Video Placeholder

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Debunking a Stupid Attack on Anti-Church-Building Bible Believers: YouTube

There is a common attack made by church building idolaters (which are not just church attenders) on those of us who reject church buildings because they are unscriptural: "But, but, you're on YouTube/Facebook/etc. and that's not in the Bible either!" To lay this attack to the dust where it belongs, a little scripture needs to be reviewed, "And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have TAUGHT YOU PUBLICKLY, and from house to house," (Acts 20:20 KJB). When the apostle Paul taught believers, sometimes he did it PUBLICKLY (in public). Therefore, preaching to believers PUBLICLY is scripturally allowed. Well, YouTube, Facebook, etc. are merely websites whereby someone can PUBLICLY communicate a message for an intended audience. In brother Bryan Denlinger's case, for example (who is absolutely despised by most Baptists), he is preaching PUBLICLY through YouTube to Christians. That fits the bill of Acts 20:20. Thus, any saved man who teaches God's word to Christians through a PUBLIC website like YouTube or another online service has a SCRIPTURAL MINISTRY. YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, etc. is NO EXCUSE for you to continue pretending a church building is scriptural. It's not.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Koosha Las Vegas: Jesuitical Muslim PsyOp

There is a group of professing Christians who street preach in Las Vegas. They used to be called “Koosha Las Vegas” (which is still their popular name), but now call themselves “Jesus Is God” (which is more generic). After examining the Koosha group’s actions and beliefs, what I found was unsettling to say the least.

Last year, the Koosha group entered into a Roman Catholic Church during Mass and shouted to the people that the Catholic Church was evil and wicked.

While the Roman Catholic Church is evil and wicked, there are absolutely no grounds in scripture to enter a pagan house and preach to it (in this case, church buildings). What they did was used by the mainstream Jesuitical News Media to portray Bible Believing anti-Catholic Christians as terrorists.

The story was reported on KTNV, a news station controlled directly by ABC News. For proof of this, just look at their logo.

ABC News, of course, is controlled by The Walt Disney Company, which is further controlled by the Motion Picture Association of America, which is at top controlled by openly Catholic Chris Dodd. At the top, KTNV is a Jesuit-Catholic News Station serving the pope and his black pope. What should we expect from a Catholic controlled news station to do regarding Bible Believing Christians who are against the vile papacy? Answer: the absolute demonization of such people. The way to do this is by sending Catholic infiltrators to appear as hateful and dangerous “Bible Believers” so as to demonize all of us. This is precisely the case with the Koosha group. KTNV reported that these street preachers were seen as “terrorists”.
Parishioners we talked to say they were initially scared because of the recent climate of terrorism, and the group makes clear many members are Muslims turned Christian.
 Channel 13 Action News Crime & Safety Expert Randy Sutton...says, in light of recent terror attacks, every person in the church had a very good reason to be concerned. (Source: Protesters disturb Mass at Catholic churches in Las Vegas).
But how do I know that these “ex-Muslims” (which Islam was created by Catholics according to Alberto Rivera) are Catholic plants and not genuine Bible Believers? Simple: their doctrine. Their doctrine reveals that they are in fact closet Muslims controlled by the papacy who are purposefully making anti-Catholic Christians look like terrorists. Once the lost world sees Bible Believing anti-Catholic Christians as terrorists, it will seek to suppress us. All of this is in preparation for the coming Catholic kingdom of the antichrist.

But, to the Koosha group’s doctrine... The Koosha group has a number of YouTube videos of their street preaching. One of their videos has a member of their group stating (at minute 14:00), “So, when you are saved, you are not always saved. That’s a lie from the Satan. Some people think, I used to think too before the beginning, you’re saved, you’re always saved. When you’re saved, you’re not always saved. When you’re saved, you’re not always saved. The Bible talks about it, too many times, you can lose your salvation, and the devil is going to attack you seven times worse. So don’t act like you’re always saved. The enemy is behind the wall, the Satan is behind the wall, to hunt your soul, to destroy your soul, to send your soul with him to hell for the rest of eternity. Give your life to Jesus Christ before it’s too late, and stay holy through the end of your life so you can see the kingdom of heaven. Repent! Follow Christ to the end! Don’t let the devil destroy you after you’re saved. God bless you, praise Jesus.”

That, folks, is simply a lie. A Satanic lie. The King James Bible clearly teaches that those under the present dispensation of Grace (Ephesians 3:2) are sealed by the Holy Spirit and will continue to be sealed until the rapture happens, “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30). The Koosha group is spreading heresy. It doesn’t come from the Bible. Where then, did they get this doctrine from? From the Roman Catholic Catechism, “therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’

By searching briefly through their videos (especially this one), the Koosha group believes that we are in Daniel’s 70th week, one must turn from their sins to be saved (Jonah 3:10 debunks this lie), church buildings are holy places, Christians can miraculously heal people and cast out devils, the King James Bible alone is not God’s perfect word, and many other heresies. All of which comes from Roman Catholicism, not the Bible.

The fact that this “Christian” group is spreading Catholic dogma is strong evidence that they are Catholic controlled Muslims who are trying to make anti-Catholic Bible Believers look like terrorists. To those not easily deceived by the Jesuit News Media, Bible Believers are not terrorists! We believe the King James Bible, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” (Romans 12:18). The KJV is not a terrorist book and those who believe it and are against the Roman Catholic system are not terrorists.

AHA Catholic Infiltrators Exposed! Part 1: Terra Harris

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Claiming Joe Schimmel's $10,000 Rapture Challenge

“We offer $10,000 to those holding to a pre-tribulation rapture, if they could produce just one verse or passage that states that Jesus will rapture the church before the tribulation.”

This is what you would call a scam. The question itself is a loaded question with faulty built-in assumptions (e.g. one verse or passage, the tribulation). But even with the loaded question designed to make people lose no matter what they present, I can still navigate through it to win the $10,000 (if Joe is honest enough to relinquish it). First, we must agree on two facts. First, the antichrist comes at the beginning of “the tribulation”. Thankfully, Mr. Schimmel agrees with this, “The white horse rider in Revelation 6:1-2 is symbolic of the Antichrist counterfeiting Christ and inaugurating the tribulation period.” It follows that to produce one verse or passage stating the rapture comes before “the tribulation” is equivalent to producing one verse or passage stating the rapture comes before the antichrist. This makes sense. It makes no sense for us to be raptured before the antichrist but after “the tribulation”. Thus, to show a scripture which places the rapture before the antichrist will prove the rapture comes before “the tribulation”, which would qualify for the $10,000 challenge. This is the procedure I will take. The second fact we must agree on is that we as the body of Christ are "the temple of God" (1 Corinthians 3:16). Thankfully, Mr. Schimmel agrees with this as well.

Now, without any further ado, here’s the “one verse or passage”:
“1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:”
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 King James Bible).

You say, “What??? I thought this was a post-trib verse.” And you’d be wrong. Here’s why. The passage states in verse 1 that it is “by” the rapture of the church that “the day of Christ” is NOT “at hand”. Read it carefully. In other words, because of the rapture, the day of Christ is not at hand. This is the plain and obvious meaning of the text. But you say, “But ‘by’ is incorrectly translated. It should be ‘with regard to’ (NASB) or ‘concerning’ (NIV). This is saying that concerning the rapture, it (the day of Christ) is not at hand.” But remember, the challenge made no specification of to which Bible I should quote out of. The challenge was simply for “one verse or passage”. It did not clarify that this scripture should come from certain Bibles and not others. So this objection is invalidated by the vagueness of the challenge. For, if I were to produce “one verse or passage”, I could produce it out of any Bible I’d want to (since none in particular is specified). And plus, it’s not like I’m quoting an absolute perversion like The Message by Eugene Peterson. I’m quoting from the King James Bible, a literal translation. And the KJV’s translation is fully justified by the NASB Exhaustive Concordance which defines the underlying Greek word, “ὑπέρ” as, “for the sake of”. For the sake of the rapture, the day of Christ is not at hand. Because of the rapture, the day of Christ is not at hand. “By” the rapture, the day of Christ is not at hand. The obvious implication is that the reason the day of Christ is not at hand is because the rapture will happen before the day of Christ. There is something that must come before it (the rapture), thus it (the day of Christ) is not imminent. But that’s not my proof of the pre-trib rapture. That’s simply to deflect the expected objection that this passage cannot be teaching a pre-trib rapture, so as to ignore the proof which I shall give.

Now, on to the proof. In verse 7, Paul states that “now ye know what withholdeth” the antichrist from coming. The “now” implies that because of what Paul just told the Thessalonians, they “now” knew what was holding back the antichrist from coming (and consequently, “the tribulation”). What did Paul just say which reveals the identity of the one who is restraining the antichrist? Paul just said that the antichrist is supposed to sit “in the temple of God” proclaiming himself to be God. It is because of this, that we can know who the restrainer is. What is the temple of God for today according to Paul? Well, it was already agreed from the beginning (see above) that we as Christians are the temple of God, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16). If then we are the temple of God and the antichrist is prophecied to sit in the temple of God, then if we are around to see the antichrist, the antichrist must sit physically inside of all believers. Since we are the temple of God, the antichrist must sit inside of all of us to fulfil prophecy. That obviously is not going to happen. One man cannot physically merge himself inside every single believer in the world! It is this obvious absurdity that Paul relies upon here. Because the antichrist must sit in the temple of God, “now” we know who is restraining the antichrist. It must be the church, the body of Christ. For, as long as we are around as the temple of God, the antichrist cannot fulfil the prophecy to sit in the temple of God. It is this which prevents the antichrist from coming.

But what if the Jews rebuild another temple? Wouldn’t that be “the temple of God”? The answer is that as long as we are around as the temple of God, if another temple of God were built, there wouldn’t be one temple of God, but two temples of God — the church and the rebuilt Jewish temple. But the antichrist is promised to sit not just in A temple of God, but THE temple of God (implying only one temple). The antichrist cannot sit in THE temple of God as long as we are around. The church, all Christians, is the restrainer of the antichrist according to Paul.

Now, for the finale. Paul states that the restrainer, “he who now letteth”, will continue to restrain the antichrist in this way, “will let”. But, the restrainer will restrain, “until he be taken out of the way.” The body of Christ will continue to restrain the antichrist by being the temple of God, until it is taken out of the way. When is the body of Christ TAKEN away? In the rapture! So then we will restrain the antichrist until we are raptured. What happens NEXT (verse 8)? “And then shall that Wicked be revealed”, the antichrist will come on the scene. This means that we will be raptured, “taken” away, before the antichrist is “revealed”. A pre-trib rapture can be easily concluded with Paul’s pre-antichrist rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2.

To summarise the proof, Paul states in verses 1 and 2 that because of the rapture, the day of Christ is not at hand. This means the rapture must be before the day of Christ. In verse 4, Paul states that the antichrist must sit in the temple of God (which temple are we), and that because of that fact, we can now know who restrains the antichrist. Since we are the temple of God, and the antichrist cannot sit inside of all of us physically, we (the church) in verse 6 are restraining the antichrist from coming. In verse 7, the church (which is restraining the antichrist) will do so until it is taken away in the rapture. After the church is raptured, the antichrist will come on the scene in verse 8. Since the antichrist inaugurates “the tribulation”, and since we will be taken away (raptured) before the antichrist, we will be raptured before “the tribulation”. And that, my friends, is “just one verse or passage that states that Jesus will rapture the church before the tribulation.” Which means that I win the $10,000!

Saturday, September 17, 2016

"The Atheist Delusion" Critical Review

Well, I decided to watch Ray Comfort’s latest film, “The Atheist Delusion” to find out if it did what it claims to do — convert atheists to theism in a few minutes. What I found instead is an unbiblical and temporary change in these atheists to unsaved theists, the use of Satanic material, and the preaching of a false gospel.

Fools And Science

In this film, Ray attempts to give atheists scientific proof of God. He does this by going to the magnificent testimony of creation. He provides in the film certain statistics which make it impossible for a creator not to exist. But there’s a problem with this. The Bible teaches that atheists are fools, “(To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 14:1). The Bible says of the fool, that he hates knowledge and wisdom, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7). “How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?” (Proverbs 1:22).

Atheists do not want scientific evidence for God (contrary to what they might claim). They are fools who don’t want to know the science for God. They are not atheists because they reasoned their way into atheism, but because they gave up reason altogether. Therefore, giving an atheist scientific evidence for God is not going to be effective because atheists don’t want evidence for God. Ray was flat out wrong for trying to convince atheists with science.

The Foolishness of God

But what else are we supposed to do? Preach the Lord Jesus Christ to these atheists? Won’t they find that as foolishness, since they don’t believe in God? What use would it do? The Bible gives a startling answer, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18). No matter how much scientific evidence you can throw at someone, a man being God in the flesh who rose from the dead will always seem foolish to unbelievers. But God wants us to do that anyways, “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21). Even if our gospel message seems foolish to an atheist, we should still preach it. Why? Because it has power in itself to convict a lost man to put His faith in Christ, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16). Instead of trying to convince a fool of wisdom, we should preach the gospel, which has power.

Temporary Theism

In the film, Ray uses a set of “stump questions”. These are questions posed against the impossibility of the big bang and atheism. They usually stump the average atheist, since he is not equipped with an excuse to dismiss these questions. As a result, in the film, some atheists “become” theists. But remember, atheists are fools according to scripture. Thus, the evidence didn’t really convince them, it merely stumped them. They will remain stumped until they go home to quickly Google up a good excuse to dismiss the stump question. In fact, when Ray interviewed a professional atheist (Lawrence Krauss), instead of being stumped, he came up with ridiculous answers. Why? Because he isn’t interested in facts, but in remaining in his foolishness. And it is those same excuses the average atheist will hold dearly to when he learns them after being stumped by a good question. The atheists in this film who changed their minds about atheism will certainly revert back to atheism, “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” (Proverbs 26:11).

Not Made In God’s Image

In the film, Ray Comfort told atheists that they were made in God’s image. That is simply a lie. Man was originally made in God’s own image, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27). But after man sinned, all of mankind since then have been born in the image of sinful Adam, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:” (Genesis 5:3). The sinful image of Adam is the image of God marred from sin. Atheists are not made in the image of God.

Satanic NKJV

In the film, Ray quoted from the Satanic New King James Version (1984). The New King James Version is a harborer of heresy, as seen in its translation of Jeremiah 8:8, “How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.” The subject of this verse is the copying of the scriptures by the scribes. The NKJV plainly teaches that the scribes worked “falsehood” by falsely copying the scriptures (“the law of the LORD”). In other words, the Bible was changed and is no longer the word of God, but the word of man. This is heresy. Why Ray would choose to preach from this Satanic Heretical Bible is anyone’s guess.

Lordship Salvation

Ray Comfort then promoted his Satanic Lordship Salvation. This is the false message that in order for someone to be saved, they must first turn from all their sins (stop sinning) to be saved. This is distinctive in all his films and videos. Instead of salvation coming from stopping sin, it comes by faith alone in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).


“The Atheist Delusion” is Ray’s delusion of convincing atheists of the truth with science, and the preaching of Satanic Bibles and a false gospel. Don’t share it or like it.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Calvinism's Strange Connections To Roman Catholicism | Part 4: Paul Washer

Paul Washer is a strong Calvinist who gives talks at various conferences. One of those conferences was in a Roman Catholic Monastery. Here’s the story:

Paul Washer came to speak at a Coram Deo Conference in 2013, with the topic, “The Gospel To The Center”. He apparently thought, “Holy Cross Monastery”, a Catholic pagan building was a good spot to discuss what he considers the true gospel. And he wasn’t there because he secretly infiltrated the conference to preach to lost Catholics. He was there as an invited guest speaker, showing that Coram Deo was okay to have him there. And the Holy Cross Monastery was apparently okay to have Coram Deo there. There can only be one conclusion to this: the Roman Catholics at that Monastery was just fine having Paul Washer as a speaker there. Strange, isn’t it?

But it gets weirder. Through this conference, Paul Washer helped to join Coram Deo with Heart Cry Ministries. Which means Heart Cry is working together with a group that is approved by Catholics to speak in their monasteries.

Monday, September 5, 2016

Calvinism's Strange Connections To Roman Catholicism | Part 3: State of Grace

The image below is a quote from one of Calvin’s sermons on Ephesians.

It was Calvin’s attempt to give an answer to, “how do we know if we are of the elect?” Of course, the Biblical answer that was the response here by Calvin is, “if we believe in Christ, we are the elect”. That is because we first come to Christ for salvation, and then we are placed into Christ as the elect.

But, elsewhere, John Calvin gave a surprisingly different answer — one that lines up with Roman Catholicism. Calvin states in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 5, Section 3, “...Therefore, while WE ALL LABOUR naturally under the same disease, THOSE ONLY RECOVER HEALTH to whom THE LORD IS PLEASED to put forth his healing hand. THE OTHERS whom, in just JUDGMENT, he passes over, pine and rot away TILL THEY ARE CONSUMED. And this is the only reason WHY SOME PERSEVERE TO THE END, and OTHERS, AFTER BEGINNING THEIR COURSE, FALL AWAY. Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises—WHY SOME STEADILY PERSEVERE, and OTHERS PROVE DEFICIENT in steadfastness, we can give NO OTHER REASON than that THE LORD, by his mighty power, STRENGTHENS AND SUSTAINS THE FORMER, so that they perish not, WHILE HE DOES NOT FURNISH the same assistance to THE LATTER, but LEAVES THEM to be monuments of instability.”

This is summed up by Calvinist R.C. Sproul as, “So the old axiom in Reformed theology about the perseverance of the saints is this: If you have it—that is, if you have genuine faith and are in a state of saving grace—you will never lose it. If you lose it, you never had it.”

This means that the only consistent way to know if you are of the elect in Calvinism is not if you currently believe in Jesus Christ (since you can fall away, and thus prove yourself to have never been saved). The only consistent assurance of salvation in Calvinism is if you persevere in your faith in Christ till your death. If you persevere for 50 years, and then fall away in the last year of your life, Calvinism considers you lost and have never been saved. Thus, you must die with faith, before you can know you are saved.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches a very similar doctrine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 12, Number 1023 states, “Those who DIE IN GOD’S GRACE and friendship and are perfectly purified LIVE FOR EVER WITH CHRIST. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face...” The Catholic Church teaches that you must die in a state of grace to receive salvation. This is very similar with the Calvinist doctrine that you must die in a state of grace to KNOW you have already received salvation. Thus, assurance is impossible for the consistent and living Calvinist.

What does scripture give of assurance? The moment we trust in Jesus Christ, we have absolute assurance of salvation. John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM should not perish, but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.” If we believe on Christ, we know we are saved. Of course, God grants us out of His mercy extra signs and proofs we can look to for assurance of salvation (e.g. fruit, 2 Cor. 5:17), but we don’t have to die in a state of grace to know we are saved.

Rome Rules Calvary Chapel Churches

The first Calvary Chapel Church established was Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. The lead pastor was the late Chuck Smith. Chuck Smith was openly ecumenical, and stated, “Catholics are basically Christians too”.

Chuck Smith put an image of a down-left facing dove in his church building.

It is this very image that Ex-Jesuit Alberto Rivera testified that is a Jesuit Catholic symbol (The Force, page 24).

This means that the ecumenical Chuck Smith was under the control of the Jesuit order. He was a mere puppet of the papacy in promoting ecumenical unity.

But here’s the interesting part: no church can just call themselves Calvary Chapel. The name “Calvary Chapel” is a trademarked name, owned by Chuck Smith’s Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. Just go here, and do a basic search for "Calvary Chapel" (without quotes). Click on the "LIVE" one (not the "DEAD" one).

This means that in order for a church to be called “Calvary Chapel”, it must have the permission of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. This means that if Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa wants a certain Calvary Chapel church to change its doctrines, either that church will change it’s doctrines to keep the name “Calvary Chapel”, or they will abandon the system altogether and be forced to adopt a different name. This means thus, that all churches that currently have the name “Calvary Chapel” are controlled by Chuck Smith’s church. In other words, all Calvary Chapel Churches are under the control of a church founded by a Jesuit puppet who promoted ecumenicism.

But what about the current pastor of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa? Did he change the ecumenical focus? Here’s a video of the current Senior Pastor Brian Brodersen, teaching the exact same ecumenical unity Chuck Smith taught.

Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa was founded by a Jesuit puppet who promoted ecumenicism, is continued to be controlled by an ecumenical pastor, and controls all Calvary Chapel churches. This means all Calvary Chapel churches belong to Rome. If you are in such a church, please confront the pastor about it. If he refuses to give up ecumenicism and break thus with the Calvary Chapel denomination, then leave.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Calvinism's Strange Connections To Roman Catholicism | Part 2: Modern Bible Versions And "Sovereign"

In the last post on Calvinism, I showed proof that all modern "Protestant" versions (i.e. those based on the Nestle-Aland Greek text) are basically Catholic Bibles without the Apocrypha (except the ESV -- it has an edition that includes it from Oxford Press). With that in mind, it's very interesting to note how the big Calvinist buzzword, "sovereign" is not found anywhere in the King James Bible. But it is found HUNDREDS of times in the modern Vatican Versions.

Question for my Calvinist friends: Will you side with the KJB, or with the Vatican promoted modern versions?

Btw, the above word search includes wildcards.

Monday, August 29, 2016

Calvinism's Strange Connections To Roman Catholicism | Part 1 - J.I. Packer

J.I. Packer is an author virtually all Calvinists have heard of. He wrote a famous treatise attempting to reconcile evangelism with Calvinism (well, he didn’t use those exact words, he actually instead portrayed it as an “antinomy”, but you get the point). His book is called “Evangelism And The Sovereignty Of God”.

But just who is J.I. Packer? In his book, he quotes not out of the King James Bible, but out of the Vatican’s own English Standard Version.

The ESV is, of course, based on the Nestle-Aland 27th Greek text. The same Greek text made under the approval and supervision of the Vatican.

That makes the ESV a Vatican Version. And J.I. Packer uses it to defend his Calvinism.

But to make matters worse, Packer describes himself openly as an “ecumenical” Anglican.

And to seal the deal, J.I. Packer signed his name in endorsement on a 1994 document called “Evangelicals & Catholics Together” outlining the heresy that Roman Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

This document was cosigned with names such as Pat Robertson, and openly Jesuit Bishop Carlos Sevilla.

It’s obvious J.I. Packer is working to get Evangelicals and Catholics together, in preparation for the coming antichrist — the pope of Rome (Daniel 9:26 KJB). Could Calvinism play a part in his goal? Absolutely. Here’s why: Calvinism goes hand in hand with Lordship Salvation. Lordship Salvation is the teaching that we must turn from all of our sin (stop sinning) for everlasting life. That is obviously works for salvation (Jonah 3:10). But, Calvinism “solves” this problem by having someone be saved before they do those good works for salvation. Thus, the argument goes from the Lordship camp, we can do these good works for forgiveness because we are already saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8) before we do those works (which are unto salvation). Calvinism prepares the road for a works salvation message that can be easily molded into the works-based system of Roman Catholicism.

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Bill Bright's Contrived Statistic

Over and over again, I've seen this statistic: Only 2% of Christians share their faith on a regular basis. And yet, I never have seen the actual data for such a statistic. Every website and book that makes that statistic refers to it being made by Dr. Bill Bright. But even then, most websites don't give any citation to where Dr. Bright said that. Although, I did find a book that did give a citation. It cites The Coming Revival for the support of this statistic. In that book, Dr. Bright made this statement on page 65:
"According to numerous surveys, 50 percent of the hundred million who attend church each Sunday have no assurance of their salvation. And 95 percent are not familiar with the person and ministry of the Holy Spirit. Only two percent of believers in America regularly share their faith in Christ with others." (emphasis added).
This is the origin of this commonly cited statistic. Yet, in the book, absolutely no footnotes or citations are given to back up any of these statements. Dr. Bright either made them up on the spot, or simply repeated rumors that he heard.

So what is the truth on this matter? The number of professing Christians who share their faith on a regular basis is more like 14%, not 2%, according to a LifeWay Poll. This is still, no doubt, a very low number of Christians who share their faith on a regular basis. But the contrived statistic by Dr. Bill Bright, and parroted by nearly everybody is simply flat out wrong with nothing to back it up.

Saturday, July 2, 2016

The Textus Receptus -- The True Majority Text

As a King James Bible Believer, I kept hearing the statistic that the Textus Receptus underlying the King James Bible was the Majority Text (i.e. the Majority of Greek manuscripts supported it), and that the Westcott-Hort text is a minority text. While I could see visible evidence of the latter, I couldn’t find any documentation for the former claim. It seemed to me to be just a rumor that nobody had looked into. Other KJB Believers agreed with me on that.

BUT, I recently found the evidence I was looking for. While browsing one of these websites promoting this claim, I decided to look over again the sources for it: The Four-Fold Superiority of the King James Bible by D.A. Waite. I found this webpage version of that book with the same statistics. It further directed me to Forever Settled by Dr. Jack Moorman. I found an online copy of that book and read it carefully. I finally found my answer: this is no rumor, this is fact. Dr. Moorman basically surveyed old and new books written against the Textus Receptus. These various books written by various authors and scholars, who certainly had access to all the Greek manuscripts and their readings, were specifically about the differences between the Alexandrian text and the Byzantine text (as expressed by the Textus Receptus). They were collations of non-Byzantine texts that read against the Textus Receptus. The rest presumably are pro-Byzantine texts lining up with the Textus Receptus. Dr. Moorman counted all the manuscripts these anti-KJB authors could find and published his results in his book. Then, D.A. Waite decided to make a statistics chart to see how much percentage wise of manuscripts lined up with the Textus Receptus. It turns out (as shown below), that over 99% of the Greek manuscripts in existence are pro-Byzantine and pro-Textus Receptus. The rest (less that 1%) lined up with the Alexandrian Westcott-Hort Greek text. Dr. Moorman in his book admitted that the exact numbers are not written in stone, and that there were undoubtably a few Alexandrian manuscripts not mentioned as being Alexandrian by all the scholars he researched, but those differences would be minor. They wouldn’t change the overall picture of 99% to 1% in favor of the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus being the majority text doesn’t mean that all it’s particular and unique readings are supported by the majority of manuscripts, but that the text type as a whole was supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 6)

16. Assay
Hebrews 11:29 KJB says, “By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.” This is referring to Moses and the Israelites escaping the Egyptians in the Exodus. Exodus 14:23 describes the Egyptians in this event, “And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen.” Of course, they “were drowned”. The clear implication of Hebrews 11:29 is that whereas Moses and the Israelites actually passed through the Red sea, the Egyptians tried to (in following after them) as well, but were drowned. Thus, the KJB’s definition of “assay” is to try or to attempt. This is exactly what it means in English. The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines “assay” as, “To attempt, try or endeavor.” This word is so archaic, it’s found even in The Message Bible (2002) in Proverbs 17:3.

17. Assupim
Actually, the Interactive spelled it wrong. It’s actually spelled “Asuppim” with one “s” and two “p”’s. 1 Chronicles 26:15 KJB reads, “To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.” It’s pretty obvious “Asuppim” is a name. The house of Asuppim is the house that belongs to the man or family that went by the name “Asuppim”. It’s pretty hard to update a name, since names are not archaic. No dictionary is needed to define a name here. And it happens to be so archaic that it’s found in the modern Orthodox Jewish Bible (2011) in 1 Chronicles 26:15.

18. Asswage
Job 16:6 KJB tells us, “Though I speak, my grief is not asswaged: and though I forbear, what am I eased?” This verse has a parallel structure in it (the first part is like the last part) that defines “asswaged” as “eased”. The KJB thus defines “asswage” as to calm or to ease. This is confirmed by the 1828 Webster Dictionary which defines “asswage” as “assuage”, which itself is defined as, “To soften, in a figurative sense; to allay, mitigate, ease or lessen, as pain or grief; to appease or pacify, as passion or tumult. In strictness, it signifies rather to moderate, than to quiet, tranquilize or reduce to perfect peace or ease.” It’s not an old word, for even The Conservative Bible (2010) retains it in Job 16:6.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 5)

13. Ariel
Isaiah 21:9 KJB says, “Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.” Ariel is a name for a city. Elsewhere in the KJB, it’s a name for a person. News flash — names aren’t archaic. How do I know this? Because even the New International Version (2011) has it here! As of yet, there is no way to update a name. No dictionary is needed here.

14. Armhole
Jeremiah 38:11-13 KJB reads, “So Ebedmelech took the men with him, and went into the house of the king under the treasury, and took thence old cast clouts and old rotten rags, and let them down by cords into the dungeon to Jeremiah. And Ebedmelech the Ethiopian said unto Jeremiah, Put now these old cast clouts and rotten rags under thine armholes under the cords. And Jeremiah did so. So they drew up Jeremiah with cords, and took him up out of the dungeon: and Jeremiah remained in the court of the prison.” From reading this, it seems obvious of what happened. They let down two “cords” with clothes hanging on them. Then Jeremiah put his arms over the clothes (which themselves were over the cords), and was lifted up. By thinking about it, “armholes” would have to mean armpits (the only place Jeremiah could put his arms over the cords). And that’s exactly what it means. The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines “armhole” as, “1. The cavity under the shoulder, or the armpit.” In fact, even the more modern Amplified Bible (1987) uses this word in Ezekiel 13:18. This is in no way archaic.

15. Artificer
Genesis 4:22 KJB tells us, “And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.” 1 Chronicles 29:5 KJB reads, "The gold for things of gold, and the silver for things of silver, and for all manner of work to be made by the hands of artificers. And who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the LORD?" According to the KJB, an artificer is someone who works with metals (apparently to mold them into different shapes). Plus, the very name sounds like someone who crafts the metals into art (artificer). The KJB defines “artificer” as someone who works with and shapes metals into specific shapes for specific uses (e.g. art). The New English Dictionary confirms this by defining “artificer” as, “1. One who makes by art or skill; esp. one who follows an industrial handicraft, a craftsman.” And like the other “archaic” words, it’s so old, that The World English Bible (2000) has it in Jeremiah 10:9.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

An Open Letter To The Inland Empire Creation Science Association

Hello, Mark Wanamaker (President) and Charlene Rosa (Chairman).

I wanted to announce to you that I cannot any longer attend or support The Inland Empire Creation Science Association. After having discussions with Mark, I have come to the startling discovery that he is a virtual Catholic (which is to be expected ever since the Lutherans signed a joint agreement with the Vatican on justification:

Mark, you believe as a Lutheran-Catholic that salvation is a process and not a one time event, a relationship and not a legal declaration that we are righteous. However, the word of God declares that salvation is indeed a one time event that can never be lost, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” (Ephesians 2:8 KJB). We are “saved” (past tense). It is a one time event, not a growth or process. We don’t grow into salvation, we grow after our salvation. 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJB confirms this, “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” Nowhere in the entire King James Bible are we said to be “being saved” as in a process. To teach so is a grave Catholic heresy that denies salvation by grace alone. To teach salvation is a process fulfilled by baptism, Eucharist, and a life of good works is to deny salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

As Ephesians 2:8-9 KJB teaches, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Romans 4:4-5 KJB, “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Acts 16:30-31 KJB, “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Acts 10:43 KJB, “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Galatians 2:16 KJB, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Romans 1:17 KJB, “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

To teach salvation by works as you do is to preach another gospel than the one scripture teaches for our glorious, “dispensation of the grace of God” (Ephesians 3:2 KJB) given unto Paul. Before Paul, salvation was of works, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38 KJB). Salvation according to Peter in the previous dispensation (a King James Bible word written before the 1830s) was of works and was not the same as the gospel message Paul preached, “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;” (Galatians 2:7 KJB). There were two gospels - the gospel of the circumcision Peter preached (which consisted of works to be saved by water baptism), and the gospel of the uncircumcision Paul preached (which was always 100% by grace alone through faith alone). When Paul was converted in Acts 9 KJB, the dispensation changed from salvation by works to salvation by faith. In fact Paul several times calls it his unique gospel, “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:” (2 Timothy 2:8 KJB).

By teaching another gospel than the one that Paul taught, and by trying to introduce that heresy to the group, you are under the curse of God, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9 KJB).

According to the English scriptures, you are not only accursed, but a “pervert” of the gospel of Christ. Because of this fact, I rebuke you by the authority of God’s word as revealed in the English King James Bible with this, “And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10 KJB). Will you continue to be a false gospel pervert or will you truly now come to Christ? Read that again — you are not in Christ if you teach another gospel (which is not another, but a valid gospel for a previous dispensation). You are lost. You are a “child of the devil” “full of subtilty” as your father is, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Genesis 3:1 KJB). You are a false brother, pretending to hold to the Bible doctrines of salvation by grace, while believing and introducing salvation by works, “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:” (Galatians 2:4 KJB).

I shall follow the command and principle of 2 John 9-11 KJB, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” For me to continue attending your creation group is to be a partaker of your evil deeds and support your perverted doctrines. It is for this reason that I must leave and partake no more of The Inland Empire Creation Science Association.

I will be absent and do now call you to repent and come to Christ trusting in Him alone to save you from Rome. I will not come back until the following takes place:

  1. Either Charlene pulls her SDB church apart from your Catholic influences by breaking from your creation group OR you Mark believe on Christ alone to save you from Lutheran-Catholicism.
If you leave Rome and Catholic Lutheranism, you must give up the following heresies for me to come back:
  1. Give up the heretical consubstantiation. You believe that in the Eucharist Jesus becomes a stir mix with the bread and wine. You believe you are eating your god. Such a practice is foreign to scripture and declared useless by the Lord Jesus Christ, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63 KJB). You also believe as the Catholics do, that Christ must come down every Eucharist to be sacrificed in your stomach for your sins. This also contradicts clear scriptural teachings, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:10-14 KJB).
  2. Give up the heretical “being saved” doctrine. You believe we are not “saved” as the scripture says, but that we are “being saved” as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I have already outlined why the scriptures go against this.
  3. Give up belief in baptismal regeneration. The Bible in our dispensation given unto Paul declares water baptism as no longer part of the gospel message, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” (1 Corinthians 1:17 KJB). Baptism is not part of the preaching of the gospel. The only baptism we must partake of to be saved is the baptism INTO Jesus Christ, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27 KJB). Not into water. Into Christ. More specifically, we are placed into Christ’s own body as the church, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (1 Corinthians 12:27 KJB). This baptism into Christ happens when we place our faith alone in Him for salvation.
  4. Renounce Rome and her Bible. As a Lutheran, you believe Catholics are your brothers and sisters in Christ who believe the same concerning salvation. God does not. In fact, he calls her a “whore” in scripture who we must forsake. Revelation 17 outlines the antichrist system and describes in great detail the Roman Catholic Church. You can read it yourself in the King James Bible. If you want an in-detail exposition of this chapter and why Roman Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon, I recommend you listen to this sermon: God gives this command concerning the Roman Catholic Church, “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4 KJB). Come out of her, Mark. This will involve leaving the Lutheran Church, since it is now joined with Rome. Part of this forsaking of Rome will necessarily involve leaving the English Standard Version (2011) that you currently read. The Preface of the ESV states, “The ESV is based on...the Greek text in the 1933 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.” This very edition of the Greek text openly declares that it was edited under the supervision and approval of the Vatican:
  5. Since the Nestle Aland Greek text is under the supervision of the Vatican, and since the ESV follows it for the most part, it is in fact a Vatican Version designed to draw people towards The Whore of Babylon. You must give her up, Mark. This will involve giving up your Catholic Bible.
When you do all those things, I will be more than happy to rejoin your creation group, since God will be pleased as well, “Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.” (Luke 15:10 KJB).

And Charlene, if Mark does not repent, I command you by the book of the LORD to forsake the Whore of Babylon by breaking off your church from Mark’s Satanic influence. If you do that, I will return to your group.

What I have said is neither comfortable nor beneficial for me on a worldly scale. But it does benefit me spiritually before God to forsake wickedness, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:19 KJB). I pray you will do this, Charlene, if you are saved. And I pray that you Mark will for the first time come to Christ and be saved. You must come to him as a sinner, and not as self-righteous, “And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.” (Luke 18:13 KJB). “When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Mark 2:17 KJB).

God has commanded me in His word that I expose your group and what’s going on, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.” (Ephesians 5:11-13 KJB). Until you repent and come back to scripture, I will leave this letter and warning public.

~ Joshua Alvarez, Creation Science Speaker and King James Bible Believer Bought in the Blood of Christ.

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 4)

10. Angle
Isaiah 19:8 KJB says, “The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish.” The first thing that came to my mind (and should be apparent to anybody who has ever gone fishing) was that an “angle” is a fishing line with a hook you throw into the water to catch fish. Those who haven’t gone fishing will obviously have a hard time knowing what this means, but those people will also not be able to understand the updated “fishing line” either. The KJB defines “angle” as a fishing line. The 1828 Webster Dictionary confirms this by defining “angle” as, “1. To fish with an angle or with line and hook.” And this isn’t an archaic word! The Hebrew Names Version (2014) has “angle” in Isaiah 19:8.

11. Anon
Matthew 13:20 in the KJB reads, “But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;”. Here is the first example of where the KJB beautifully utilizes the tool of parallel passages to define words. A parallel passage is a place in the Bible that talks about the same thing and the same events as another part of the Bible. Such is the nature of the four gospels (all four giving parallel accounts of the life of Jesus Christ on earth). Whenever you see a passage that has a parallel, make sure to look at the parallel! It will give you new insight into what happened and what’s being said. In this case, one parallel passage to Matthew 13:20 is Mark 4:16 KJB, “And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;”. Notice that Mark has a similar phrase to Matthew (“and anon with joy receiveth it” and “immediately receive it with gladness”). It should be obvious that “immediately” in Mark is used in place of “anon” in Matthew. Thus, according to the KJB, “anon” means immediately. The 1828 Webster Dictionary confirms this for us. It defines “anon” as, “1. Quickly; without intermission: soon; immediately.” And like the other “archaic” words, “anon” is so old that it’s used by The Concordant Version (2012) in 2 Peter 1:15.

12. Apothecary
Exodus 37:29 KJB reads, “And he made the holy anointing oil, and the pure incense of sweet spices, according to the work of the apothecary.” Exodus 30:35 KJB likewise reads, “And thou shalt make it a perfume, a confection after the art of the apothecary, tempered together, pure and holy:”. So the art of the apothecary is defined in these verses to make oil and perfume by mixing (tempered) it together. Since the art of the apothecary is to mix natural materials into ointment (Exodus 30:25 KJB) and perfume, the apothecary must be those men who mix them. Thus, according to the KJB, an “apothecary” is someone who mixes natural oils and fragrances into perfume and ointment. The New English Dictionary defines “apothecary” as “The earlier name for: One who prepared and sold drugs for medicinal purposes…” Back in the days of the Bible, the only medicine was natural medicine (and it still is the best medicine) drawn from plant and mineral oils and fragrances. So back in the Biblical times, an apothecary was someone who mixed together natural medicine (read oils and fragrances) for medical purposes. That is exactly what an “ointment” is. And “apothecary” is so old, The Jubilee Bible (2010) uses “apothecary” in Ecclesiastes 10:1. The KJB is right and you don’t need any dictionary to find out what it means!

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Hillsong Has Completely Exposed Themselves -- Literally!

It kind of surprised me when major “Christian” leaders decided to defend Hillsong “Church” when they gathered a bunch of half naked women and put them dancing on the “church” stage (which you can read about here). But now, Hillsong has just exposed themselves — literally. I have absolutely no clue how anybody will try to defend them now. If they do find a way to defend the following abomination, I believe I will be more convinced that postmillennialism is false :-), and that this world ain’t getting any better.

It has been recently reported that Hillsong Church has now put on another play with a “naked cowboy”.

Picture originally posted on Now, it’s been removed.

As you can see, Hillsong has just gone nuts. Not only do they have half naked women (which they did last time on Christmas. Now, they have a “naked cowboy”. This “naked cowboy” is Diego Simila, a former model turned “Youth Pastor” (which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible).

I’m not really sure I need to prove from the Bible why this is an abomination. I’ll leave you with this verse, “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:” (Romans 1:24 KJB). I will now wait for the defenders of Hillsong to make comment.

Same Day Update:
Nevermind. They already have, “And so, while it is easy to criticize Hillsong (and the Naked Cowboy and this “watchdog” website), we would do well to search our own souls before the throne of God, asking Him to expose the darkness in our hearts, to restore us to our first love, to grant us deep repentance, and to open our eyes so that we can see Jesus afresh in all His glory. I pray this for myself as well!” (Michael Brown,

Um, Michael, now your “defense” looks absolutely pathetic. You admit they did evil, “but why judge them? Can’t we all just get along?” No further comment is necessary.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 3)

7. Ambassage
Luke 14:31-32 KJB reads, “Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.” From this passage, it’s very easy to see an “ambassage” is a message calling for peace and reconciliation. English Dictionaries confirm this. The New English Dictionary defines “ambassage” as “2. The message conveyed by an ambassador; the business entrusted to him.” Merriam Webster defines “ambassador” as “an official envoy; especially: a diplomatic agent of the highest rank accredited to a foreign government or sovereign as the resident representative of his or her own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment”. What does “diplomatic” mean? Merriam Webster defines “diplomatic” as “involving the work of maintaining good relations between the governments of different countries: of or relating to diplomats or their work”. Thus, in the English language, an “ambassage” is a message sent (with a messenger) desiring conditions of peace. Exactly as the KJB has it — and you can learn that word from the KJB in half the time it’ll take you to look at three dictionaries for it. But even so, this word is not archaic. The Yah Sacred Scriptures (2001) has “ambassage” in Luke 19:14.

8. Ambushment
2 Chronicles 13:13-14 KJB says, “But Jeroboam caused an ambushment to come about behind them: so they were before Judah, and the ambushment was behind them. And when Judah looked back, behold, the battle was before and behind: and they cried unto the LORD, and the priests sounded with the trumpets.” By comparing verse 13 to 14, just as the “ambushment” was before and behind Judah, the “battle” was before and behind Judah. This implies that “ambushment” means “battle”. In the context, the KJB defines an ambushment as a planned battle attack on someone else. And it’s right. The New English Dictionary defines “ambushment” as “1. A disposition or arrangement of troops in a wood or other place of concealment so as to fall on an enemy by surprise; the trap so constructed; ambush; ambuscade.” And modern Bibles are still using this word! The Amplified Bible (1987) has “ambushment” in 2 Chronicles 13:13.

9. Amerce
Deuteronomy 22:18-19 KJB has, “And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.” According to the KJB’s parallel structure of “elders...shall” and “they shall”, amerce is to chastise. In the context, the chastisement is apparently the taking of money and the giving of it to someone else (the father of the damsel). Thus, the KJB defines “amerce” as taking money from someone as a form of chastisement. The New English Dictionary agrees with the KJB’s built in definition by defining “amerce” as “1. To punish by an arbitrary fine; to fine, mulct (a person).” But it’s far too old to be used anymore. It’s so old, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible (2010) has “amerce” in Deuteronomy 22:19 ;-).

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 2)

4. Alamoth
Psalm 46:1 KJB says, “(To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.) God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.” You can read the entire psalm to get the picture that this entire chapter is full of references to the strength and refuge of God. Thus, by the KJB, “alamoth” is the strength and refuge of God. What does it mean in English, though? Well, nobody knows. There is no English definition for the word “alamoth” anywhere. “Alamoth” is simply a transliteration (taking the Hebrew word and spelling out in English how it sounds) of the Hebrew word עֲלָמוֹת (Strong #H5961). What does that Hebrew word mean? Well, nobody knows what that means either. But they do conjecture that it probably means a virgin because עָלֶמֶת (almah) looks kind of like alamoth. And there are other guesses as to what this would mean (e.g. a location, a hiding place, etc.) But let’s think for just a minute what the above Psalm would mean if “alamoth” meant a virgin. “A Song upon Alamoth.” Is the Psalmist saying he fornicated with a virgin while singing praise to God? God forbid. Do you see how rediculous it would be if “alamoth” meant a virgin? 1 Chronicles 15:20 lists another mention of “alamoth”, “And Zechariah, and Aziel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Unni, and Eliab, and Maaseiah, and Benaiah, with psalteries on Alamoth;”. Were those musical instruments so heavy, they needed to be placed on the heads of virgins for support? Why not on a table or something? As you should see by now, it’s rediculous to think “alamoth” means virgins. The KJB is right. Alamoth means the strength and refuge of God. 1 Chronicles 15:20 is about playing musical instruments on the strength of God (or a song dedicated to the strength of God, e.g. Psalm 41). And from the KJB, I’m going to conjecture that “alamoth” is related not to “almah”, but to “alemeth”: עָלֶמֶת. (Strong #5964). Alemeth means a “covering”. This is just as God as our strength and refuge is our covering from evil. And speaking of being an “archaic word”, The New International Version (2011) has “alamoth” in 1 Chronicles 15:20. I guess the brand new NIV’s outdated too! I’m being sarcastic, of course.

5. Almug
1 Kings 10:12 KJB reads, “And the king made of the almug trees pillars for the house of the LORD, and for the king’s house, harps also and psalteries for singers: there came no such almug trees, nor were seen unto this day.” An almug is a particular tree according to this verse. That last phrase implies these trees weren’t well known in Israel, and were quite rare. Thus, the KJB defines “almug” as a rare and largely unknown tree. The English language confirms this. The New English Dictionary defines “almug” as “A variant of Algum” (Vol. 2, p. 248). 1828 Webster says “Algum” is “In scripture, a tree or wood about which the learned are not agreed…” It’s exactly the same — a tree largely unknown and rare. And since this was listed as “archaic”, it would benefit the reader to know The English Standard Version (2011) has “almug” in 1 Kings 10:12.

6. Aloes
The KJB reads in Proverbs 7:17, “I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.” Aloes is a perfume. John 19:39-40 KJB says, “And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.” Aloes is a spice for preservation purposes. Numbers 24:6 KJB reads, “As the valleys are they spread forth, as gardens by the river’s side, as the trees of lign aloes which the LORD hath planted, and as cedar trees beside the waters.” Apparently the full name of aloes is “lign aloes”. Aloes would then simply be an abbreviated version of Lign Aloes. Regardless, aloes also are said to come from trees. Thus, according to the KJB alone, aloes is a perfume or spice that comes from trees. Easton’s Bible Dictionary defines “Lign-aloes” as “a perfume derived from some Oriental tree (Numbers 24:6), probably the agallochum or aloe-wood.” “Probably” means they don’t know what tree. But what they do know is that it is a perfume that comes from trees. Exactly what the KJB teaches. See, you don’t need a dictionary to find out what these words mean. And apparently, this word is so archaic, that The New International Version (2011) has “aloes” in Numbers 24:6.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Archaic Words In The KJB (Part 1)

This will be the beginning of blog posts concerning the supposed “archaic words” in the King James Bible. After I’m done with all of them, I’ll probably put all the info into a video or something similar. Each installment will deal with a few words at a time. The point of this is to show how you don’t even need an old dictionary to find definitions of words in the KJB. First, I’m going to rely on what I consider the biggest archaic words list anybody has made against the KJB:

It’s kind of weird how it starts out by saying, “Below are 484 examples of how the KJV uses outdated language“, and then it says, “419 Archaic terms!”. 484 isn’t 419, just in case you’re wondering. Regardless, let’s dig in:

1. Abject
Psalm 35:15 in the KJB says, “But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:”. You can see by the parallel structure of this verse, “the abjects” are the same as “they” in the verse. Who are “they”? Well, you can read the entire Psalm for yourself and easily determine the “they” are men who hate David and persecute and slander him. Thus, simply by looking at the KJB, “abjects” are men who persecute and slander others — they are evil. Is this what the word means in English, though? According to the New English Dictionary (Volume 2, p. 20), “Abject” is “3. Down in spirit or hope; low in regard or estimation, degraded, mean-spirited despicable.“ The KJB defines for itself the meaning of “abject”. Also, The Amplified Bible (2015) has “abject” in Isaiah 47:1, showing this “archaic word” is still being used in modern Bibles.

2. Adamant
Zechariah 7:12 KJB reads, “Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts.” Thus, from this we know an “adamant” is a stone. Ezekiel 3:9 KJB gives further details, “As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.” So now we also know an adamant is harder than flint. In other words, it’s a very hard stone. The 1828 Webster Dictionary confirms this is correct, “A very hard or impenetrable stone; a name given to the diamond and other substances of extreme hardness. The name has often been given to the load stone; but in modern mineralogy, it has no technical signification.“ In other words, it can mean simply a stone in general that’s very hard. Exactly as the KJB has it. The New King James Version (1982) has “adamant” in Ezekiel 3:9 (I guess they forgot to “update” that “archaic” word).

3. Agone
1 Samuel 30:13 KJB says, “And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick.“ Just read that last part to yourself out loud. It will quickly become apparent that “agone” means “ago”. Three days agone, three days ago. That’s how it seemed to me, at least before looking at any dictionary. But the dictionaries do agree with me. 1828 Webster defines “Agone” as “Ago; past; since.” The Word of Yah Bible (1993) has “agone” in 1 Samuel 30:13. That’s only a few years ago, folks.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

What Is "Evolution"? A Review of Differing Definitions

It has come to my attention that different people use different definitions for what “evolution” is and isn’t. This frankly makes it difficult in presentations to accurately refute it, since it can’t be nailed as to what it even means or implies. I’ll give a few examples:

Early Creationism: Micro vs. Macro

Early in the modern creation science movement started by Dr. Henry Morris, there was the teaching in creationist circles that there were two different definitions of evolution: Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution. Micro and macro, of course, relate to size (small and big, respectively). Macro-Evolution is defined in creationist circles as one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal (the Biblical “kind” being referred to as found in Genesis 1). Micro-Evolution is defined as variation within a kind of animal. The early teaching of many creationists was that the evolutionists had confounded two theories of evolution (micro and macro) into one unified theory of evolution. Sure, animals evolve with small changes, but no observable large changes have been proven.

However, such a definition (or definitions) of evolution presented a problem. This problem was the evolutionist response, “Well, tons of micro-evolution will eventually lead to macro-evolution (over billions of years).” After all, you have to run short distances if you want to run a mile. The difference is time, and since the evolutionists think they have plenty of it, macro-evolution is thought to be a fact among them.

This response by the evolutionists eventually brought down the popularity of this definition of evolution, as shown by some influential creation ministries.

Hovind Creationism: Six Different Evolutions

One influential figure in the early creation movement was Dr. Kent Hovind. Dr. Hovind originally held to the two definitions of evolution previously mentioned (micro and macro). But after some time, he expanded it to six definitions of evolution and called it the “evolution worldview” promoted in public schools. Here are the six definitions of evolution Hovind gave:
  1. Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang
  2. Chemical Evolution: The Formation of the Elements
  3. Stellar Evolution: The Formation of the Stars
  4. Organic Evolution: The Origin of Life from Non-Life
  5. Macro Evolution: A Change of Kinds
  6. Micro Evolution: Variation Within A Kind
Such definitions of evolution were unique in the fact that they covered virtually the entire faulty timeline of the universe presented in public schools (along with micro and macro, of course).

Evolutionists didn’t really seem to have a solid objection to these definitions (except the last two, of course). The only objection I could find in my research is that the first four aren’t “evolution” in the biological sense of the word. However, those who use Hovind’s definitions can easily respond by saying “evolution” basically means change, and all these changes are in fact taught in modern schools. The issue then is one of preferred semantics with the first four.

However, Dr. Hovind seems to have done a disservice to these definitions by putting out a $250,000 challenge to have them proven. It isn’t the challenge per se that was the disservice (in my opinion), but rather the conditions of the challenge and its implications. See, he challenged the evolutionists to prove “evolution”. He said in his (now nonexistent) challenge page:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

  1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
  2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
  3. Matter created life by itself.
  4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
  5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
In other words, the challenge was that the first five definitions of evolution all be proven and without God. It’s kind of impossible to prove the non-existence of anything (especially God). Plus, there are plenty of deceived souls who believe the first five definitions of evolution and God! They are called theistic evolutionists. That alone sounded SCAM in the minds of many evolutionists. On top of that, to prove “evolution” you needed to prove all five of them. If you only proved four of them, you didn’t prove “evolution”. This was very unattractive to evolutionists. I personally think the offer should have rather have had a prize for if any of these forms of evolution could be proven correct. Regardless, this was a step in the right direction: all the lies in the classroom about the universe were addressed, not just the biological lie.

Modern Creationism: The Focus on DNA

After seeing the problems with the micro-macro distinction in evolution, some creation ministries (such as Creation Ministries International) decided to try to change the terminology of the creation movement. They basically changed Macro-Evolution to Addition of Genetic Information, and Micro-Evolution to No Addition of Genetic Information. Genetic Information is the information found in DNA (the blueprint of every living thing). DNA has unique codes to make up different forms of life.

Instead of a focus on big vs. small changes, there was a focus directly on the blueprint of life. The creation hypothesis concerning genetics is that no new information will be added to the DNA of anything. In other words, even the micro changes to a creature will never be in the right direction — they will never be the right kind of changes that would change soup into you. That’s because living soup needs new genetic information to build arms, legs, etc. The same with the rest of the evolutionary theory. Since no change was in the right direction anyways to create new kinds of animals, the objection that small changes can become big changes was defeated. Sure, small changes become big changes — but in the wrong direction! The animal “evolving” would die of disability before turning into another kind of animal because the genetic code wasn’t being added to (it was actually commonly degrading over time!).

Some creation ministries that still really like the words “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” still hold on to them, but have severely redefined them so that they no longer mean the same things. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, have mixed the micro-macro concept with CMI’s genetic focus and have come up with two new terms: Vertical Evolution and Horizontal Evolution. They still use “micro” and “macro” but only when they then define it as “horizontal” and “vertical” (respectively). Horizontal Evolution is defined as a change that doesn’t ADD (upward) genetic information. Vertical Evolution (upward) is defined as an ADDITION of genetic information. Running on a street won’t get you in space, and neither will the new “micro” get you to “macro” evolution. While such a redefinition is a step in the right direction, continuation of using “macro” and “micro” (which mean BIG and SMALL) will be confusing for someone, especially the evolutionist.

A Comeback of the Old Micro-Macro: Enter Ray Comfort

Recently, creationist Ray Comfort released a film against evolution called “Evolution Vs. God”. In it, he brings back the old creationist concept of micro and macro meaning small and big, but with different terms (this is possibly due to the fact that he used to be friends with Dr. Kent Hovind who also promoted the micro-macro distinction). He first tosses out “micro-evolution” in place of simply “variation within a kind”, and then replaces “macro-evolution” with Darwinian Evolution. But other than the change in terminology, it’s the same definition as the classical creationist definition of evolution (which brings back the evolutionary objection associated with it).

But even though this was a huge mistake to bring back faulty terminology that doesn’t take into account genetics, there was one good improvement: the name “Darwinian” applied to evolution. “Darwinian” implies evolution specifically in the field of biology connected with Charles Darwin. Sometimes, Neo (new) -Darwinian Evolution is used in popular contexts to imply Darwin’s ideas applied to genetics (DNA was unknown of in Darwin’s time). However, simply “Darwinian” gets the point across that this is the modern theory of Darwin’s suggested biological evolution.

A Solution to the Definition Debate

Here, I will be providing my own definition of “evolution” gleaned upon by the previous attempts by creation scientists. I believe Dr. Hovind’s concept of touching all subjects of the public school’s indoctrination program is excellent. I also think the focus on DNA should replace the old micro-macro concept, and I also prefer to NOT call Biblical variation within a kind “evolution”. The following is my modified formula:
  1. Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang
  2. Stellar Evolution: The Formation of Stars
  3. Chemical Evolution: The Formation of the Elements
  4. Galactic Evolution: The Formation of Galaxies
  5. Organic Evolution: The Origin of Life From Non Life
  6. Darwinian Evolution: The Addition of New Genetic Information
As you can see, this is very similar to Dr. Hovind’s formulation of “evolution”, with some important differences. First of all, Stellar and Chemical Evolution are switched. This is because the modern theory of the evolution of the universe has stars forming first to then produce all the elements by fusion and supernovae. I added in Galactic Evolution, since Hovind’s didn’t seem to have the formation of Galaxies or Planets (which is important, since you can’t have life evolving without planets — plus there’s some problems with the modern theories of galaxies evolving). I removed “micro-evolution” since that’s Biblical and shouldn’t be called evolution, and changed “macro” to “Darwinian” (since it covers the modern biological theory of evolution).


I hope this will spark some dialogue in the creation movement to solidify what we actually mean by “evolution”, so that we can refute the same devilish theory taking lost souls to hell by the billions. Please share with me your thoughts in the comments section.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Dr. Peter Ruckman Gone To Be With Christ

The world has lost another righteous man as it grows more wicked. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

“Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.” ~ Psalm 116:15 King James Bible.

Monday, March 28, 2016

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

My Giant Bible List ALMOST Wiped Out!

Recently, I checked my Big List of Bibles: and found a lot of versions were gone. The reason being, that (a free website that housed tons of free Bibles) just went offline (check it out to see what I mean). With this reduction in Bibles, I quickly searched for every one of their Bibles I had linked to my website. Thankfully, all but one Bible was restored by other various sources (that exception being The New Testament: A New Translation in Plain English - 1963 Charles K. Williams). To make up for it, I accidentally found another free Bible I did not previously have on my website (The Open English Bible 2014).

All of this is very important to me because with these Bibles come not only historical time pieces, but also miniature lexicons that provide supporting evidence for translational readings in the King James Bible that are changed in other pop versions.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

New Scientific Project #ForceTheLine

In 1897, Geodesist Ulysses G. Morrow conducted a groundbreaking experiment that decidedly changed the shape of the earth forever. This experiment is known as the rectilineator experiment. The concept of the experiment was to force a straight line via mechanical process. The rectilineator experiment took place at Naples Beach, Florida, and demonstrated that the earth is actually a concave sphere we live in rather than a convex ball we live on. For more information of this shocking experiment, please watch the below documentary about it:

I firmly believe that the rectilineator experiment must be redone in order to show a scientific evidence for the shape of the earth. Relying on indirect evidences (e.g. flatness of horizon, transit of Venus, shadows) will not give any indication of the correct shape of the earth. See why here:

The only possible method to scientifically determine the shape of the earth is by mechanically forcing a straight line over a few miles. Then, the curvature of the earth can be compared to and determined from that straight line.

As time goes by, more and more people within different earth shape communities are seeing the need to conduct this experiment. For example, Brian Mullin (a popular figure in the flat earth community) made a video calling for people to do a rectilineator type experiment. His video even sparked the flat earth hashtag, #ForceTheLine:

The bottom line is that we have no scientific clue as to what the shape of the earth might be. That’s where I come in. I want the rectilineator to be redone and retested. That way, convex earthers, flat earthers, and concave earthers can see with their own eyes the mechanical result of forcing a line.

If this fund reaches its goal, I will personally dedicate my time and effort to rebuilding the rectilineator exactly the same way as was done in 1897 (with the exceptions of working in metric instead of US due to its scientific simplicity, and of using a 100 meter long water tube instead of the ocean to measure the water line). I will personally buy and cut the wood, make a 4 meter level, and travel to Florida to examine the remains of the original rectilineator (I live in California). After that, I will seek out a beach in California to do it. This experiment will also be video recorded 24/7 throughout the entire project and available for public viewing online.

If you have the desire to determine with scientific certainty the shape of the earth, please donate and help this project succeed. Thank you.

“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10, King James Bible).

Donate at

Saturday, February 6, 2016

“I Admit, I've Sinned.” - The Sin of Debate

I’ve done it just about every time I opened up my (now gone) Facebook page. I’ve challenged others to do it with me, and even succeeded in a live display of this sin: public debating. I know, I know, some of you are thinking, “Well he’s gone off the deep end now! What’s so bad about public debating? Isn’t that what Ken Ham did with Bill Nye?” Well, I’m here to tell you plainly that it’s a sin. Just do a simple word study of “debate” in the King James Bible, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” (Romans 1:29).

Below is an excellent sermon by Pastor Bryan Denlinger outlining from the King James Bible that public debate is a sin. I hereby repent from it and will never do such again. I urge you to make the same decision...which means you might have to quit Facebook for a while. :-)