Why I Sometimes Wish I Was Black

I unfortunately was born a pale white guy. I say "unfortunately," because I've been conditioned by college, the news media, society, etc. to feel guilty for the color of my race.

I've been taught that I'm the bad guy in the eyes of the rest of the world, which says my race is the one that's guilty of owning slaves, and taking people's land through "colonization." And, they say I'm the one who needs to sacrifice to pay back everybody for all the evil my race has done. They say that's just plain "social justice."

This is why I sometimes wish I was born black. For, I'm sure I'd be a lot happier. For one thing, I wouldn't feel guilty at all! And for another, I'd feel everyone owed me something for mistreating my ancestors under slavery!

I'm sure I'd also be a whole lot richer, because under the President's plan of "redistribution of wealth," I'm sure I'd be able to get some money coming my way that I could use on myself.

And, because of the laws on the books of "affirmative action," I could certainly get a job much easier than my white cohorts!

I also wish I was black because society has taught me to believe that it's cool to be black. I'm so tired of being this unhip, uncool white guy. I sometimes wish I could be cool too.

I also wish I could call myself something I'm not, like "African-American." (Even though I wasn't born in Africa, nor have I even visited there). How neat it would be to be able to call myself by two nationalities instead of one, even though I wasn't born in Africa! You see, it just sounds stupid to call myself what I really am, a "German, Irish, Polish, Prussian, Swiss-American." That just doesn't sound as neat at "African-American." Why can't I just have one heritage instead of all those mixtures? Oh, if only I was cooler.

Also, when I walk into a room, I'm not the one everyone looks at. How I hate that. I sometimes wish I was black, so I'd get all the attention when I walked into the room! How great that'd be.

I also wish I could be black, cause then I could find myself a white blond-headed girlfriend. As a white guy, this is my desire, but many times I can't get that because they want black guys instead of me. So I sure wish I was black, then I would have to worry about that!

And, I sure wish I could have rhythm. I just don't know how to dance. Why, if I were black, I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem!

Also, how cool it would be to be a black preacher. I'm sure I'd have a bigger audience. As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I'd have a really neat set of loud color suits as well, that would make sure I'm seen from a far. How great that would be!

I also could use the "N" word and nobody would say anything! How great would that be? I could call myself that or call my other brothers that, while putting down the white guy, and that'd make me feel much better about myself. Yep, that would sure be nice!

And one neat thing about being a black guy would be that I could get away with certain things just because of the color of my skin. Hey, I could use that as an excuse, and claim police brutality, or discrimination, as I try to get what I want! How great that would be to have that to fall back on and use as a crutch as I try to get ahead! Men would cower before me as they'd be afraid of being guilty of "discrimination" or "racial profiling." Why, I could get away with a whole lot if I played the color card! Would that be nice?

I also wish I was black cause it'd make me a better player at sports. I bet if I practiced a little, I could play basketball or baseball or football, and get me a scholarship to a college, and then get a big multi-million dollar contract with some big sports league team. That sure would be nice to make the big money. Of course, that would cut in on my whole "discrimination" thing, and my "race card" as I'd be getting ahead based on my ability, and not on the color of my skin, but I could live with that!

And how great it'd be to be black, as people would be afraid of me as I walked around at night, thinking I was a criminal or something. I'd have a lot of fun with that, jumping out and saying, "Boo" to passerbys as they go to and fro. How fun that would be!

And who knows, if I was black, I could probably cook better, being able to fry foods so well they melt in your mouth, or make the best bar-b-que. I can feel my mouth watering already.

And how cool would it be if I was black. Why I could rhyme better, and probably spend my days writting "raps." I could also use bad English and nobody would correct me. How cool is dat?

Finally, the greatest thing about being black is that I could join the NAACP, and sit around all day and talk about how "oppressed" I am, like these guys:

NAACP RANTS

And absolutely no one would think I'm racist. (Even though I probably am). And I could brag about my race and keep pointing out that I'm black, just in case people forgot!

Oh, if only I was Black!

But then again, would it really be that different if I were black? I mean after all, we are all the same, right? Right? Aren't we all citizens of the United States under the same laws and protections? I'm mean there is no difference between white and black, no favortism, no racism, no racial tension, is there? Is there?

(Note: This has been SARCASM in its purest form. Take it any way you like it. All I know is I'm white and I'm not a racist. In fact, I recently met some black folks here in town and spoke with them for a while. I told them about my friend, the black janitor in Elementry School named Mr. Blue, and how everyone loved him, especially us students. They informed me that Mr. Blue had passed away. I felt tears whelling up in my eyes, and I had to walk away as I cried. How I miss that man. Never a sweeter man walked the face of the earth. He cared for me, and knew me by name, asking, "How is ya, Mr. Robert?" I'd respond, "I'm fine Mr. Blue!"

Why can't Whites and Blacks get along like old Mr. Blue and I did? Why the special treatment today toward blacks? Why the trying to make whites feel guilty for something their forefathers did 150 years ago? Why the racism? After all, aren't we all human beings?)

The Truth About the modern RV Gomez Spanish Bible

I've already written a blog presenting the facts about the corrupt 1865 Spanish Bible. I now feel compelled to give the truth about the modern RVG (Reina-Valera Gomez) Spanish Bible, which seems to be gaining much popularity today. For it too is not perfect, as those who use it claim.

THE RVG SPANISH BIBLE

The RVG was the brainchild of Humberto Gomez Caballero, an Independent Baptist minister and Missionary to his birth country of Mexico. According to his website, he started "translating" (an interesting word which we shall look at later), and I quote: "the Word of God into a pure, error free, Spanish translation of the Bible."

But did Mr. Gomez do this? Did he give the spanish speaking world a pure and error free Spanish "translation?" (I'll let you, dear reader, decide as you look at the facts presented).

According to the Trinitarian Bible Society, a person involved in Bible revision must have a native-level fluency of the target language, and the original language of the Bible which is being revised. That is they must understand both Hebrew and Greek, and use those texts in their revision work.

We know Mr. Gomez knows Spanish, but does he know Hebrew or Greek? The answer is "No!" So did he really do a "translation" of the entire Bible into Spanish? The answer is "No!"

Note: Mr. Gomez aquired the help of a Mr. Donald Waite in his work, a learned scholar in Greek. However, for Mr. Gomez to say that he himself did the work of "translating" is dishonest to say the least.

Quoting from Mr. Gomez' website, we read, "In 2002, Dr. Gomez began translating the Word of God..." But then we read on his website the following words of Mr. Gomez himself, "In the year 2000 we ventured to do a revision of our Spanish Bible..."

So which was it? Did he start in 2000 or 2002? For it's rather misleading to give two different conflicting dates.

When he started his work exactly is a mystery, but he finished his first edition in 2004. Because of this, his version was quickly labeled the RVG '04.

Was that version a quote: "pure, error free Spanish translation of the Bible?"

As we've seen, it wasn't a translation. Instead, according to Mr. Gomez's words, it was only a revision of the 1909 Spanish Bible (with 1960 verses added as we will see farther along).

But was it "pure, and error free?" I'll let you decide. Below are a few horrendous examples from that first edition of his work:

JOHN 2:10

Here, we find Jesus turning water into wine, but we know that wine was just grape juice in the context. But Mr. Gomez in this verse changed the word "hartos" or "full" (the old 1602 says "bien bebidos" or "well druken") to the horrific word "borrachos" which means drunk on hard liquor. How could anyone do this? This means Jesus turned the water into alcohol, hooch, white lightening! Was Jesus, then, at a party where they drank hard liquor?

1 COR. 7:36

Here we find not only a grave doctrinal error, but also a disgusting dishonor to the word of God, as Mr. Gomez adds the single, little word "hija" (which means "daughter") to this verse. He did it again in verse 38, but put it in italics, which shows he knew it wasn't part of the original text.

If you know this passage, you know it's speaking about a man marrying his virgin. But by adding the word "hija," Mr. Gomez made the Bible read that it's okay for a man to marry his virgin daughter! That's incest! That's disgusting! How on earth does something like that get in a Bible? Who's to blame? Why, Mr. Gomez of course, who told me personally that he was the "final authority" on the work.

There are many more examples I could give from this first edition, but these should be sufficient to show the mindset of the "translator" (I use the term loosely). Luckily, these verses are corrected in later editions of the Gomez, but how on earth did they get in there to begin with? This should seriously make us think twice about Mr. Gomez and his "translation work."

Let's now look at what Mr. Gomez claims to have done in his work. According to his website, we read:

"To accomplish this work...we have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV... We have attempted to correct every mistranslation. We have attempted to correct every verse that was not in line with the TR and the KJV. We added all the words that were omitted, and we have removed all the words that were added, and we feel we have a perfect text."

Here we are told Mr. Gomez chose the 1909 Spanish Bible and the KJV and attempted to correct verses with those (we will see he didn't do a very thorough job of this farther along in this article).

What is the 1909 Spanish Bible? It is a revision of the Reina-Valera with many critical text readings and errors. But is the 1909 version and the KJV the only versions Mr. Gomez used? No!

According to Mr. Gomez' own words, he confessed to a Missionary to Spain he also used the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible (which inserted many critical text readings and followed the English RSV in many places), following it in over 4000 places.

This means Mr. Gomez started with two corrupt versions of the Spanish Bible (the 1909 and 1960), and tried to "revise" them with the King James Bible. But was that the right thing to do? I mean, should we start with corrupt versions and just revise them? Or should we instead go back to the original 1602 of Valera from the protestant reformation and use that as our basis? (Which is exactly what those who put out the Valera Purificada have done, which we will mention a little later).

Is the Gomez Bible really a "Reina-Valera" Bible? Or has it changed many words and updated the old Spanish? According to Mr. Gomez it has "improved" upon the Valera. He says, and I have translated it from Spanish to English:

"Many of the discrepancies are only questions of the language and not of error. In the edition that we are going to print the language has been enormously made better."

Does this mean that Mr. Gomez thought the old Reina-Valera Bibles were "archaic" and needed to be updated.

In his book, "The 1909 Recycled text" by Luis Vega, we find him quoting Mr. Gomez on page 5 and 6 saying things like:

"Magos is correct, but..."

"Salud is correct, but..."

"La Paz de su siervo is not bad, but I think our [version] is a little better"

"It is not incorrect to say 'por su gloria,' but..."

"We changed the word 'mujer' to 'esposa' not because mujer was wrong, but because in many cases it sounded better..."

Time and again Mr. Gomez says the RV text is correct BUT... That is to say, it's okay the way it was, but HE decided to change it to the way he believed it sounded better. Truly, the name the Reina-Valera GOMEZ fits his version, as he is the one who made the changes according to how he wanted them done.

Maybe this is why Mr. Gomez confessed the following:

"There are many changes more that little by little we are going to annex. Not all are changes for the cause of the purity of the text, many of them are because we think it is a better translation."

Remember, earlier I quoted Mr. Gomez saying he had a pure, perfect text. But in this quote we find he had plans of changing many other places not for the purity of the text, but because he just thought it was a better 'translation.'

Mr. Gomez further states:

"...we have gone verse by verse making sure first of the purity of the text and then comparing the 1909 with the Authorized KJV. Every single verse that did not line up with the TR or the KJV we have immediately corrected."

If this is so, then the Gomez Spanish Bible should match word for word with both the Textus Receptus and the KJV, should they not? Let's see if they do. I'll take the latest edition of the Gomez, the RVG 2010, printed by Chick Publications, and let's see if Mr. Gomez' claim is correct.

Let's first look at the TR, and take some verses at random from the book of John and see if Mr. Gomez's Bible follows the Textus Receptus completely...

John 5:33 Here the Greek TR literally translated is "a la verdad" ("to the truth" like the KJV). So why does the Gomez have "de la verdad" or "of the truth." Isn't there a difference between the words to and of? Especially in context of the verse, where John is giving testimony TO the truth of who Jesus is, not OF the truth.

John 5:34 The Greek word in the TR is plural and is translated these things in the KJV. The Gomez has "esto" or "this." You would think if Mr. Gomez went "verse by verse" with the KJV and the TR, he would have caught this, right? I mean there is a difference between singular and plural, isn't there?

John 6:22 The Greek word estakos means "standing" (as the KJV translates it) is missing in the Gomez here and in John 11:56. Why didn't they translate it as "de pie" like the 1602 Purified does?

John 6:63 Gomez here translates os he hablado, (I have spoken) which is the wrong verb tense. The KJV says, "I speak" which is present tense, and is the literal translation of the Greek word is lalo. In the Gomez, truth is what Jesus SPOKE, while in the KJV (and 1602 Purified) is what Jesus SPEAKS still today. (Note: The Gomez here follows the 1960 and even the NIV in making this past tense).

John 7:44 The Gomez has "mano" (hand) in the singular form. The Greek words are tas xeiras, which of course are plural words, and that's why the KJV translates it as "hands." Why doesn't the Gomez here follow the TR and the KJV as it's supposed to and it claims to have done?

John 7:49 The Gomez reads the singular "es" (interestingly enough just like the 1960 reading), while the KJV says are (plural). The Greek word is eisi which is plural. Even a first year Greek student could have "translated" that verse correctly.

John 8:6,8 The Gomez says, "inclinando al suelo" (bending down to the FLOOR or GROUND). The Greek words are kato kufas, meaning only bending down as the KJV says. There is no mention of the word FLOOR or GROUND. This is an addition to the Gomez, and interestingly enough it reads just like the 1960.

John 11:27 The Gomez translates like the 1960 with "dijo" the past tense, which means "he spake or he said. The KJV, the original 1602 and the 1602 P all get this right with dice and he says. This happens time and again. Some other places are John. 11:39 and 44. But shouldn't the Greek word be translated EXACTLY AS POSSIBLE, especially to agree with the KJV?

These are just a few examples of the many examples where the Gomez DOES NOT read with the TR as it claims to do.

Now, many will look at these examples and think nothing of it. In fact, there is already a site out there entitled, "Breaker's Broken Bible," in which a missionary explains away what I've listed here. But aren't we supposed to live by every word of God? If this is so, why does the Gomez take out so many of God's words when they are in the KJV, the TR, and even the 1602 Purified? Especially when Gomez says he went verse by verse through the entire Bible. How could I catch these things when I went verse by verse with the TR, KJV, and Spanish Bibles, and he didn't? Is the pure word of God (KJV and TR) just not as important to him as it is to me???

We have seen the Gomez DOES NOT read with the TR exactly. There are many discrepancies. But does the Gomez read completely with the KJV? It does not. Let's look at a few examples:

John 16:33 Gomez reads with 1960 and even the NIV with “aflicción.” 1602 Purified reads tribulación, just like the KJV reading of tribulation. One could argue this is a DOCTRINAL ERROR, as Jesus is speaking to JEWS who will not only go through physical tribulations (suffering) in their service for Jesus, but doctrinally will pass through the great tribulation after the rapture!

1 Cor. 4:1 Gomez says “administradores” (like 1960), while KJV says stewards. 1602 Purified reads mayordomos (stewards).

1 Cor. 11:10 RVG uses 1960 and NIV word “autoridad” (authority). KJV, 1602 original, and 1602 Purified all use poder (power). This could be argued as a DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as the verse speaks of women having POWER on their heads (King James reading). Giving a woman AUTHORITY on her head (like the Gomez does) sounds pretty close to the feminist movement, which God is against in the Bible. Woman are not to usurp AUTHORITY over men (1 Tim. 2:2).

1 Cor. 12:24 RVG says “ordenó” (like 1960 and original 1602). KJV says hath tempered. 1602P reads templó.

1 Cor. 15:51 Gomez says “transformados” (like original 1602, NIV and 1960). KJV uses changed. 1602P reads cambiados. (Same thing in verse 52).

2 Cor. 3:2 Gomez uses “sabida” instead of more correct “conocida” (1602P reading), as it speaks of knowing SOMEONE instead of knowing SOMETHING. The KJV says known in the sense of being known by all men.

2 Cor. 11:17 Gomez reads “con esta confianza de gloria” like the 1602 original. KJV says in this confidence of boasting (literally what the Greek TR says). 1602P reads en este atrevimiento de jactancia.

2 Cor. 11:25 RVG removes italicized words in 1602/1602P de la mar, and replaces it with only “las profundidades. KJV says in the deep. 1602P reads more clearly del profundo de la mar (the last three words being in italics).

Gal. 1:8 Gomez, 1602 and 1960 all say “anatema.” But this is a transliteration of the Greek word, not a translation. KJV says accursed. 1602P reads maldito.

Gal. 3:9 RVG translated just like the 1602 and 1960 with the erroneous “creyente Abraham.” This can’t be right for two reasons. 1. Abraham wasn’t a believer in the sense that we are today in the church age, and 2. The Greek word is faithful. (But in all fairness, the Greek root word is the same used for believing). The 1602P reads exactly with KJV with fiel Abraham (faithful Abraham).

Eph. 1:14 RVG reads with the 1960 again with “posesión adquirida” (aquired possession). The King James says purchased possession, and the 1602P follows it with posesión comprada. This is important, and could be construed as a DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as taking away the fact that a person’s soul is PURCHASED by the blood of Jesus (Acts 20:28) is a horrible thing to do!

Eph. 2:12 Gomez reads with 1960 once more with “ciudadanía” (citizenship). The 1602 and 1602P read Republica. KJV says commonwealth. REPUBLICA is much better as the word in Greek is politeias, the same word is translated as REPUBLIC in Plato’s work The Republic.

Republica is clearer, as the verse is speaking of the NATION of ISRAEL in the passage, and those under THE LAW. In a republic, the LAWS GOVERN! A Jew is governed by the Old Testament Law. Changing it to just citizens of Israel removes this fact, and makes it an ANTI-VALERA, PRO 1960 WORD.

Phil. 1:19 RVG follows the 1960 and NIV here with “liberación.” Original 1602 reads salud. 1602P reads with KJV when it puts salvación. Greek word is sotarian which is of course the word for SALVATION!

Phil. 2:2 Gomez follows old 1602 and 1960 with “sintáis.” But the KJV says like minded. The Greek word is phrnonate which is the word for to think. 1602P translates it literally with penséis lo mismo. (In verse 5 the Gomez does something similar. Also in Phil. 3:15 and 4:2)

Phil. 2:8 RVG has 1960 reading of “condición.” KJV reads in fashion. 1602P is better with forma. Verse speaks of Christ being in the flesh. It wasn’t his condition. He was fashioned or born in the flesh in the form of a man.

Phil. 4:19 Here Mr. Gomez makes a GLARING DOCTRINAL BLUNDER! He translates “Mi Dios, pues, suplirá todo lo que os falte...” This literally means “Mi God will supply everything that you lack.” This is a DOCTRINAL ERROR!

The Greek shows us that the KJV rendering is correct with But my God will supply all your needs… The 1602P follows with Mas mi Dios suplirá todo vuestra necesidad...

Note the difference! The Gomez says God will give you EVERYTHING YOU LACK! This would include your WANTS. But the KJV and 1602P are correct as they say God will only supply your NEEDS. The Greek words are o de theos mou plarosei pasan xreian humon (But God will supply your EVERY NEED…). THIS IS A GREAT DOCTRINAL ERROR! God promised to supply your NEEDS, not your WANTS! Is this the new age, charismatic, prosperity gospel in the Gomez?

1 Thes. 1:4 Gomez reads with 1602 and 1960 as “hermanos amados de Dios, vuestra elección.” Notice the placement of the comma. The KJV says brethren, beloved, your election of God. 1602P gets it right and reads with the KJV as, amados hermanos, vuestra elección de Dios. In case you missed it, the Gomez makes a person beloved of God instead elected of God.

1 Thes. 4:6 KJV agrees with the Greek TR with testified. RVG and original 1602 read “protestado.” 1602P agrees with TR and KJV with testificado.

1 Thes. 5:1 1602 and RVG say “tiempos y momentos.” KJV says times and seasons. 1602P follows with tiempos y sazones. Greek word that Gomez translates moments is the word for seasons. Once again the 1602 Purified is closer to the Greek TR and KJV than the Gomez.

2 Thes. 2:2 RVG and 1960 have “pensar.” KJV says mind. 1602P reads mente.

2 Thes. 3:14 Gomez follows 1960 with “Señalad.” Old 1602 and 1602P both read Notad, like the KJV reading Note.

1 Tim. 2:2 RVG follows 1602 and 1960 with “eminencia.” KJV says authority. 1602P reads autoridad.

Tito 1:9 Gomez follows 1960 with “Retenedor de la palabra fiel” (literally one who retains the faithful word). KJV has Holding fast the faithful word from the Greek TR. 1602P is reteniendo firme la palabra fiel.

1 Peter 1:13 RVG, 1602, and 1960 all read “manifestación.” Greek word is apokalupsei, the same root word for Revelation, the last book of the Bible. This is why the KJV says revelation in this verse, and the 1602P reads revelación.

This could be argued as another DOCTRINAL ERROR in the Gomez, as the manifestaction of Jesus was his first coming in the flesh to die on the cross. While the revelation of Jesus Christ is his second coming.

1 Peter 3:8 KJV commands us to be of the same mind. RVG and 1960 tell us to be of the same feeling with “sentir.” 1602P has it right with mente. The Charismatics would love this verse, as they go by FEELINGS instead of by FACTS!

It's not hard at all reading through this list to see that the RVG is NOT closer to the King James, but rather it is much closer to the 1960 and even the Spanish NIV! Why is this? Because Mr. Gomez used the 1960 heavily in his revision.

If you'll do what I did, which was take the 1909, 1960, KJV, original 1602 and the 1602 Purified, and compare them you'll come to the same truth I did, that the Gomez (better stated Go-mess) Bible is NOT CLOSER TO THE KJV or the TR as it claims to be! In fact, it is very far away from them. (Being much closer to the 1960 and even the Spanish NIV in many places!)

Thus, the Gomez is not a faithful translation. In fact, it's not even a translation at all. It's just a revision of the 1960 and 1909. Sure, it might have taken out many critical text readings, which is good, but it also changed many Reina-Valera words and phrases for modern, updated words and phrases, oftentimes following the corrupt liberal 1960 Spanish Bible.

The question then is, should we as Bible Believers accept such a version? This would be the equivalent in English of taking the New King James Bible, and saying the KJV is archaic, so we are just going to revise the NKJV and take out the critical texts. Why would we do that, when we already have the pure and perfect KJV?

In Spanish, there is no pure and perfect Authorized version like our blessed KJV. So to get one, we would have to go back to the original Reina-Valera 1602, and take that as our basis as we compare it with the KJV and TR and take out any critical text readings while inserting anything that's been taken out.

Has this been done? YES IT HAS! The 1602 Valera Purified Spanish Bible is the 15 year work of Iglesia Bautista Biblica de la Gracia in Monterrey, Mexico, which not only used the KJV, TR, Hebrew Masoretic, and the old 1602, but also used older Protestant Spanish Bibles in their work, diligently comparing them verse by verse. They learned Hebrew and Greek, and with much prayer and fasting made sure to correct any errors in the original 1602. What they have produced is finished and available to Spanish Speakers today. It is not modern Spanish, like the Gomez, but the beautiful old Castellan Spanish still spoken and read today by all Spanish-speaking people.

So why aren't more people using it? It's because those that use the Gomez, the 1865, the 1909, and the 1960 don't want others to know about it. They want people to use their versions only. And they want to cover up the fact that there is a much better Spanish bible out there. Now you know. What will you do about it?

Did Paul go to a FOREIGN FIELD?

As a Missionary Evangelist to the Spanish Speaking People, I'm adamant about showing the difference between a missionary going to a PLACE and going to a PEOPLE. For in the Bible, a Missionary is not called to preach to a certain place but to a specific People.

Sadly, modern tradition does not follow the Bible in its mission thrust, rather desiring only to send missionaries to places, claiming they are only allowed to stay in those places and preach. But is this Biblical?

Let us look at the Apostle Paul as our example, which most everyone does, and let's ask the question: "What Field was he called to?"

That's hard to answer. For Paul didn't just go to just one country. He went ALL OVER with the Gospel, staying several years in one place, several years in another, then he moved on for six years in another place, then three in another, etc.

The fact is he wasn't called only to a certain field. He went to many different places with the Gospel and not just one place for life (as many modern missionaries are instructed to do).

So the question should be asked, "If Paul were alive today, would his method of spreading the Gospel be accepted, when so many believe in using a completely different method for missions?"

Probably not.

In our day and age of apostasy, the way modern Christianity does things is so far away from the way that the apostles did it that they seldom resemble each other. I mean just think about it. If the apostle Paul was alive today, and under the rules of today, he would not have been able to make it as a Missionary. Number one he was single, which most people don't like for a missionary to be. Number two, he had no "Mission Board" which most missionaries are expected to have. And three, he didn't state what field he was going to, he just went and took the Gospel with him where ever he went.

As a Missionary to Spanish Speaking People, I hear it all the time, "Well, we can't support you financially as we only can support missionaries to a foreign field."

But where's that in the Bible? What if we were to ask the Apostle Paul what "foreign field" he went to, how would he respond? I'm sure he'd just state the truth, "I didn't go to any FOREIGN field. I just went to the ROMAN EMPIRE!"

For you see, even though some of the places Paul visited are today different countries and nations, in Paul's time that was not the case. Everywhere Paul journeyed in his four "missionary journeys" was a part of the Roman Imperial Government. That is one government ruled the entire area in his time, and he traveled within the confines of that government.

In other words, the Apostle Paul wasn't a missionary to any foreign nation. He was a domestic missionary to his own country governed by the Romans. And he not only took the Gospel to the Gentiles, but to the Jews as well. (He was a missionary to PEOPLE, not just a PLACE!)

How different this is from today, in which many claim to only want to support missionaries to foreign countries! They are now big on the 10-40 window and claim that supporting missions means only supporting missionaries to those certain foreign countries, especially to those in which the Gospel has not entered heavily.

Now before going farther, let me say, there is nothing wrong with going as a missionary to a "foreign field," to use their vocabulary. That's great that someone would surrender their life to go to a people in a different country of a different culture to try to win them to Jesus. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL THERE IS TO MISSIONS! Jesus told the early apostles to go to four places: Jerusalem, Judea, Sumaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth.

Most pastors and churches want to focus only on the last one today, but all the other ones still need evangelizing as well!

This modern teaching being propogated by traditionalism that teaches a missionary is only sent to a foreign field is not only un-biblical, but also unlogical. For God wants all men everywhere to be saved, not just those in the 10-40 window.

I call myself a "Missionary Evangelist to Spanish Speaking People in the Americas." I do so because I'm trying to reach Hispanics in the Americas, and I know the Americas are being united under a new global world system. (For those that don't know, Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. are all now one area called Zone 1, while Central America is now united and called Zone 4).

God didn't call me to one country to stay for life and only reach the few people there under my influence. God called me to the Americas to travel and preach and reach as many people as I can as I preach all over (Just as the Apostle Paul traveled).

To say a Missionary is only to one field is to limit God. For the Apostle Paul preached everywhere he went and as we read in Acts, he helped to "turn the world upside down!" Shouldn't we want to follow Paul and do the same? And how can we do that unless we follow his example?

To say a missionary is only called to one foreign field for life (as most modern pastors and churches teach) not only limits God, but greatly hinders a missionary's ministry. For what happens if he's kicked out of that country? Usually, he's told he can no longer be a missionary because God called him to that country and he can't be there, and he loses all his support. Oftentimes he's ousted out of the ministry entirely, and not even allowed to be a missionary anywhere else by his mission board or sending church. For changing fields makes him out of God's will in the eyes of others.

But this teaching that a Missionary can only go to the foreign field will soon have to be rethought out. For the world will soon be joined together as a New World Order in which there is one government over the entire globe. What will become of the modern mission teaching that a missionary is only someone sent to a foreign field then, when nothing will be foreign as the entire world will be domestic? Will missionaries be sent to the Moon, as that's the last true foreign field?

What will happen if all the world becomes a one world state? Will we finally then go back to supporting missionaries who do like Paul did, travel and preach the Gospel where ever they are going?

This modern teaching that you should only support missionaries to "foreign fields" is silly. Sure we should support those who do go to "foreign fields" but we should also support missionaries who are working domestically to win our friends and neighbors.

We also should realize that all Christians are really "Missionaries" for they all are to preach the Gospel to the lost.

Did Paul only go to a foreign field? Nope. He was a true Missionary because he didn't wait to preach the Gospel until he got someplace (as most Missionaries do), rather he preached the Gospel where ever he went and did so faithfully. God blessed it and countless thousands came to Jesus Christ for salvation.

The Truth About the 1865 Spanish Bible

Way back on November 3, 2010, I posted a blog on here entitled, "A Crash Course on the Spanish Bible Issue," which you can still find and read. In respose to my article, a man responded on December 30, 2010 with the following words:

"Your history is incorrect regarding Mr Pratt and Mr Mora. Mr Pratt did not work on the 1865 Valera. He was commissioned to do it but did not because of the civil war and health issues. Therefore Mr Mora did the project on his own."

I believe this man was probably a defender of the 1865 Spanish Bible, and he probably was just repeating what many who defend that version are repeating, since one of the leaders of that movement has stated this very same thing on many occasions.

The statement this man makes above comes from the American Bible Society, and what he is stating is not the whole truth. I too have received the very same information which the 1865 people have and which they quote for this statement. But they do not give all the facts.

Here, for all the world to see, I give the whole truth about the 1865 Spanish Bible for all to see, for there are those who would have to you only know part of the truth, while they hide the rest, as it doesn't help their position. Here I will give the whole truth not only about that statement, but also about the corrupt 1865 Spanish Bible. I hope this article will not be seen as attacking, but rather as objective journalism, as the facts are clearly presented for all to see.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 1865 SPANISH BIBLE

According to Essay #16, of the American Bible Society Text and Translation, on pages 25 through 28, we find a written record of how the ABS 1865 Spanish Bible project was started. I will quote from that work on various ocassions, for it is critical (no pun intended), that you see what that version is, and what the American Bible Society believed, and who worked on that version and what they did. (I also am not photocopying or reproducing that article in any way, other than simply quoting from it as a credible source in this article).

According to page 25, we read:

"In March [of 1860] they recommeded that the services of Sr. de Mora of Madrid and the Rev. Mr. H. B. Pratt of Bogota, working with Mr. Brigham, be used to produce a Spanish Bible..."

Here we see there were not only two men who were hired to work on the version, but three.

Skipping ahead, the paper continues,

"The salaries for Mr. Pratt and Sr. de Mora were set at $1,200 a year each."

Then we read the words, "Then eye trouble and the disruption in communication by the Civil War made it necessary for Mr. Pratt (in North Carolina) to withdraw."

This makes it look like Mr. Pratt had nothing to do with the work, doesn't it? But we will see later that he did. (As it appears his eye trouble came from working on the revision).

Continuing in the report, we read,

"This enforced withdrawal of Mr. Pratt had caused the Versions committee to consider for a time dropping the project. The Committee approved Psalms and Proverbs, (1,000 copies each) for publication and requested Sr. de Mora to continue with the Old Testament consulting Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Jones of the Committee and Dr. Brigham, de Mora to continue at the rate of $1000 per year."

Here we find three more men who were on the committee and worked on the project, bringing our total to five if we include Pratt, which me still must, as I will prove later.

In a May meeting of 1865, one Mr. Holdich presented a lengthy report on the history of the 1865 revision, and concluded:

"Athough they may not dare to hope that the work is absolutely perfect, for that would be to claim for it what belongs to nothing human, yet they have strong persuasion that it will be found a very decided improvement on Valera's generally excellent version."

He goes on about how they carefully changed words to modernized spelling, while trying to remaim faithful to the old beauty of the Castellan language.

Then we are told after the version was finished, that the committee gave a gift of $1000 dollars to Mr. Mora for his work, and I quote from page 26, "The book was published in 1865 with great hopes for wide use in Spanish America."

But then on page 27, we read the words of Mr. Pratt (you know, the guy who was supposed to have "dropped out" and not done any work on the 1865). He says in speaking of Mora and the work:

"My good friend Mora, as my long and intimate acquaintance with him qualified me to know, was more than an ordinary master of Spanish, but had not nor could he have a clear notion of critical accuracy so far as the sense was concerned. In our own division of labor, he was responsible for the language, and I for the critical accuracy of the revision. He used to pass on over many things that greatly needed mending, without perceiving that need, till I followed after and called his aattention to them. It is, I assure you, one of the few great disappointments of my life, that I could not go on with him till the work was done; and the more so as two men never wrought toghter in greater harmony than we did."

So even though Pratt did drop out eventually, by his own confession from his own words here presented, he did work together with Mora (and in great harmony, mind you).

But look also at the words I have underlined in his quote. He confesses his job was to be responsible for CRITICAL ACCURACY. What does that mean? Well, if you know Pratt, and you know the American Bible Society at that time, and you know what was taught in their Bible Schools, then you know that it is talking about the CRITICAL TEXTS! That Mr. Pratt loved the critical texts is no secret. In 1893, he produced his own Spanish Bible entitled, "La Versión Moderna" which was based entirely upon the critical texts.

Still, 1865 defenders say it's impossible that Pratt could have inserted critical text readings into the 1865. They claim number one, he didn't work on that revision at all, (but what we've seen from his own words above he did work some with Mr. Mora), and two, they say that there were no critical texts around in 1865. But that is an outright lie. There were critical texts, especial those of Lachman and Tishendorf in the 1850s and 1860s. Not to mention there existed the corrupt Latin Vulgate, a critical, catolic text.

Now, we will look further at the ABS paper. On page 27 we read that Pratt requested two copies of the finished 1865 so that, and I quote, "...he might note in one of them all the remaining inaccuracies..."

So he kept one for himself, and the other he marked up, no doubt inserting more critical texts readings. Was this later used by the ABS? We do not know, but we do know the following from page 27:

"Dr. Holdich was distressed at the errors Mr. Pratt then noticed and the latter explained further what had been his part in the work:

'I must say in justification that Mr. Mora had no part of the Bible which I had reviewed except the New Testament (barring the Revelation, which I have here), or that we had made but a partial revision of it, having determined to leave many things unsettled, til we came to revise it again before publication, our intention was to revise the Old Testament once, but the New Test. twice as its CRITICAL ACCURACY [emphasis mine] was most important.'"

Notice what he says in this confession. He says that he was distressed by "errors" noticed by Mr. Pratt. It appears from context that to him "errors" are places where the 1865 does not read with the critical text.

Further, he says that Mora had no part in the translation except the N.T. So who did it? Could it have been Pratt working with him on the N.T. before he dropped out? Could this have been why he had eye trouble?

Finally, he says they revised the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice. Who did the revision??? Was it Mr. Holdich? Who ever it was, most likely he is the one who added many more critical text readings to the 1865, as it is full of them.

Continuing to read the ABS report we read on page 27:

"He [Holdich] pointed out that...Mr Mora had no critical knowledge of the Scripture, nor even of the present English version."

Did you get that? Mora had no CRITICAL knowledge. It appears Mora was only interested in the original 1602 of Valera and reproducing it. He worked hard at changing the Old Spanish spelling of words to modern Spanish spelling, but he either didn't care or didn't know anything about the critical text readings, so he steered away from them. It was PRATT, and HOLDICH, who found them, pointed them out, and most likely made changes.

Now we come to the last paragraph on page 27, which is a real shocker. It says:

"A point of interest in this connection is committee action in 1868 by which the word 'Palabra' was ordered changed to 'Verbo,' Dr. Schmidt to make a list of the places where this was to be done. At the next meeting he reported changes to be made in John 1:1, 14, 1 John 1:1, 5:7, and Rev. 19:13."

So here we have an interesting confession. We are told in 1868 the word "Palabra" was ordered changed to "Verbo" in the 1865 edition. So that means there must have been an 1865 edition where it said "PALABRA." Thus, that means there was more than one edition of the 1865!

If you look at the 1865 that is being sold today, you'll see it says "verbo." So is it really even an 1865, or is it instead an 1868 revision of the 1865?

That needs to be addressed, especially, when you have yahoos going around saying things like, "We need to defend every word of the 1865!" How can they do that if the version they are using isn't the 1865, but a revision of it done in 1868???

Anyway, on page 28, we find an interesting paragraph with a lot of information. There we read:

"About this time [1868] in writing to Mr. Girdlestone of the BFBS, Dr. Holdich said he was at a loss to know what to do about a Spanish Bible. The ABS edition was better than the Valera but what were they to do? [Note: it was better in their eyes because they were pro-critical text and they added Critical Text readings.] All the criticisms came from Mexico and South America. 'We do not know how far to rely on them!' He would like a comparison of the BFBS and ABS editions. There should be one as near perfect as possible and both Societies use it. 'How can this be secured?' "

Look at what we find in this paragraph. Dr. Holdich of the ABS (American Bible Society) wrote to a member of the BFBS (British Foreign Bible Society), and proclaimed his 1865 (or 1868) was better than the Valera. To him I'm sure it was, as it had been mixed with critical texts, which he believed were the "older and more reliable" texts. But then he confesses that there were many criticisms of the 1865 from Mexico and South America! That means many Spanish Christians did not like it or accept it! Probably because they weren't in favor of the critical texts!

And then he says they should work together to get a near perfect as possible Spanish Bible.

Interestingly enough, they did work together to produce the 1909 Reina-Valera Spanish revision, which became very widely accepted and even was the standard Spanish protestant Bible in Central and South America for over 70 years (until it was replaced by the corrupt 1960 Spanish Bible). (Note: the 1909 was not perfect as it too has critical text readings).

So there you have it. We clearly see from the ABS Text and Translation history that the 1865 Spanish Bible was produced by men who were pro-critical texts, and who inserted many critical texts into their translation. We also see that their version was NOT ACCEPTED and was very much criticized by people in Mexico and South America. And the fruit of the 1865 (or 1868), was to get them to produce another Bible, the 1909.

Years ago Dr. Floyd Dallis wrote of the corruption in the 1865 Spanish Bible, and adamant defenders of the 1865 lamblasted him and said his claims were unfounded lies. I'll let you decide for yourself as I quote from Dr. Floyd Dallis:

"Dr. Pratt made the most of his textual changes because of the then recent discoveries of Dr. Tishendorf. Thus, of all the revision to this date, this one had more changes in the text bassed on Westcott and Hort corruptions. About 100,000 chagnes were made in wording. Dr. Pratt and Dr. Mora began their work in 1861. Because of the numerous corruptions of this edition, the 1909 was published! Note the 1909 was therefore published to correct the corruptions of the 1865 of the ABS!"

Now two things are obviously wrong with this statement. First, Westcott and Hort didn't come on the scene until 1881 with their own published critical greek text. Second, Pratt and Mora started in 1860, not 1861.

But the rest of the quote seems pretty much right on the line! Especially with the evidence we have just seen as we read through ABS's own history of that version.

With all this information, how could anyone who claims to be a Bible Believer who loves God and wants a pure Spanish Bible use the 1865? We don't even know if it really is an 1865. For what those who use an 1865 are preaching from says "Verbo" which our source tells us is what was changed in 1868.

But even after reading all of this evidence, there will still be some who will seek to defend the 1865 and try to deny the truth. It is for them, that I continue with a little more evidence.

THE CRITICAL TEXT READINGS IN THE 1865 ABS

We will assume that the 1865 being pushed today is the original 1865. We don't know this, but we'll assume it. And we will take the version that they are printing and look at some places where it does not line up with the Textus Reptus and the King James Bible. In fact, we'll prove that it instead lines up with the critical texts. Eight examples should be sufficient to prove the point. (For even one critical text reading against the textus receptus and King James in favor of the Vaticanus and Siniaticus is too many!)

However, before going further, let me state that in my first book, "A Brief look at the History of the Spanish Bible," I pointed out a list of problems in the 1865 Spanish Bible. After that, those behind the 1865 Spanish Bible printed the 1865 with fifty changes to the text (many of which are those same errors I listed in my book), and these were listed in the back of their version under the title of "Errata." (If this is not a confession that the original 1865 was in error, I don't know what is).

Because of this, many brethern accused those behind the 1865 of being deceitful in continuing to call that version the 1865, as it was no longer the 1865, but a revision of it done in 2005. They claimed it should have been called either a 2005 Reina Valera, or a 2005 revision of the 1865.

Those behind the 1865 later undid those fifty changes (many of which were critical text readings removed), in order to defend the original 1865, claiming it alone was the word of God, and that no version after 1881 (when Westcott and Hort put out their critical text) could ever be anything more than a "Laodicean" version of the scriptures. (So what did that make their 2005 edition?)

8 PLACES THE 1865 READS WITH THE CRITICAL TEXTS

Matt. 24:2 Omits the word Jesus following the Latin Vulgate

Mark 15:3 Removes "mas el no respondió nada" following the Vulgate

Luke 9:43 Removes the word Jesus as do Aleph, B, and the Vulgate

Jn 14:28 Changes "mi padre" to "el padre"as do Aleph, B. and the Vulgate (see also 16:10,25 and (8:28)

Acts 16:10 Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

Acts 17:27 Changes Señor to Dios following the Vulgate, Aleph, and B

Acts 22:16 Removes the words El Señor reading with the Vulgate and the critical texts

James 1:12 Changes Señor to Dios following the Latin Vulgate reading

CHANGES IN THE 1865 WITH NO TEXTUAL BASIS

Not only does the 1865 follow the critical texts against the King James and Textus Receptus, it also makes many strange changes with no textual basis for doing so. Below are a few examples:

Matt. 8:1 Adds Jesus to the verse when there is no textual basis to do so!

Mark 6:44 Omits the word como

Mark 8:25 Adds the words de lejos

Acts 8:16 Omits Señor

Acts 8:25 Changes Señor to Dios

2 Cor. 10:18 Changes Señor to Dios, following no text on earth!

1 Tim. 6:1 Changes Dios to Señor with no textual basis to do so

2 Tim. 4:14 Changes Señor to Dios, for no reason following no text

These are just a few of the many places in which the 1865 version has changed the true Reina-Valera Bible, departing not only in favor of the critical texts, but making changes with no texual basis to do so whatsoever! It's almost like whoever revised it decided they liked to interchange God and Lord back and forth anytime they so desired.

IN SUMMARY

The mountain of evidence given in this brief blog should be sufficient to any true Bible believer that the 1865 spanish Bible is not worth wasting your time with. Although it has greatly improved some verses to match even closer to the KJV, it has also destroyed other verses by making them read with the critical texts, and decimated even other verses by changing words which don't match with any text on the face of the earth!

Those who defend the 1865 claim to be KJV in English. If so, how do they reconcile the fact that their Spanish version doesn't line up with the English version? And how can they claim (as they do) that the KJV is perfect, and then claim their 1865 is perfect when they don't say the same thing?

It is up to you, dear reader, with the evidence presented here to decide for yourself what to do with the 1865 (or is it an 1868?) Spanish Bible. Facts have been given which cannot be denied from those who commissioned the work to be done (the American Bible Society). I have also tried to give evidence within the pages of the 1865 itself which prove it reads with the critical texts, and I've given information about how those who push the 1865 have revised it, but then gone back to the old version, proving they are not really interested at all in a pure Spanish Bible that lines up with their English King James.

But, you mark my words, those who defend the 1865 will not deal with the facts, or the evidence. They will continue to do what they have always done, which is to try to explain away the obvious, and say that facts have been "twisted" or "taken out of context."

If falls upon you then, dear reader, to study this issue for yourself and see who is telling the truth. And please don't allow yourself to be taken off the trail with side arguements. Stick to the facts as I have done.

Eventually, if you will study with an open mind, you will find exactly what I have found, that the purest Spanish Bible available today is the 1602 Purified Spanish Bible.

Confessing for Forgiveness?

It never ceases to amaze me how "Christian" ministers can say or preach something without thinking about what they are actually saying. I know they usually just repeat what they have heard others say, but how come those people don't think about what they are saying? It doesn't make sense.

One of those things that doesn't make sense to me is the modern teaching that a Christian must "confess his sins to God and ask God to forgive him of those sins."

Many preachers are preaching this, even Independent Baptists. But do they actually stop to think about what they are saying?

To tell a man he must confess and ask for forgiveness implies that his sins are not forgiven until he asks.

This means the payment of Jesus Christ on Calvary did not pay for all sins past, present, and future, and that a man's forgiveness is dependent upon his repeated confession.

Does that sound right to you? It sounds rather Catholic to me!

You see, on Calvary, Jesus paid for all sins, past, present, and future. And when a man receives that payment by faith, he is forgiven of all sins, past, present, and future! Why then would he ask God to forgive him of sins he does later. Doesn't that sound a little odd? Doesn't that sound like he didn't believe God forgave him of all his sins?

You might say, "So, are you saying, Bro. Breaker, that a man doesn't have to confess his sins!" I'm not saying that at all. And, we'll get to that shortly. But what I am saying is that it is HERESY to tell a person that he must ask for the forgiveness of his sins after he is already saved. For either Jesus forgave him his sins or he didn't. Which is it?

The Bible tells us he did, and his payment on the cross was what did it. So to ask God to forgive your sins again would then be to reject God's payment on Calvary and to ask Jesus to die all over again on the cross, wouldn't it? Can you see how anti-biblical this is??? If you are born again, you are either forgiven or you aren't, period.

Now this takes us to "confession." Should a Christian confess his sins to God! Of course he should! This is Biblical. For in 1 John we read:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Here we read of a "Christian" confessing his sins (vs 9) to God. And we find that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. But in verse 7 we read that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from ALL SIN. That would be sins past, present, and future.

Further, the context of this verse is fellowship (vs 7) and we find we are to confess our sins to God for fellowship, not for forgiveness. For if we are truly saved, we already have forgiveness of ALL our sins.

When we sin we do not lose forgiveness and need to ask for it again. Instead, we lose fellowship with God. He is angry with us when we sin, and will chastize us in this life as sons (Heb. 12:6,7). Thus, we should confess to him our sin so he'll know we are sorry, just as we would confess our sins against our natural fathers in this life and tell them we are sorry for sinning against them.

But just confessing our sins to God is not enough. There is more to it than that. We read of what this "more" is in Proverbs 28:13

He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

Here we read of not only confessing, but also "forsaking" our sins. As we've already seen, the reason we confess our sins to God is for fellowship. It is to tell him we are sorry. But we must also FORSAKE our sins if we desire God's mercy (for him to not chastize us).

Still, the modern day apostate message of "asking for forgiveness of all your sins" is very common today. One thing I can't stand (and I'm sure you've heard it before as well) is hearing a man stand up in church and pray, "Dear Lord Jesus, please forgive us all our sins." Why would he pray that if we are all saved? Wouldn't we already have forgiveness of our sins?

I can't help but wonder if such people who pray, "Lord please forgive me of this, or that..." are even saved to begin with. For wouldn't their praying that way show they have no understanding of the Gospel, redemption, and salvation. Why would they ask for forgiveness, when if they are born again, the Bible says they already have it?

Maybe they are saved, they just haven't thought about it. This could very well be the case. But then again, why haven't they thought about it? Either your sins are forgiven or they aren't. It's that simple.

What confession is for is your chance to tell God you are sorry for the sins you commit after you are saved. And while you confess them, you should forsake them as well, as you renew fellowship with God.

Probably the best way to illustrate this would be in the following way. Let's say I keyed my Dad's car. I mean I really scrapped the doors really bad and took off a lot of paint. Am I still my father's son? Of course. Nothing I can do can keep me from being his offspring. But how would my father react to such a thing. He would be angry, and probably wouldn't talk to me. But if I came to him and confessed my sin, then that would make things better. But he would still be angry and probably would take it out on my rear end, wouldn't he?

But now imagine if I came to my father in tears as I confessed with a humble, repentant heart, hating what I had done. Don't you think he would see this, and realize I was truly sorry. And what if I came and said, "Father, I deserve whatever punishment you wish to lay upon me, but I know I've done wrong and I want to pay for the repair to the car. I'll work off the money to pay for repairs and make it right!"

Would not my father see how torn up I was and how much I wanted to make it right? And would he not then restore fellowship with me? I believe he would.

It's not a matter of whether or not I was lost or saved, i.e. whether I was his son or not. It was a matter of whether or not I forsook my sin when I confessed it, and whether or not fellowship was restored between my father and I.

Thus, we do not confess our sins to God for FORGIVENESS. We confess them for FELLOWSHIP. But we don't confess just to confess and get it off our chest. We are supposed to really be torn up about it. We are supposed to hate our sin. We are supposed to confess and FORSAKE the evil we have done against a holy God.

One old preacher I knew told me one time, "Bro. Breaker, we ought to hate sin so much that we'd rather DIE than sin!"

That really got me thinking. How many of you love God enough that you'd rather die than sin against him? If you did love him that much, imagine how you would approach him when you did sin. You would confess with trembling and diligently forsake what you've done, wanting to never do it again and strive ever the more to please him!

God give us more Christians like that!

Christians vs. Disciples

I've been reading a discipleship course and I stumbled upon the words, "There are many Christians but very few true disciples."

As I pondered that, I thought how it might be true to turn that around. For there are many who claim to be disciples of Jesus, but very few true Christians.

You see, there are many nowadays who claim to be Christians. Yet many of them are lost. They might be "religious" but they aren't saved.

Also, there are many who claim to be disciples of Jesus, but they aren't even Christians. (See groups like the Rosecrucians, Masons, etc.). They claim to want to follow Jesus and his teachings, but they deny his blood atonement, claming he was not God who became man, rather only a man who become a god. They follow him hoping they too can become gods.

So which is it? Should we be Christians or Disciples. Or should we be both?

I believe the answer is we should be true Christians and true disciples and the only way to be both is to be born again!

But this discipleship I'm reading says it's possible to be a Christian, i.e. born again, and not be a disciple of Jesus. That is, a person is saved, but not serving. That makes sense. For it certainly is possible to be a real Christian but not be a disciple, or one that is actively trying to live for God.

So if it's possible to be a true Christian without being a disciple, then it is also possible to be a disciple of Jesus and not be a true Christian, (i.e. not be saved/born again).

If this be true, then shouldn't we be worried when we hear "great evangelists" saying things like:

"Give your heart to God"

"Turn your life over to Jesus"

"Make your Commitment to Christ"

etc.

These are all modern terms which are often heard out of the mouths of preachers, evangelists, missionaries, pastors, soul winners, and Gospel tracts. And all of them have one thing in common. They leave out the BLOOD ATONEMENT of Jesus Christ. (God's only means of salvation).

It's like they are trying to make disciples without making Christians. It's like they are trying to get people to want to follow Jesus without instructing them how to trust Jesus as their personal Saviour.

I talked with a guy a while back about salvation and he told me the following, "I always thought becoming a Christian was, you know, like just making up your mind to follow Jesus. You just choose to follow him, you like become his disciple by following him and his teachings."

Is that salvation? I trow not!

Although it's great to follow Jesus and we should all strive to do so, you must first TRUST Jesus. You must accept by faith his sacrificial blood atonement in your place for your sins as sufficient to give you eternal life and forgive you of all your sins. For following Jesus without being born again is to make one a disciple without them even being a Christian.

You might say, "Well, brother Breaker, you are straining at gnats and grasping at straws. Do you have any Bible to back that up?" You bet I do. In John 6:66 we read:

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Here are men who followed Jesus as his disciples, yet they forsook him and walked away. Just as they chose to follow Jesus and become his disciple, they chose to reject Him and leave.

Does this sound like salvation to you? Of course not! According to the Bible, when a person is born again, it is an act of God, in which God regenerates the man and makes a new creature. Immediately the Holy Spirit enters and the person is a child of God. They cannot lose their salvation. They are eternally redeemed. And they cannot lose it if they tried. They are CHRISTIANS.

This is why it's important to see the difference between disciples and Christians. For it's possible to be a disciple of Christ, and not even be saved! Just as it's possible for a person to call themselves a "Christian" when they are not.

What we need are true Christians (who are born again) and true Disciples (who follow Jesus out of a pure heart because they are saved, not to be saved).

Are you a Christian? Are you a Disciple of Christ? Have you thought about the difference?

If you try to win souls, do you do it to make disciples or are you trying to make true Christians?

Funnymentalism

Many Independent Baptist preachers brag on being "Fundamentalists." Yet very few even know what that term means, nor where it came from. (And if you think about it, that's pretty dumb to brag on believing just the "Fundamentals" and nothing else).

As you study the word "Fundamentalist" you find it applies to three different distinct groups:

1. Muslim Extremists

2. The Eccumenicalists

3. The Independent Baptists

Let's look at each of these.

MUSLIMS FUNDAMENTALISTS

It's common to hear in the news today of extreme Muslim fundamentalist islamic factions. These usually consist of those who believe all of the Koran and all of the Hadith, and who are willing to practice it to the extreme, even killing themselves for their god Allah as a sacrifice by blowing themselves up. They believe in jihad and truly think that the quickest way to heaven is by killing Christians or Jews and dying in battle. This is not only extreme, but very wicked! God did not call us to KILL our Enemies, but to love them and pray for them.

THE ECCUMENICALISTS "FUNDIES"

In the early ninteen thirties in America the National Council of Churches got together and formed themselves a group. They invited all religions to join, and they worked up the basest "fundamentals" that any denomination had to believe in in order to join. Many joined and they called themselves "Fundamentalists." But as you look at what they truly believe, you find that many don't even believe those fundamentals literally. Many of them spiritualize them, or even look at them as "myths" or "campfire stories." In short, NCC fundamentalists are nothing more than modern day apostates who really don't believe in anything in the Bible, as many of them are really communists and/or social justice advocates. They are those who use religion as a means to an end. They want to claim the fundamentals to look Christian, while they use Christianity and the Bible to try to preach their own private interpretation of how they think things should be.

THE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN

But then we come to the Independent Baptist "Fundamentalists." Years ago a man named J. Frank Norris saw how the Southern Baptist Church was going into apostasy, (specifically by allowing Evolution to be taught in their colleges) so he chose to preach against it on the radio. He even held debates against Evolutionists and cried against their ungodly philosophies. Eventually he left the Southern Baptist Convention and called himself an "Independent Baptist." Many other Southern Baptist pastors followed suit, and the Independent Baptist movement was formed. These ministers called themselves "Fundamentalists" claiming they believed in the fundamentals of the Christian faith while all other denominations did not!

For years, Independent Baptist "Fundamentalists" stood for the truth and claimed only they were the last denomination on earth that didn't compromise the truths of the Bible. And that only they were left with pure doctrine.

Their hey-day was back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, as they cried aloud against sin from the pulpits and preached hard on separating from the world. Not only were they labeled "bible thumpers" by their critics, but they were seen as those who not only had convictions, but lived by them. Unwaveringly they stood for what was right, while holding high the KING JAMES BIBLE as the authority and only pure word of God in the English language.

But now here we are in the year 2011, and my how times have changed, as many Independent Baptist "Fundamentalists" are practicing some of the very same things they used to preach against. They have changed from Fundamentalists to Funny-mentalists. For they too as a whole have apostasized in some areas.

It used to be they were all KJV only. Now many "Independent Baptists" use different versions (many of which take out whole verses of the Bible!).

It used to be they bragged upon being "Baptists" but now many have taken the name out of their church signs in order to appeal to the masses.

It used to be they preached the Gospel as the BLOOD ATONEMENT of Jesus Christ, stressing a sinner's need to trust Christ crucified. Now they pressure a sinner to repeat a prayer and make their decision to only "follow" Jesus.

It used to be they only sang hymns and spiritual songs, but now many have allowed drums, electric guitars, and rock music into their congregations. (Many holding both "traditional" and "contemporary" services on Sundays to appeal to two different kinds of people).

It used to be they preached hard on having dress standards, but now its common to see women in pants and men in shorts in their congregations.

It used to be offerings were given out of a willing heart, but now people are pressured to give with "faith promise" (a charismatic form of giving, started by Pentecostals).

It used to be they preached the importance of living a holy life and separating from the world, but now many preachers give illustrations about the latest hollywood movie that came out!

In short, most Fundamentalists have become Funny-mentalists!

Not all have gone bad, however. There are still some Independent Baptist Churches that have tarried by the stuff and continue to preach the truth, but they are often few and far between.

And of those that haven't wavered much, very few of those preach as hard against sin as their predecessors. In fact, they don't preach on or against it much anymore at all. In fact, one of their popular preachers once said, "There are only really 22 different things you can preach on, and nothing more."

As a missionary evangelist, I've traveled to many different Fundamentalists Independent Baptist churches, and I've seen a lot of things. And I've gotten to the point to where I know exactly what the preacher is about to say before he says it. It's because he has many times adopted Baptist tradition over Biblical teaching. This is bothersome, as oftentimes man-made programs are being taught and practiced in Fundamentalist circles instead of Bible doctrine. Men have risen within Fundamentalist groups and are worshipped. And, ministers who go to Fundamentalists schools are often taught these "giants of the faith" are to be followed instead of the Bible. This leads to man worship, which in turn leads to modern day "Phariseeism."

Sadly, most Fundamentalist Independent Baptists can't see this, or else deny it, thinking they are part of an elite group that is immune to apostasy. Thus, instead of taking a long look at themselves, their doctrine, and their traditions in light of the Bible, they have learned the easiest thing to do is just attack and ridicule others who point out their departure from sound Biblical truth.

But, truly we are in the last days, and the once great "Fundamentalist Independent Baptist Denomination" is falling head-long into apostasy. They have turned from Fundamentalism to Funny-mentalism--from truth to tradition.

But this doesn't have to be. It's not too late. If they'll just get back to the Bible, they can get right.

I believe the rapture is soon, for I don't see how much longer this can go on. It seems like it's just getting worse. But, until Jesus comes, I want to be faithful preaching the great Bible truths of old.

And, I pray others will awake to the fact that modern Fundamentalism is headed the wrong way and will get back to the Bible. If not, then it's between them and God. As for me, I choose the way of the cross, and will continue preaching the BLOOD, the BOOK, and the BLESSED HOPE!