inviting me down to Paraguay. If I had the money, I'd love to go. I'm sure it'd be a great time in the Lord. Now to your comments. And I want you to know that I'm not interested in fighting or debating either. I'm only interested in the truth.

1. I wrote on my blog that it was a lie what you wrote. And to me it is. It might not be to you, but it is to me. After looking back at it, I can see I should have worded it differently, as I didn't quote you exactly. You said, "La RVG2010 es la unica biblia en espanol que elimina la confusion!" But, this statement still cannot be true. For the 1602 P eliminated the confusion way before the Gomez, when it read "la estrella de la manana" years before the Gomez ever said that. So maybe you should consider revising that part of your tract.

2. The 1602 P did change "salud" to "salvacion" but not because the 1960 did so (They refused to even look at the 1960 in their revision work). It was because there were older protestant versions that had the word salvacion. The 1602 P also tried to be faithful to the old 1602 as much as possible. As I read the Gomez, I do not see that. It chose to use many words that are in the 1960 and even the NIV in Spanish, even when the original 1602 Castellan word is fine. Why change synonyms, especially when the old RV word is fine? I'm well aware that the 1865 crowd calls EVERY SPANISH BIBLE AFTER 1881 a MODERNISTIC VERSION. That's what they do. And I don't know anybody more wanting to argue and debate than those behind the 1865. I'm not like them, nor do I want to be. I'm not interested in arguing, attacking, or calling names. Let me be clear, I'm glad people are using a purer version than the 1960! If you want to use the Gomez or the 1865 or the 1862, go right ahead. I'm not trying to tell you at all what version to use. I'm just giving as many facts as I can to show people the truth, because I want them to decide for themselves. Nothing wrong with that! Huh? That's my ministry. And I try to give all the facts. Now, on my blog, I gave an opinion. An opinion based upon much study of the issue. If you don't agree, then we can agree to disagree! :) But shouldn't a guy be entitled to his own opinion?

3. I get quite a lot of people emailing me (who speak Spanish), who tell me what they think after they've studied both the Gomez and the 1602 P. They are from all over the world, and even in Europe and Central and South America. (Not a "small circle"). They are saying what I said they were saying in my blog. They are reading my books online, and studying the issue for themselves, and THEY ARE TAKING ME SERIOUSLY. (Or maybe I should say they are taking the 1602 Purified seriously). They only want a pure Spanish Bible, but they want a CASTELLAN Spanish Bible like the 1602 P, and not a revised 1960 version (Which is what a lot of them are saying the Gomez is, as it reads so closely to the 1960 because of many of the words Mr. Gomez chose are the same words in the 1960, and not the ones from the original 1602 and 1569. I believe we shoud have a true Reina-Valera Bible, revised with the right texts, and not a modern version revised with the right texts. We should go BACK to the original 1602 and bring it in line with the texts underlying the KJV and not FORWARD to a version like the 1960 or 1909 and then try to bring it back in line with the right texts. That's the difference between the 1602 P and the Gomez.) You are right in saying the RVG is being "widely accepted." But just because a lot of people accept something doesn't mean much. The majority isn't always right. With your logic, then we should all become Catholics and use the NIV, because that's the largest religon, and that's the most widely accepted version today! I've seen that most of the Spanish Bible Issue is about Politics; something I don't want any part of. I'm interested more in purity of the texts.

4. I don't know what you mean by the main authority for the 1602 P being a woman, I assume you refer to Gail Riplinger. Well, she is not the main authority. You want to know who the authority is for the 1602P? That would be God, first and foremost. And then it would be both Reina and Valera, who desired a pure Bible, and asked for pious men of God to work together to get one. That's what those behind the 1602 P did. They followed Valera's preface and his desire. They should be honored for it, and not "ignored" which is the case with those who push the Gomez. (Speaking of women, what about the stories of women helping to do the translation work behind the Gomez? I've personally heard several times that men who were missionaries to Spanish-Speaking countries went to their hispanic wives and said things like, "What do YOU think this verse should say?" Is that true???)

5. I'm not "concerned" that you don't mention the 1602P. I just believe it's rather deceitful that you and others don't. It should be mentioned, especially since Mr. Gomez used it for several years before he put out his own version. (Some have told me that they think he just copied our 1602P and used synonyms to make it look like his own work. I don't know, but that's what his first edition looks like, except for where he makes really weird changes like telling a man it's okay to marry his own daughter, and having Jesus go to a party where people are drinking LIQUOR!) A friend who also wrote a book for Chick and had it published there, told me, and I paraphase of course, "I'm not going to mention your 1602P because I don't like you anymore, and I don't think people need to hear about your version." That's been the attitude I've been seeing by those who use the Gomez. They aren't willing to even acknowledge the 1602P, even though it came out BEFORE the GOMEZ, and it is a very scholarly work of almost three times as much study as the Gomez itself (It's was the work of almost 15 years). My attitude is: "Buy a Gomez Bible and buy a 1602P and read them both side by side with the Textus Receptus, the Hebrew Masoretic, and the KJV and THEN decide for yourself!" The least the Gomez crowd could do is say the same thing. If you've got nothing to worry about, then why not mention the 1602P more? Why the cover up? What are you afraid of? Also, to the contrary of what you've stated, the 1602P did not "take the words 'the brother of' out of 2 Sam. 21:19." If you'll check the original 1602 you'll see those words were never in the text in Spanish (only in the footnote on the side of the page). Those words are in the KJV and are in italics! So you can't say it's a mistake to "take out" something that wasn't there to begin with in the original 1602. Also, if it's in italics, shouldn't that be something you shouldn't try to start an arguement about??? I'm trusting the Lord to get the truth out. I'm not a follower of MAN, or MEN but a follower of GOD, and I follow him according to my conscience, and to his word. Thank you that your heart goes out to me. But I do not see any bitterness in my heart. Discouragement, perhaps, but bitterness, no. Persecution complex? Well, who knows. All I know is: 2 Tim 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. I'm truly sorry you think I think everyone is apostate but me. I really don't want to come across that way. I guess I'll just sit here under my juniper tree with my Elijah complex for now. But in the mean time, I'm doing the best I can to get people to hear the other side of the story and to see the 1602 Purified for what it is, THE ORIGINAL 1602, PURIFED! And not a new translation done by a man who changed a lot of old RV words (that have been around for over 400 years) with modern words that just happen to match the 1960 and even the spanish NIV. Could it be for other reasons than apostasy that the 1602 P is not being accepted? Maybe it's just because people haven't heard about it! Why not mention it. I mention the Gomez in my book about which Bible in Spanish. In fact, I mention all Spanish Bibles. I believe in telling people the WHOLE STORY and not just point them to one thing while covering up another. It's funny that you say I'm bitter and how I always write in my writings that "I preached myself out of the ministry," because I only wrote that blog a few days ago. And funnier still, that you should say I'm mad at the Gomez and try to attack it. Because almost everyone who contacts me via email that has read my website says almost the same thing, "I've been studying the Spanish Bible Issue for years and your site is the only one that presents the facts clearly and in order without attacking, lamblasting, and just arguing all the time. I appreciate that!" Funnier too, that you should say that I'm bitter, hurt, and defeated. I recently got an email from someone who said, "Bro. Breaker, I'm just curious why the Gomez crowd attacks you so vehementely. I've read your website and it's really good, and you are so very nice. Why do you think they attack you so?" Weird, isn't it? I'm not interested in attacking, arguing, debating, or anything else. I just want present the facts. Here's one: The word PALABRA is found in the original 1569, 1602, and even the Enzinas of 1543 and the Juan Perez de Pineda. Why then doesn't the Gomez use it? Why does it use VERBO, when EVERY CATHOLIC BIBLE uses it, as so does the 1865, the 1909, the 1960, the NVI, etc.? That's a good question, isn't it? And I'm serious, and I'm not attacking. Erasmus said he hated the word "VERBUM" in latin (where Verbo comes from in Spanish) and he called it CATHOLIC, and refused to use it in his latin translation, instead using SERMO. Shouldn't the Gomez use the old RV word there, the old PROTESTANT word there, instead of the pro-catholic, and MODERNISTIC word VERBO? I'd really like to know what you think about that one? And what about JEHOVA? Shouldn't it be SENOR, especially since that's what Juan Perez de Pineda used in his Psalms? ANd that's what both Reina and Valera used in their other writings beside the Bible. Have you read in their prefaces what they said about SENOR? It was because they were anti-semitic that they used JEHOVA. (They called the Jews "supersticiosos" for not trying to pronounce Jehova). Is it good to use anti-semitic words? The 1602 P uses SENOR (notice in all caps just like the KJV). Why doesn't the Gomezz? I hope I haven't come across as "bitter," "angry," or "attacking." I hope you will look at the words, and not at what you perceived the tone to be. I appreciate you praying for me and my ministry. I am and will continue to do the same for you. I only ask you to PREACH SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, for there are too many good men out there preaching another Gospel: A BLOODLESS GOSPEL. These things ought not so to be. Preach the BLOOD, the BOOK, and the BLESSED HOPE.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus our Lord, and only through his precious blood,

Robert R. Breaker III

1 Sam. 12:24!"

The Other Sins of Pastors

A lot of people like to talk about "double-married Preachers," and say all sorts of bad things about them. One thing a lot of Fundamentalists say is that a man can't be married more than once and stand in a pulpit as a Pastor and preach. But is this so, biblically? What about a guy whose wife has died, and he's remarried? Wouldn't he be able to Pastor? A lot of times, they don't think about that. They only want to preach against the sin of divorce. But what about all the other sins a Pastor can commit?

Funnymentalists oftentimes run to the following passage to tell us that it's anti-biblical for a man to be double-married and Pastor a church:

1 Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1 Tim 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1 Tim 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1 Tim 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1 Tim 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1 Tim 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1 Tim 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Modern Fundamentalists are quick to point out that according to verse two, a bishop or a pastor should only be the husband of one wife. They say that one means one, and that to be double-married disqualifies a man from the ministry and the call of God to be a Pastor. Well, I'm not going to tell you what I believe about that verse.

But I am going to ask this important question, "What about all the other things listed there???"

Why do Fundamentalists conviniently leave out those other things that are listed? If we look at them, and we follow their logic, then a man who is guilty of the following other things is DISQUALIFIED according to the scriptures:

1. A man who is not "blameless."

2. A man who is not vigilant.

3. A man who is not sober.

4. A man of bad behaviour.

5. A man who is not given to hospitality.

6. A man who is not apt to teach.

7. A man who is given to wine.

8. A man who hits or has hit someone else in anger.

9. A man who is greedy of ill-gotten gains.

10. A man who is impatient.

11. A man who is who is quick to beats up others.

12. A man who is covetous.

13. A man who doesn't rule his own house

14. A man who is a novice.

15. A man who is not prideful.

16. A man who is of good report.

Notice how many "qualifications" of a Pastor that there really are. Why don't Pastors just be consistent, for they want to go around and exclaim, "So and so can't be a Pastor because he's been divorced!" But they never go around and say, "So and so can't be a Pastor because he's INHOSPITABLE, or IMPATIENT or HE LET'S HIS WIFE WEAR THE PANTS IN THE FAMILY, or HE'S FULL OF PRIDE!"

Why don't we hear talk of those other "qualifications" listed in this passage as well? I think it's because there would be a whole lot less pastors in the world if we tried to hold them all to these standards!

I'm reminded of Jesus when he said, "Let him that hath no sin, cast the first stone!"

I'm not a "double-married" Preacher. I've only been married once. But I know and have known some men who are Pastors that have been married more than once. But instead of just throwing them out the door immediately, as some would do, I look again at the scripture.

Notice the scripture doesn't use the term "double-married." Instead it says, "Husband of one wife." And, as I've known some Pastors who have been married more than once, I've noticed something interesting. They only have one wife at home! There is not two or three women running around their house. They have only one wife. Some of them their wife died, and they remarried, and now they have only one wife. Others, their wife ran off and left them, and went to a wicked world system and divorced them. This left them divorced, WITHOUT A WIFE! That woman then remarried someone else, which left the Pastor scripturally able to remarry, which he did. If you went to their house today, you would find only ONE WIFE. Wouldn't that mean they were still qualified to Pastor???

Now, on to the other side of the coin, I've also met some Pastors that didn't qualify very well on those other points.

One thing I really hate is being invited to a meeting, and the Pastor putting my wife and I up in a hotel somewhere. What about the Pastor being HOSPITABLE? Shouldn't he put us up at his house, or maybe with someone in the church? Instead, he puts us up in a hotel somewhere, and we hardly ever get to fellowship. That just doesn't seem right. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul going to a church 2000 years ago, and the Pastor saying, "Okay, Paul, we appreciate your coming so far to us, but we don't want you in our home, so we're putting you up in the Imperial Roman Inn, and I hope you have a good time there. See you on Sunday!" Somehow I just don't see that happening!

We also see a Pastor should be "apt to teach." Where does that leave those Pastors who only preach on Sunday, but let someone else teach their Sunday School? Shouldn't the Pastor be the one teaching it? I mean, uh, you know, that's what the Bible says, right?

What about the "bad behaviour" qualification? I've met Pastors who don't behave nicely. They are mean to their wives, mean to their kids, and more. Further, their testimony with those that are without (lost people) leaves much to be desired, as they stiff waitresses at fancy restaurants, and snootily look down their noses at others with a "holier then thou" attitude. Does that sound like the way a "man of God" should act to you???

And then there are the "brawlers" and "those who are strikers." I can't tell you how many times I've heard a Pastor brag (and yes, even from the pulpit) about smacking around some guy in the congregation who he thinks should do better, or hitting someone he doesn't agree with, or slapping somebody in the face. How is that a good thing? And shouldn't that automatically disqualify them from the Pastorate?

Then there are those who are IMPATIENT! Boy, that pretty much hammers all of us, doesn't it? They say, "The one thing you should never pray for is Patience!"

Yep, there are quite a few Pastors who grow very impatient with how slowly their church is growing, and waiting on God to bring in the people and the money to build a bigger building, so they go to the SECULAR WORLD BANKS and get loans to build bigger facilities before they are even filled up. Oh, they are very pious about it, claiming, "We have faith to believe that God will fill the building after we construct it!" But they fail to realize they are disobeying the scriptures which say, "Owe a debt to no man!"

How many times has a Preacher taken a church and immediately started a building project, and then left the church suddenly, high and dry, with a massive debt to pay off? Too many times to count! Shouldn't that guy have been disqualified? Why weren't other preachers preaching against him? Sounds like he had a great "lack of faith," doesn't it?

And then we come to "covetous." Oh where do I begin with this one? I've met Pastors who covet quite frequently, wanting the best of everything. They want a car of the year, a nice house, the best suit, etc. Basically, they want it all, exclaiming, "I'm serving a great God, and I know he'd want me to have the best, because I represent Him!"

Shouldn't a guy like that be completely disqualified? Yet Fundamentalists buy into that mentality, and have to have the most expensive suits, cars, etc. Like one preacher said, "All a Pastor needs is a couple of three piece suits, several three point outlines, and about three old jokes and he's ready for the ministry!"

Obviously, there are much more "qualifications" of a Pastor than just being the Husband of one Wife. So why don't you hear about them? Hmmm. Could it be Pastors are guilty of some of them, and that's why they don't want them mentioned? Nooooooo! Oh, no, that couldn't be it, .... could it?

I was taught in Bible School that those points in 1 Tim. 3 are the "ideal qualifications" of the Pastor. For nobody is without sin. And that a Pastor should strive to be like those points listed. If you don't believe that, that's fine. But if you are going to go the other way, and dogmatically say, "Those are the qualifications of a Pastor, and a Pastor HAS TO MEET ALL THOSE POINTS or else he can't Pastor!" Then don't you have a big mess on your hands?

Don't just go after those "double-married" guys. You'd better go after those covetous, impatient, prideful, moneygrubbing, praise loving, inhospitable, Pastors out there interested only in beating people up instead of teaching others how to be meek and humble. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? ...Right? ... Is this thing on? Hello, ... Hello?

Well, I've gone to meddling, so I'd better quit. But think about it, okay? All sin is the same in God's eyes!

BAPTIST POPES

In these last days of apostasy (boy, how many times have I had to say that?), we see a lot of sin entering into Bible-Believing churches. And we also see many anti-biblical practices gaining much ground. One of these is the modernistic teaching of PASTORAL AUTHORITY, as it has been twisted by many a Fundamentalist Pastor to grant himself almost tyrannical power, as he not only leads his flock, but abuses his position by treating them as his subjects, over which he pretends to be their king.

I've personally heard of one Pastor who tells his congregation that they need to come to him for everything, and they should check with him before they make any decisions whatsoever! Stories have surfaced of this dogmatical Pastor which tell of people coming to him for such ridiculous things as: "What color car should I buy?" and "How many kids should my wife and I have?" and "Where should I work secularly?"

But, it's not the job of a Pastor to tell people what they can and can't do and what they should and shouldn't do! We are all individuals who are allowed "individual soul liberty" (a Baptist doctrine, by the way), in which we have the right to choose what we want to do. We all have a free will, (which is a Bible Doctrine!).

To hear of a Pastor teaching his people that they must come to him and let him in on all their decisions is nothing short of setting up a religious cult which gives honor to a man instead of God, and sets a man up as a "Pope" instead of a Pastor. Sadly, this teaching of exaltation of the Pastor to allow him to run your life is gaining much ground in Independent Baptist Churches, and more and more people are finding themselves enslaved physically to someone who is only supposed to be their spiritual leader.

What saith the scriptures about this practice of a preacher dominating his congregation and making them do obescience to Him instead of Jesus?

The Bible has a lot to say actually. Let us start with the command to Pastors in 1 Peter 5:2-3: "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

Here we are told that the number one thing a man of God (a Pastor) should do is to FEED his congregation. By this, he is supposed to give them the word of God. Notice, he is not supposed to do so for filthy lucre (i.e. Fame and Fortune), which is another sin we could talk about. (There are many "hirelings" out there that fill pulpits who are only interested in the financial aspect of the ministry instead of the spiritual aspect of it). Nor is he to preach because he is "constrained" to do so. He should willingly want to minister to the people of God, and he should be an EXAMPLE to them of how they should live for Jesus.

These men who "lord over God's heritage" are those who do so for money and who enjoy the power and prestige of their position, and they use that for their own filthy and carnal gain. This is something that greatly angers God. (See Revelation chapter 2 in what God says about the Nicolaitanes).

God does not want Christians to "rule" over other Christians. He is very much against this. He wants them to "minister" to the needs of others. (Read Rom. 12:5-13). And the job of a Pastor is to be a "minister." In 1 Peter 4:8-11 we read of the importance of charity, hospitality, and grace, which are all things a minister is supposed to practice:

And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging. As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice this is a far cry from a DICTATORSHIP, which is how many modern pastors try to govern their congregations.

Jesus said the following in Matthew 20:25-28: "But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

This plainly teaches us that a Pastor should not try to "excercise dominion" over his people, but rather should love them enough to die for them, as Christ died for the church, and to minister to his people as a servant does his master.

Immediately some bald-headed, Baptist dictator who is used to twisting the scriptures to his own destruction would stand up and say, "But what about Hebrews 13:17?"

Let us turn and read it together:

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."

He would then say, "See there! That means they should obey ME!"

I would only ask in return, "Do you really watch after the souls of your congregation. Are you really ready to give account to God for actions? Are you really JOYOUS in your role as Pastor?" For the verse also speaks of those things as well.

Again, that same Christian dictator would point us to 1 Tim 5:17 which reads: "Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. "

And that Baptist papist would say, "See there? A Pastor is supposed to RULE the church, and he's supposed to RULE it WELL!"

But he fails to read the entire verse (par for course), seeing only what he wants to, while he disregards the rest. For we read in that same verse he is to rule SPIRITUALLY by labouring in the "word" and "doctrine." In other words, he's to PREACH the word of God and reprove, rebuke and exhort his congregation while being longsuffering (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Yes, there is a place for the role of the Pastor. Of course there is. But Paul never wanted people to worship him and follow him as though he was a Pope. He even said, "Be ye followers of me, EVEN AS I AM ALSO OF CHRIST!"

There is no problem following a man of God who is living right, preaching the word of God, and doing his best to follow the Lord. But when that Pastor tries to dominate you and tell you that you must obey his every whim and will, then we have a problem. He has shown himself to be a "lord" over God's heritage, and has proven he only cares about himself and his power and not about the congregation.

The Pastor of the Local Church is the SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY in a position that is not one of phycial governance, but that of ministering unto the saints. Most preachers don't understand this. They think they have to be in charge and they have to direct things. But why not just preach the word of God with boldness and with love and let God guide, lead, and direct?

God is not looking for little sheriffs to go around and straighten out all the messes and force people to do something against their will. God chose Pastors to preach and teach the word of God to help Christians grow in the Lord. In fact, we read of what God desires a Pastor to be in 1 Tim. 3:2-7:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Notice it speaks of the pastor (what the Bible calls a bishop) "ruling his own house well," but also notice it doesn't say anything about "ruling the Church." The Holy Spirit chose instead the words "take care of the church." That's a Pastor's job, and that of a minister. He is to "take care" of what's been left in his care.

We are further warned of a Pastor not being lifted up with pride, lest he fall into condemnation, reproach, and the snare of the devil. Pastors who try to become Baptist Popes, are often times guilty of becoming "prideful" thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong, and only they know what the Bible says and what a person should do. So their attitude becomes: "It's my way or the highway!"

But what about actually caring so much for a person that you cry for them, you earnestly pray for them, and you nicely try to reach them time and again, reasoning with them from the scriptures? Wouldn't that be more like a "minister."

I've personally met Pastors who's attitude is: "I'm in charge here, and if you don't like it, GET OUT!"

And instead of showing people how to get close to God, they push them away by their dogmatical and dictatorial spirit. Just like the Popes of old, they persecute others who don't agree with them. And, instead of sitting down and talking with someone and going to the scriptures for guidance, they say things like, "That's the way we've always done it, and we are going to do things this way whether you like it or not! I've decided, and that's how it's going to be done."

Shouldn't there at least be a little room for discussion? Maybe, you know, some time spent in prayer, and, oh no, should I even say it, as most people don't like to hear this word, fasting?

Nope, Baptist Popes will have none of those, thinking they know what's best and people must do as they are told, or else.

Look how different this attitude of many modern day Baptist Dictators compares to that of the Apostle Paul. In Ephesians 3:7-8 we read:

"Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ."

Notice Paul calls himself a "minister" (not a dictator), and he doesn't exalt his office, or try to make himself appear to be a person of authority. He refers to himself as "the least of all saints."

And again, we see Paul's humble spirit when we read:

"Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." (2 Cor 12:5-7)

Paul did not want to be exalted above measure. He would rather glory in Christ Jesus, and point others to Him.

So what do we do with Baptist Popes and Pastoral Dictators? We should do nothing, except pray for them, and if we can, talk to them and express our concerns, being careful to do so with the scriptures. If they listen, and see the error of their ways, then praise the Lord. If not, there is no law that says you have to be a member of their church. You still have the right to choose your membership to any church you want to belong!

It's important that you should make sure you are following a Pastor who looks at you as a Christian, a friend, and a partner in the cause of Christ, and not just a a "tither" a "seat warmer in the pew," and another "baptism he can brag about." For most Baptist Popes quite often use their congregations as a means to an ends, instead of caring about them, and being willing to serve them while ministering to their needs.

The Apostle Paul said it best in writing to Timothy, a young preacher:

These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1 Tim 4:11-12 )

AN HONORARY DOCTORATE?

I've written long enough on this blog about the apostasy in Christianity, and yeah even in Fundamentalists circles and even within the Indpendent Baptist Movement, that it is now time I start giving some definite and specific details of that apostasy. So I'll begin with something that really bothers me, and something that very few want to deal with. That is the subject of the "Honoray Doctorate."

There was a pastor in South Carolina that I really appreciated because of his stand against being a "doctor." He said once from the pulpit, "I don't ever want to be a Doctor, for it was the Pharisees and the DOCTORS of the Law that killed Jesus Christ! Why would I want to identify with that crowd?"

He further said, "And I tell you what I'd do if someone tried to give me an honorary doctorate from some Bible School somewhere. I'd go to their college to accept it in person, and then I'd tear it up right in their face, because I didn't earn it, and to give me something like that that I didn't earn is WRONG!"

I thought about that later, and really enjoyed hearing him say that. Because in modern Christianity today, there is a lot of MEN WORSHIP. And because of this, people believe that if a person has a high "degree," then he someone who is worthy of attention, esteem, and praise by other men.

But what does the Bible say about this? In Psalm 62:9, we read what God thinks of those with degrees: "Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity."

The way God looks at things is much different then how men look them. For in our world today, we view those who have "doctorates" as some of the smartest people in the world. But if you'll actually study their lives and teachings, the fact of the matter is they are some of the STUPIDEST and LOONIEST people who ever lived! The majority of them aren't even saved, and they buy into ridiculous theories such as "Evolution" and "The Big Bang." So from the get-go they are against God and everything to do with Bible.

This doesn't bother God much, as he's already written about them before they were even born:

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

1 Cor 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1 Cor 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

1 Cor 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Cor 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 1 Cor 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;1 Cor 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 1 Cor 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

According to God, those who think they are smart in this world are FOOLS. And God says those who think they are wise are only VAIN. This is why God wants people to look to Him for knowledge and His precious, holy word, and not to men. God doesn't want men to glory in themselves. He wants all the Glory for Himself! (And let me just say, HE DESERVES IT ALL!)

So what about "Christian Doctorates" given out in so-called Christian Schools, Bible Institutes, and Colleges? If God is against athiestic, secualr doctors and degrees, wouldn't it stand to reason that he'd be against those who claim to be Christians, but who desire to receive praise for their acheivements as well?

I'll let you answer that question yourself! All I know is many people who claim to be Christians Scholars with "High Degrees," are often those who are the most adamant attackers of the King James Bible. They are the same ones who praise the Westcott and Hort texts, and the Vaticanus and Siniaticus, while they defend the Septuagint and the modernistic Nestle-Aland "Critical" Greek Texts. Their "education" has made them"critical" as they cast doubt on which Bible texts are the right ones, and this usually leads these "learned men" to becoming their own "authority" (because they think they know more than anyone else), instead of trusting solely in the word of God. Yep, a good education can often times ruin a fellow!

Now I'm not saying that all "doctors" are bad. I'm sure there are good doctors in both the secular world and in Christianity. But if you study the educational system that most of them receive, you'll see oftentimes it is bad, as it casts doubt on the TRUTH, replacing it with TRADITION.

Now let's move away from "earned" doctorates, which are something a person has worked hard to obtain through much study, and sacrifice, and look at the "honorary doctorate."

What think you? Is it okay for a university or college to grant a degree to someone who didn't earn it, all because THEY (the university faculty) deem that person has done something to merit it?

Well, you can think whatever you like. But here's what I see. First, that's giving someone something they didn't earn! Second, it's giving them something freely that others had to sacrifice and pay for! Third, it falsely gives a person a title that can further their career or standing in the community, and Fourth, it helps the university to brag on itself and those who have become "doctors" at their institution.

To me, all these are not good! And for a person to receive something he didn't earn, and then go around and brag about it, DOESN'T THAT MAKE HIM A HYPOCRITE??? And doesn't it give him the praise of MAN instead of giving all the praise and honor and glory to GOD?

I don't see how a Christian could want to have an honorary doctorate. I just don't see how they would want peope to call them something they are not. And I don't see how they would want people to view them as something they didn't earn!

I've seen a lot of Christians ministers obtain honorary doctorates. And I wish I could say good things about all of them who received that degree. But instead, what I have seen is a change in their mentality and in their attitude. They are no longer meek and humble. They are no longer approachable and courteous and easy to talk with. Instead they become lifted up with pride, and begin to walk with their heads higher than everyone else's, while they look down their noses at others.

They further become "political" as "allegience" to the school that bestowed to them such a great honor leads them to favoring other alumni of that educational institution. (They become "groupies). And most notably, the new "doctor" then feels because he has such an honor bestowed upon him that he must have something that people need to hear, so he goes on "speaking tours" in "conferences" which draw large crowds because he's such a "noted speaker."

But, how does this give honor and glory to Jesus Christ??? Instead, it gives honor and glory to the college, to the "honorary doctor initiate" and to man!

What ever happened to the old time days of people coming together under a tent for a REVIVAL MEETING? They went to hear PREACHING from the word of God! Those days are few and far between. Now a well-known name is what draws a crowd to come together. And the people go to hear him instead of to hear from God.

Is this apostasy? YOU BET YOUR BOOTS IT IS! It's a form of man worship. For men (the college faculty) give honor to a person in the form of a degree. This worships that person, who in return honors the institution by accepting their praise and esteem. And oftentimes the person who receives the "honorary doctorate" becomes full of himself and puffed up with pride, which leads to him becoming nothing more than a modern day PHARISEE, who the rest of his life seeks the praise of men. This man then begins to "compare himself" with others which is something God is very much against and which leads him on the road to apostasy:

2 Cor 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

Thus, we find that even though MAN says an "honorary doctor" is SMART, as far as God is concerned, he's not wise at all!

You might not agree with all that's written here. I don't really care. But I would like to provoke you to thought and ask you a question. ARE YOU GUILTY OF FOLLOWING A MAN OR MEN JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DEGREE BEHIND THEIR NAME? Well, just because man says they are smart doesn't mean they really are. You should go to the word of God and check them out. Make sure they are telling you what the Bible says. For oftentimes, "honorary doctors" are guilty of just spewing out the traditions of their college or school, instead of just preaching plainly the word of God.

For truly:

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. (Psa 118:8)

HISTORY AND BEYOND!

As I read the Bible and study history, I'm always amazed at how things follow a certain pattern and how history repeats itself. If one would only study history he would see how often things replay in a circle. Hence the saying, "The only thing men never learn from history, is that men never learn from history."

If a person will just study (2 Tim. 2:15), and learn more about history he would be able to figure out most likely what will happen next. Because everything follows what has already happened. Or as the Bible says in Ecclesiastes 1:9: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

According to the Bible, everything just happens all over again and again.

One a side note: Have you ever stopped to look at the word "History?" It's interesting, isn't it? Why if you say it slowly it sounds like two words:"His Story." Or God's Story of the world.

And as you read the Bible, you find an interesting book: It is HIStory past, present, and future! No other book in the world is like the Bible! It profecies and foretells the future!

So what does our future hold??? I can give you details from the book of Revelation on what exactly will happen after the rapture, and in the tribulation. But what will happen before the rapture is still a mystery. All we are told is it will be a time of great apostasy and a falling away from the truths of the word of God. (Which is what we are already seeing today).

But as I read the Bible, and look at history, I can make a few guesses on some things that will happen.

BLACKS FIRST AND THEN WOMEN

It's interesting that in America people have been reporting that we have our first BLACK President. This is funny to me, because he's not all black. He's half black and half white! And he's not an Afro-American. Um, well, unless you believe that stuff about him being born in Africa, and I still don't know about that whole birth certificate thing. But back to what I was saying. If you are an American, you are an American, period! There are no "Afro-Americans" or "Chinese Americans" or "Mexican Americans." You are either a citizen of the U.S. or you are not. How racist to use such terms! And how illogical. But I understand what they mean, and so do you.

But as we study the history of the United States, we see that it was the blacks who were freed first from slavery, and then it was later that women were given the right to vote. Later we saw the rise of "Civil Rights" for blacks and then later Women's rights for females. As I looked at this in history, I told my wife, "I'll bet there's a black president before there is a woman president." Why did I say this? Because blacks were given rights before the women. And as I look at the current political situation in America, I wonder if I'm not right on. For the next president very well may be a woman: either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. Things work in cycles, patterns, and circles. And in history it was the blacks first and then the women.

JEWS FIRST AND THEN CHRISTIANS

As I read the Bible, and study the different covenants of God, and his chosen people, it's obvious we have two Testaments: The Old and the New. And it's in those Testaments that we read of the Jews first and then the Christians.

History tells us that the Jews went through persecutions many times, and later so did the Christians. And as we look at recent history, the Jews went through a holocaust, in which they were almost eradicated by evil men who hated them which were full of anti-semitism sentiment.

Today, I see that same hatred against Christians by an evil world. And I'm certain that a soon coming holocaust for Christians is not far away. I've already read of "concentration camps" , "railroad cars with chains for shipping away people," and "underground facilities for detainees" which have already been set up here in America. And it seems it's only a matter of time before they will be used. I only hope the Lord will come back first, but I've often wondered if there won't be a great persecution first, and then there would be so few Christians left that when the rapture does happen, the world as a whole would hardly know it.

DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS

In the Bible, God allowed certain nations to rule for certain periods of time. But as those nations plummeted into pride and eventually unbridles passions, God sent another nation to destroy them because of their wickedness. All throughout history we read of one nation destroying another. And all throughout the Bible we read of God bringing this to pass as a JUDGMENT against those nations that forgot Him!

I've already written an article/blog here about Plato's republic and how he speaks of the way governments start out well as republics, but end up in democracies and then in utter dictatorships over and over. History has taught us this vicious circle always works in the same way. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Italy, Germany, France, have all gone through the stages that Plato prophecied would destroy a nation. And now we see that same exact thing happening in Europe and here in America. The stage is set for the governments of the world (and the economies of the world) to fail, and make room for a one-world leader. The Bible calls him the anti-christ, and his coming is not far off. In fact, he's probably even alive today!

But one thing is certain. Nations will fall and be brought under his control and be ruled by him. Why? Because the Bible says so, and history proves it!

THE SINFULNESS OF MAN

Another thing history proves that the Bible dogmatically teaches is the depravity of man. (Now I'm not a Calvinist, so don't get your panties in a bundle when I use that word. But it's a good word to describe how wicked men really are).

History shows us that man are capable of outrageous atrocities and unthinkable cruelty. Through plunder, politics, piracy, and wars, men have used vicious and extreme means to get what they want. And they will continue to do so. Man has a sinful nature and if he continues to sear his conscience, there is no limit to how much evil he's capable of!

As we see the way the world is headed, and the lack of morals all throughout the planet, it's not hard to imagine the soon coming impending doom which awaits each one of us if the Lord tarries.

The Bible speaks of horrendous times, of famines, of plagues, of seiges, and wars. It also tells of people who were left so hopeless and destitute they often times had to eat their own dung, and some times even turn to cannibalism and their own babies.

Although those were horrible times, I'm convinced the world has yet to see the worst of it. Maybe the atrocities of World War I and World War II come close, but I believe during the tribulation period (and maybe even just before it), the world will see the worst depravity imagineable. The Bible tells us there will not only be rampant sin, and even sacrifices where people drink the blood and eat the flesh of others, but it further tells us of plagues that will come upon the land, of trees and foliage being burned, of water turning to blood, and of even the moon and sun turning to darkness. What a horrible time that will be!

But you don't have to pass through that. You can be saved today and go to heaven! I'm glad I'm saved!

I know Christians might go through some suffering before the Lord comes at the rapture, but at least I won't have to go through the tribulation, which will be the most horrible time in human history!

What about you? Do you know your Bible? Do you know your history? Why not?

HOW I PREACHED MYSELF OUT OF THE MINISTRY

Sometimes I feel like I've preached myself out of the ministry completely. Used to be, that pastors would call me up and ask me to come preach for them. But now they avoid me like the plague. Why? What evil have I done? Well, I haven't fallen into any sexual sins. Nor do I drink, smoke, cuss, chew, fornicate, or anything like that. And I've not fallen into any heresies. As a matter of fact, I'm no different today then I was right after I was saved, except for the fact that I know a lot more Bible now then I did then.

I wish I could say that what God has taught me over my 18 years as a Christian and what I've seen in Christianity has been joyous and uplifting, but oftentimes the truth is it's left me very sorrowful and despondent, as I see so much Christian apathy to the things of God, so much apostasy in Fundamentalist ranks, and so much autocrasy in Chrisitan circles it makes me sick.

Ecclesiastes 1:18 says it best: "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow."

As I serve the Lord, I've seen too many things that don't sit well with me, and so I decided to speak up and speak out against those things that are anti-biblical that I see gaining ground in apostate fundamentalist circles. I've simply tried to do what Isa 58:1 says, "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins."

Because of this I've found I'm not a very popular guy. And it seems nobody likes me. (Except Jesus, and that's good enough for me!).

When I finished Bible school and started deputation for the field of Honduras, I was told by many other missionaries, "You need to say less and only tell people what you have to in order to get their financial support. Don't rock the boat, and don't say any more than you absolutely have to! And don't preach so hard that you offend anyone!"

That always sat wrong with me, and was nothing short of devious COMPROMISE! Thus, I chose instead to preach as hard as I could against SIN in every pulpit I could. This lead to me taking three years to get the support I needed to go to Honduras, while most other Missionaries got theirs in only a year or two. But I thought this way, (and it turns out I was exactly right), "Why get support from people who don't really know you and what you believe and preach? For what if they start to support you and then find out later you don't agree with them? Wouldn't they drop your support while you are on the field, and then you'll be in a pickle as you are in a foreign country with very little money and then forced to return home?"

That's exactly what happens to many missionaries with the "say as little as possible" mentality. They come back every four or five years on "furlough" and have to raise more support because they lost a lot of church's monthly support during that time and have to do deputation all over (which then takes them another year or more). This leads to everything they've started on the field being destroyed, or else greatly hindered, and when they return, they find they have to start all over again from scratch! Why didn't they just find people who believed exactly like they do in the first place, and then be able to stay on the field without having to come back so often?

In my case it was a lot different. I was able to stay on the field for 7 years (I only came back a few times, and it was only for a few weeks each time). And I saw God use me there in Honduras in a mighty way! It was all because I chose not to compromise.

But, I also chose not to shut up! This, I was told was not a good thing. Again, missionaries told me never to say too much, especially in my prayer letter. They said I should only be "positive" and never "negative" and I should only tell about good things, and never talk about the bad. I chose not to follow this advice either, and oftentimes wrote in my prayer letter about the apostasy I saw not only in ravaged third world nations full of cults, but also within my own denomination. I chose to say what others wouldn't. And because of this, I've been told by more than a few people, "I love reading your prayer letter because you aren't afraid to say what others are thinking but don't have the guts to expose!" (I only wish it was Pastors who told me this! Instead it was usually just church members).

I also further made myself unlikeable because I asked questions about the Spanish Bible Issue. (For those of you who know the Independent Baptist Movement, you aren't supposed to "question" anything. You are just supposed to do!)

When I started on deputation as a missionary, I had to make a choice which Spanish Bible to use. From the get go, I realized that the Spanish Bible the vast majority of missionaries within my own denomination used (Independent Baptist) was corrupt, vile, and modernistic. (They all used the 1960 Spanish Bible). I realized right then that I could make things easy or hard. I could just use the corrupt version everyone else did and not say anything in order to get along with other men of God, or I could search out the issue and speak up about what I found. I chose to do the later, and I've been ridiculed, preached against, and even lamblasted from pulpits ever since. But I just wanted to take the pure words of God to the people God called me to, and not a perversion of it!

I then learned that every missionary, pastor, evangelist, Sunday School teacher, etc. all sooner or later come to that same crossroads in their ministry, where they have to make a choice, STAND FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS RIGHT, or just compromise to get along with others and not rock the boat. I made my choice, and it lead to a loss of friendship, loss of monetary gain, and loss of pulpits to preach in. I didn't care. All I wanted was to speak the truth, even though it wasn't popular, and stand before God at the judgment with a clean conscience, knowing I didn't compromise just to get along with others.

This was the beginning of "preaching myself out of the ministry" because I soon learned later that modern fundamentalist are going apostate (if they aren't already). Those same missionaries who claimed to be KJV in English were using an equivalent of the RSV in Spanish, something dogmatically preached against in English, but adamantly defended in Spanish. That made no sense. But I soon learned it was because they did so for monetary gain, fame, and opportunites to preach for other pastors in their pulpits. (It was a political move, in order for them to look good and prosper in their movement, instead of stand for truth in their ministries).

As time went by, I learned that to stand for truth will not only cause you pain and suffering, but it will also draw many attacks from other Christians.

As I stood for the truth and pointed out the fact that most missionaries use a perverted Spanish Bible, I found myself not only spoken against, but adamantly hated and attacked by other Independent Baptists. One even put me on his website list as "The Number One Attacker of the 1960 Spanish Bible." This lead to even more preachers turning against me.

I also kept a daily journal of my time in Honduras and posted it on my website. I did so because I wanted people to see I actually did something for the Lord, and I wasn't on vacation like many other missionaries I met. But instead of people reading it and seeing how God worked with me and through me, they accused me of just "trying to make a name for myself," and called my journal "a ploy to try to make myself famous."

The attacks kept coming, and more and more I realized that I had to separate myself from many pastors, preachers, and ministers because they were heading in a direction I could not go. Many of them changed their positions from what they used to preach and went directly into apostasy. (I could show you letters, books, tapes, etc. of many a pastor who preached it right in the old days, but now is saying the exact opposite of what they used to!)

I learned that on the three most important doctrines: 1. Salvation, 2. Sanctification, and 3. The Scriptures, many a pastor had changed his position in order to get along with the crowd. And, I knew I couldn't go with them, so I preached harder against it.

Eventually, God blessed me with a wife, and I came back to the states to marry her. We went back to Honduras a few weeks later, and had a wonderful time together. That is until about a year or two later, when she woke me up in the middle of the night to tell me, "Honey, I just got saved tonight! All my life I THOUGHT I was saved, but tonight God dealt with me and showed me I was lost because I was trusting in my own righteousness and not in Jesus Christ's alone!"

This was wonderful, and being not afraid to speak up, I wrote about it in my prayer letter. I even had her type up her testimony (You can read it yourself at my website http://www.rrb3.com/), and we sent it out to people, expecting many pastors to be happy about it! (I mean, come on, wouldn't they love to hear the news that someone is no longer going to Hell!)

But what we found was the exact opposite. Many a pastor became angry, irate, and livid. They immediately began attacking my wife and I, saying things like, "You deceived your wife and talked her out of her salvation!" One pastor even called her a "retread" and branded me a "retreader." (Whatever that is!)

And as we went through the attacks, it became quite obvious that the only reason a person would get angry with someone getting saved, is because they most likely doubted they were saved as well! And it made me wonder if many pastors in our own movement were even born again, for they certainly didn't practice or show forth the fruits of the Spirit, rather they manifested the works of the flesh!

This made me want to preach the Gospel harder, and speak out even more against the rampant Shallow Evangelism we see today in Fundamentalist circles. For my wife was even in an Independent Baptist Church before we were married, and we both have personally seen many a shallow presentation of the Gospel, many times in those churches.

The harder I preached on salvation by FAITH alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the more angry pastors became and the more I was spoken against. One pastor even said, "Your new-fangled Gospel [of preaching faith in the blood] is a modernistic perversion." He then claimed a person was saved by their PRAYER pronounced with their LIPS, and not by faith at all!

It was like an episode of the Twilight Zone! Many of the pastors I knew and thought preached right were preaching something different, whether it was the anti-biblical "1,2,3, Pray after Me," or "Just ask Jesus into your Heart" Gospels. But they all had one thing in common, they all preached a BLOODLESS GOSPEL!

So I wrote a book entitled, "The 'Heresy' of the Sinner's Prayer." And posted it on my website, in hopes that others out there like my wife who were trusting in their REPEATING A PRAYER instead of in REPENTNG and TRUSTING THE BLOOD OF JESUS would see their lost condition and get saved. I was immediately branded a "heretic" and spoken against time and again. But I didn't let that stop me. I wrote another book entitled, "The Importance of the Blood," and then another: "What the Bible Says about Calling Upon the Lord." All of which were just plain Bible doctrine on the simple plan of salvation and the importance of trusting the blood atonement alone for salvation. (These can be read on my website: http://www.rrb3.com/).

Some people have read these books and said they are great! Others have read them and attacked them and me. And still others are undecided, trying to make sense of all this, not wanting to "rock the boat" or cause waves in their denominations. But one thing is for sure. I'm a very unpopular preacher, and people hate to even think that there could be lost people out there that are "religious'' but "lost" within their own churches.

But even the Apostle Paul said to the church of Corinth: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor 13:5)

Now, if you preach this, then you are usually accused by many pastors as "Trying to talk someone out of their salvation." But is that even possible? If a guy is truly saved, wouldn't he know it??? Like one preacher years ago said, "If you can talk a guy out of his salvation, I've got to wonder if he was even saved to begin with!"

Many Fundamentalists preachers are now actually saying ridiculous things like, "A guy doesn't have to know anything to be saved!" What? He has to know he's lost! He has to know only Jesus can save Him! And, he has to know that unless he trusts the FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST (i.e. His SHED BLOOD), he'll never know the forgiveness of sins!

Others have even said, "Just come to Jesus the BEST WAY YOU KNOW HOW!" But this isn't biblical. What if a sinner comes to God the only way he knows how, but the way he knows is the WRONG WAY? Wouldn't he then still be lost and on his way to Hell!?

So there you have it. My entire ministry, I've just tried to "tarry by the stuff" and preach the Gospel plainly and simply so anyone can understand it. I've separated myself from those going apostate and chosen to stand for truth no matter what the cost. But it appears I've preached myself right out of the ministry, because very few others who claim to be "Fundamentalist Christians" desire to support me. Instead of at least praying for me, they would rather attack, ridicule, and lamblast me and put me down. But what evil have I done? Is it a crime to preach the BLOOD, the BOOK, and the BLESSED HOPE? It is in the eyes of many a modern Fundamentalist who desire fame, recognition, and the praise of his fellow man. That's why so many have chose to follow man-made METHODS and church PROGRAMS, instead of just rearing back and preaching the devil out of sinners and pointing them to Christ Crucified.

To me, the modern Fundamentalist movement has become a "political" body of "groupies" who desire to follow MEN instead of THE MAN Christ Jesus. Far too many have their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is moving, so they can join others who are headed in that direction. But what's wrong with just PREACHING the truth?! The problem with that is, you'll end up preaching yourself out of the ministry, just like I did. You won't have very many friends, you won't be asked to preach in very many pulpits, and you won't get much support. It's because you are viewed as a "Maverick" and a "Renegade" because you not are doing things the way everyone else within Modern Fundamentalist is doing it. So you must be bad.

But the question needs to be asked, "Is everything that modern Fundamentalism is doing right and biblical?" Because I'm not the only one who sees them headed the wrong way. I've met others like myself who choose TRUTH over TRADITION, because they are seeing the same thing my wife and I are seeing. They see how quickly modern Fundamentalists are apt to ATTACK, but are very seldom APT TO TEACH. And they too wonder why they are choosing to depart from sound biblical doctrine to go along with what everyone else is doing.

Are you a Fundamentalist, or a Funny-mentalist? Are you standing for truth no matter what the cost, or have you compromised in your ministry just to get along with others and fellowship with them? And, do you realize that that's just what the Pharisees of Old did? They chose position, power, and the praise of man over the truths of the scriptures. They became dictators over the people and kept them in check with the threat of excommunication. They ruled the people with their own set of rules instead of with the word of God.

Well, so ends my small treatise on why I preached myself out of the minstry. I chose TRUTH over TRADITION, SPEAKING OUT over SHUTTING UP, and SUFFERING over political STATION. If I had it all to do over would I do it any differently? Not on your life!!! In fact, I would have preached harder! And, I would have spoken up and cried out against apostasy much sooner then I did. And that's what I'll continue to do.

THE GO-MESS BIBLE!

For those of you who have followed the Spanish Bible Controversy, otherwise known by many as the Spanish Bible Issue, you've undoubtably heard of the modern Gomez Bible, also known as the RVG.

As a Missionary Evangelist to Spanish Speaking People, I have studied this version extensively and have even written a booklet about it. Find it at:

http://www.rrb3.com/mypub/books/truth_about_gomez.htm

And let me say, I'm not at all impressed with this modernistic version. I truly think it should rather be called the GO-MESS Bible! But that's just my opinion. For the facts, go read my book, and you'll see some hard evidence.

What's wrong with the Gomez Bible? Quite a few things actually. But as I've followed its rise to fame, I can't help but be amazed at how quickly people will embrace something without even looking at it.

The Gomez version has become popular and adopted by many Fundamentalists not because of the TEXT, rather because of the MEN behind it. And, now Chick Publications is pushing it, and trying to tell people that it's the best Spanish Bible available. But is this true?

When the Gomez first came out, it was called the Reina-Valera Gomez 2004. But have you noticed the name has changed? It's now called the RVG 2010. Does that mean it's still the same Bible?

What is the RVG 2010? From what I've understood, Chick Publications wanted to use the Gomez, but they weren't happy with the '04 version. So they told Mr. Gomez that if he'd make some changes that they wanted done, they would endorse it. He did, so it was titled the Gomez 2010, and then put out in mass production. But, um, what exactly were those changes? No one knows.

Further, the Gomez when it first came out was claimed to have been based on the original 1909 Spanish revision. But as you read the Gomez, like I have, you can't help but see that that's not true, for it closely reads with the modern corrupt 1960 Spanish version. Words, and even whole sentences have been changed to match the 1960 quite often. How is this good? And how can it be called a "Reina-Valera" Gomez, when time and again words in that version are changed in favor of the 1960 instead of sticking with the original old 1602 word?

With so much acceptance of the Gomez, the question needs to be asked, "Does everyone endorse the Gomez?" The answer is, "No they do not!"

From what I've seen, heard, read in emails to me, and personally witnessed, I've found the case to be the following: "English Speaking People, who usually don't know Spanish or only know a little Spanish are the ones endorsing and pushing the Gomez, while SPANISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE are actively against it, claiming it's a modernistic version."

Even Gail Riplinger downgrades the Gomez, calling it a "stop-gap" translation. (This is because of the method of translation work used in that version).

As I read through the Gomez, I find it's not even close to the original 1602, and it reads much closer to the 1960 than anything else. (Interestingly enough, the 1960 is the version Chick used before they chose the Gomez, and they threw it out because it was a "modernistic" translation.)

Further, the Go-mess Bible and those who support it, are careful not to mention the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible that I use, Gail Riplinger endorses, and that is an exhaustive revision based entire upon the Greek Textus Receptus, the Hebrew Masoretic, the King James and many older Protestant versions in Spanish. I believe it's the best Spanish Bible available and the purest. (It chose to follow the original 1602 as closely as possible in its revision, while the Gomez appears to have gone with the 1960 as closely as possible in its revision.)

What is the Valera 1602 Purified, and why is it not spoken of often by the Gomez crowd? Could there be a reason?

The fact is the Valera 1602 Purified came out BEFORE the Gomez, in 2002 (exactly 400 years after the original 1602). It is the work of a street-preaching, soul-winning, Independent Baptist Church in Monterrey, Mexico, which worked for almost 15 years to purifiy the original 1602 Spanish Bible. Taking it as their basis, they went verse by verse in both the Old and New Testament, and desired to stay as closely as possible to the original 1602, correcting it only when necessary and making sure it read entirely with the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic, the KJV. They also used the older Spanish Castellan Spanish Bibles, and made sure they used the oldest, most consistent Spanish word. They wanted a true Castellan Spanish Bible, and not a modern version with modern Spanish (like the Gomez). With prayer and fasting, they made sure the work was that of the LOCAL CHURCH, and not of corrupt Bible Societies, or one man, or faceless unknown men.

When their work was completed, it was printed and distributed. Mr. Gomez even got a copy and said it was great. But, he must have thought he could do better, so he soon put out his own version. Taking the work of those in Monterrey, which they painstakinly did for years, Mr. Gomez quickly put out his own New Testament. As I read through it, it was easy to see he changed a lot of "synonyms" in his translation. But it looked a lot like the Valera 1602 Purified. However, there were a lot of changes made by Mr. Gomez that were horrific, and downright blasfemeous in his first edition, like allowing a man to marry his own daughter! (See my book for more details).

I wasn't the only one to think Mr. Gomez copied the Valera 1602 Purified, making "synonym changes" to make it look like his own work. Two or three other noted scholars said the same thing, calling his work a "Synonym Bible."

Eventually, Mr. Gomez' work went through three different revisions, until it came out in it's fifth edition as the RVG 2010. (Question: Isn't 5 the number of death???)

Within Fundamentalist circles, the Gomez quickly gained popularity. And now it is what it is today. But is it perfect? Is it really a Reina-Valera? Is it really the best Spanish Bible available???

Well, let's see?

A friend sent me a tract written by Mike Wilps published by Chick Publications. The tract title in English is: "Which Bible? The 1602? The 1909? The 1865? The 1960? Or should I use the RVG 2010?"

Notice this conveniently omits the 1602 Purified, also known as the 1602P. In the tract it shows various verses and tries to tell you Gomez is better in all those verses. Interestingly enough, on page eight, we are told the Gomez is better because it uses "la estrella de la mañana" in 2 Peter 1:19 instead of the confusing term "Lucero" which can apply to either Jesus or Satan (Lucifer). We are then told the Gomez is the only Spanish Bible that does this. This of course is a blatant LIE, as the Valera 1602 Purified had "la estrella de la mañana" way before the Gomez ever changed it! Did Gomez just copy the 1602 P in that verse? Hmmm.

A little later in the tract, we read on page 19 how in a comparison of 220 different verses in various Spanish Bibles, the Gomez is completely in agreement with the Textus Receptus and doesn't depart from it at all. Conveniently left out, of course, is the fact that before the Gomez even came out, the Valera 1602 Purified was put to the same comparison, and it too had absolutely no departures from the Textus Receptus, and was completely in line with it! Hmmm. I wonder why they didn't state that simple fact? And, didn't Mr. Gomez have a copy of the 1602 P before that? I believe he did. Would have been easy for him to change those 220 verses then wouldn't it have?

On page 20 of the tract, we then read of the word "propiciatorio" and how many times it appears in different versions. In the original 1602, the 1865, and the 1909, that word only appears 2 times. But in the RVG 2010, the word appears 28 times. But, interestingly enough, that is exactly how many times the word is used in the 1960! Wow, hmmm. Interesting. Why does it line up with the 1960? Isn't that the version that's corrupt??? That doesn't seem to help the cause of the RVG 2010, does it?

Then of course we have the most important part. The word "VERBO." According to the original 1569, the original 1602, the old 1543 Enzinas New Testament, and other old Protestant Spanish Versions, Jesus Christ is called the "PALABRA" in John 1:1. This is the protestant and oldest word in Spanish. However, as one studies history, we find the Catholic Spanish Bibles all use verbo instead of palabra. Why is this? What word does the Gomez use? It has the Catholic word VERBO, just as the 1865, 1909, and 1960 do. Why is this? And what about the Valera 1602 Purified? Why, it reads Palabra. That means it's even closer to the original Reina-Valera than the Gomez!

Why is this important? Because even ERASMUS, the great scholar, said that VERBO (VERBUM in LATIN) was a catholic word, and he refused to use it in his texts! Further, we find in the Jewish Caballa, and yeah even in occultic circles that God is referred to as the GOD IN ACTION or the great VERB. Hmm. How interesting. So we see a pro-catholic, pro-occultic word in modern versions which the Gomez chose to keep, instead of preserving the old protestant word. How odd!

Then we come to the word "Jehova" in Spanish. The Gomez keeps the word "Jehova" instead of SEÑOR (LORD) in the Old Testament, as the King James has it. Why is this? Well, let us back up a bit and look at the original 1569 of Reina and the original 1602 of Valera. They both say "Jehova" in the Old Testament, and that's the argument those behind the Gomez use to say it's okay to keep it that way. But wait a minute. We need to look at the preface of both Reina and Valera's bibles and we find something interesting. Reina said he chose to use "Jehova" because he said the "supersticious" Jews refused to. As an ex-catholic, Reina retained some of his anti-semetic sentiment, and chose to use JEHOVA just because the Jews wouldn't. But in his preface, he says that when you read the Bible, you can read it as SEÑOR instead of Jehova. How interesting. Now, it's true that Valera left it spelled as Jehova in his revision, but he further stated in his preface that he didn't even know if Jehova was the right pronounciation of the word, and that to pronounce it might even be blasphemy as you might be pronouncing it wrong! So he said it was okay to use SEÑOR as well. And as we read the writing of both Reina and Valera, they use SEÑOR in some of their other writings as they quote the Old Testament. We also find that even the older versions use SEÑOR in the Old Testament. So would it not be better if the Spanish Bible read SEÑOR instead of JEHOVA, especially since the use of the word Jehova is helping the Jehovah Witness cult spread like wildfire in the hispanic world?

Is there a Bible that uses SEÑOR instead of Jehova? Yep, there is only one! That's the Valera 1602 Purified!!!

So which is better, the Gomez 2010 or the Valera 1602 Purified 2002? Why don't you compare the two? What's that? You haven't heard about the Valera 1602 Purified, or know where to get one? Hmmm. That's odd. I wonder why? Maybe those behind the Gomez don't want you to get a copy because you might read it and see something you shouldn't!

I still have some Valera 1602 Purifieds available myself. And, I'm trying to get the word out and tell people the truth about the modern Go-Mess and why the Valera 1602 P is better. Sadly, modern fundamentalists don't care. They are more interested in following MEN instead of searching out the facts and finding the TRUTH.

I talked to Gail Riplinger a while back, and she told me, "I know the Gomez is not of God, as there was no suffering invovled. Everyone who worked to give us the word of God in its pure form suffered because of it throughout history. But where is the suffering behind the Gomez?"

As I've watched this issue, I have seen those behind the Valera 1602 Purified suffer for their stand for the pure word of God. They were attacked on all sides, especially by those who used the 1960. And they have given the world a pure Spanish Bible. But you don't hear about them, do you? Nope, all you've heard about was the Gomez Bible, which seems to have copied their work, and then decided to make it read along with the 1960 so much that the 1960 crowd would readily change to use it. This is not only dishonest, but also rather deceitful. We should give credit to whom credit is do. And we should desire the OLD REINA-VALERA bible instead of MODERN pro-1960 versions. (Ask yourself this question: Did God give us the right words in the original 1602, or did he wait until these last days to give us Gomez who would then give us the right words in Spanish?)

What will become of the Gomez Bible of 2010? Who knows. Knowing that we are in an age of apostasy right before the coming of our Lord, and that there'll be no revival, as Christ returns while the world is in apostasy, I figure the Gomez will grow by leaps and bounds. It'll continue to receive the praise of man down here. But I believe in heaven, it'll be a different story. God, who has seen all things, will reward those who have done the work and suffered for the cause of Christ and his pure word.

The only question is, "What do you want?" Do you want the old 1602 Valera that has been purified, and that reads along with the right texts. Or do you want a Bible put out by a man who likes to substitute synonyms while he copies the 1960 time and again. Do you want a pure OLD SPANISH BIBLE, or do you want a MODERN SPANISH BIBLE? Do you want the words God gave Reina and Valera, or a version that is the words of Gomez?

For me, the words of God are very precious, in any language. And in Spanish, I want them. And I believe I have them in the Valera 1602 Purified Spanish Bible. As I get the word out, other hispanics say the same thing. I can't tell you how many emails I get from SPanish Speakers that say, "God really speaks to me through the 1602 Purified, as it is old spanish and so meaningful. It's amazing!" And those same people say things like this about the Gomez, "It's modern Spanish. It's like reading the newspaper. It just doesn't speak to me like the old Castellan version!"

You that are King James only, which do you like more: The old KING JAMES or a modern updated version in contemporary English?

What if I took the King James and changed it with a lot of synonyms, and then I took the RSV or RV and made sure I made it line up with those, all the while making sure I checked to leave it in line with the Textus Receptus, and then I printed it, calling it "The BREAKER BIBLE." Would you want my version? I doubt it. I wouldn't even want my version. I'd want the Old King James.

But this is exactly what's happening in the Spanish Speaking world. Now we have the modern GOMEZ BIBLE. And those same people who are KJV only in English are buying into this Spanish version in droves. Why? I just don't understand. If they love the old KJV, why wouldn't they want the old RV like the 1602 that's been purified to make sure it is completely in line with the pure texts?

I'll let you decide. All I know is I'm willing to defend the pure words of God in Spanish even though it's not popular to go against the majority. But hey, when have the majority ever been right?

If you haven't studied the Spanish Bible Controversy on which Bible is the right one in Spanish, or you just want more info, please go to my webpage about it at:

http://www.rrb3.com/bibles/spnbibl/spn_bible_issue.htm