Kirk Cameron’s “Saving Christmas” Film

It is with unhappiness and much sadness that I write this article as it relates to two men I came to respect and love in the ministry and had the privilege of meeting, labouring with and being instructed in the ways of open-air preaching and sharing the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the providence of our Great God and Saviour I was able to leave the shores of Africa and visit the United States of America in June 2008 and briefly attend the Ambassadors’ Academy 3, a ministry of Living Waters, under the leadership of the two brothers in the faith, namely Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron of The Way of the Master ministry.

Just recently I viewed Kirk Cameron’s Facebook page where he had been promoting his “Saving Christmas” film as depicted here-above. I had been made aware of this film through an article that appeared at Christian News Network where it is surprisingly quoted:

Was Santa Claus a Christian? A ‘defender of the faith’? Is this reason to sit on the lap of the bearded man at the mall who “knows if you’ve been naughty or nice”? That is what Kirk Cameron is claiming as proof why Christians should celebrate Christmas in a new documentary that opens this Friday [November 14, 2014] in theatres across the country—an assertion that is raising concerns over Cameron’s confusion of Roman Catholicism with Christianity.

Cameron, best known for his role as Mike Seaver on the 80’s TV sitcom “Growing Pains” and films such as “Fireproof” and “Left Behind,” has been promoting his new film “Saving Christmas,” in which the actor seeks to “keep Christ in Christmas,” stating that some holiday traditions aren’t so bad or pagan after all.

After recently asserting that Christians should celebrate Halloween, in a video clip released last week entitled “Do You Love Santa Claus,” Cameron stated that “maybe someone like Santa Claus is actually on our team.” He then released a second video providing the history of the figure of Santa Claus, who was actually the Roman Catholic Bishop Nicholas of Myra, Turkey under Pope Sylvester I.

“He was a devout Christian,” Cameron states, but not noting Nicholas’ Roman Catholic faith. Read more Here (Full Report)

Another Christian News Network article that should be read appears at this link: ‘Maybe the Grinch Had a Point’: Kirk Cameron’s ‘Saving Christmas’ Won’t Be Saved From Critics.

Whilst I have personally not viewed the film, and will not be viewing the same in its entirety, I have watched the trailer and read some reviews on it, and have also seen the comments on Kirk Cameron’s Facebook page – for the film vs. against the film; pro-Christmas vs. anti-Christmas; man’s pagan traditions vs. Biblical Historical Truth. It all makes for interesting reading, but there can be only one Truth. Just as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said:

31  . . . If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
36  If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. ~ John 8:31,32 & 36

This is the saddest part of this blog posting. I had placed a comment on Kirk’s Facebook wall, including the birth chart to the left (click on it to enlarge in another tab), and my comment was deleted. You read right – D E L E T E D. It appears that when one confronts error with the literal Biblical Historical Truth you are summarily deleted and not allowed to “play in the play-group.” I am saddened and really disappointed by how professing Christians can censure Christians if they do not agree with their world view! It goes much deeper than that as it is a matter of Truth vs. error and those in error do not want to listen! Well argue with the Word of God then. When one reads the Holy Scriptures, are you able to find “Christmas Day” mentioned in YHVH’s Holy Feast Days in Leviticus 23? Or maybe it was instituted in the New Testament and I have just missed the Chapter and Verse! No, you can’t find it, because it doesn’t exist.

Surprisingly an initial comment with the chart also appears to have mysteriously disappeared on Ray Comfort’s Facebook wall, and this before I reposted three more comments randomly! It is also very surprisingly that Kirk Cameron who is attempting to evangelise the masses has also changed his comment settings and you have to “possibly like” his page before you can comment thereon; or is the comment feature only not available to me? Well, getting back to the initial comment on Kirk’s page which went something along these lines, not verbatim as the original one was deleted:

Christian, please read your Holy Bible and you will find out that Yeshua, our Lord Jesus Christ, was born on 15 Tishri (September/October) at the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) and He was born in a Sukkot (Booth) and not a stable/cave. If you know what to look for start reading: Luke 1 and 2; 1 Chronicles 24:10; Leviticus 23:33-44; Deuteronomy 16:16; and many other Scriptures.

To help with the Scriptures quoted here-above please view the afore-stated Birth of Christ Chart together with the following powerpoint presentation: The Nativity of Yeshua HaMeshiach.

Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron receive literally thousands upon thousands of “hits/likes/shares/comments” on their Facebook accounts and it is mostly by idolising Christian folk. If a message is being proclaimed please make sure it is without error. In the past I too fell into the trap of “idolising” men such as Comfort and MacArthur, and I had to REPENT before God for being so caught up in men’s ministries in idolatry instead of listening to the leading Holy Spirit and walking with God. Don’t say it will never happen to you. For many of you it has already happened and you can’t see the woods for the trees!

The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the literal Biblical Historical Truth that I presented showed up the errors in Kirk Cameron’s “Saving Christmas.” My plea to ALL reading this is: Stop trying to put the Lord Jesus Christ into something He was never in to start off with! Do you think the “Christmas” practices that are undertaken every year were at His birth? Was there a Xmas tree and all the tinsel and trappings in the sukkot Yeshua, our Lord Jesus Christ was born in? Or do you think there is a Xmas tree in heaven before the throne of God Almighty every year to celebrate His Son’s birth? Obviously the first century believers never celebrated this way so why should you/we do so now? YES – certainly preach the Gospel at every opportunity including on December 25, but don’t be pagan like the rest of the heathen world. You can do so separated from the worldly system (see James 4:4). You are to be in the world, but not of the world, as it is written:

15  I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16  They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. ~ John 17:15-17

We are commanded to have unity in the Christian faith. Unfortunately we don’t see unity, but rather divisions. As it is written:

9  God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
10  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11  For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12  Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13  Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? ~ 1 Corinthians 1:9-13

3  Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ~ Ephesians 4:3-6

14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15  But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: ~ Ephesians 4:14,15

Christ Jesus made it abundantly clear how we are to remember Him. It is recorded what we are to do in remembrance of Him until He returns for His spotless, unified Bride:

23  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24  And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. ~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; read with Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19,20. [my emphasis]

Maybe Chris Williams, movie reviewer for the Advisor and Source in Michigan has it right. At the second Christian News Network report above, quote: “Williams said that in the end, “Kirk Cameron hasn’t made a movie for Christians. He’s made a movie for Kirk Cameron.””  I would have thought Kirk would contend for the faith and would have told the literal Biblical Historical Truth and stood as a light in this dark wicked world, and “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). We read further in Romans 13:12  “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11). The “Saving Christmas” film is not reproving the unfruitful works of darkness, but encouraging them. If this is so, then brother Kirk Cameron in sincere love I call you to repentance.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

_______________

P.S. This blog posting will be placed on my Facebook wall and Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron will be tagged accordingly.

The True English Bible is the King James Bible (1611/AV)

Proverb 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

pervert v. /per-vert/ 1 alter from an original meaning or state to a distortion of what was first intended. 2 lead away from what is right, natural, or acceptable.

© South African Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 3rd Edition 2002

Following on from the recent five part series titled “Pervert Translations and Publishers” which can be found here (please do read each part first if you have not already done so) – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 – as well as The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament Text blog posting; hereunder is a video that lines up with what has been recorded by writer under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Scripture tells us to test all things, as we are to be as the Bereans “… in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (see Acts 17:11).

After viewing this video (or before, depending on your preference) there is some exposing of the modern pervert bibles to be done, which impacts on what they teach, how doctrine is twisted and the blatant contradictions that ultimately will affect what you believe, your faith and your studying of the Holy Scriptures.

As you will see from what follows, I do believe what will be revealed here is under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Please understand, and do pray for discernment for our LORD God to open your eyes and do ask for wisdom and understanding. Also know this that if there is any contradictions between Bibles the Holy Spirit will not teach and guide you in all truth in both Bibles as there can only be one Truth! Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said:

John 16:13a  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: … [my emphasis]

John 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

We will first start off by saying that before the 1611 Authorized King James Bible there were other English translations that preceded the KJB. These were:

• John Wycliffe New Testament ca.1380 A.D.
• William Tyndale New Testament ca.1526 A.D.
• Myles Coverdale Bible 1535 A.D.
• Matthew Bible 1537 A.D.
• Great Bible 1539 A.D.
• Geneva Bible 1560 A.D.
• Bishops Bible 1568 A.D.

The 1611 Authorized King James Bible in English is the result of the preceding pioneers who stood against the papacy of the Roman Catholic church, and now for 403 years (1611-2014) the KJB has stood the test of time. We will be comparing the King James Bible against – “Today, the better English translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures” according to Dr. John MacArthur at page xxi under subheading Transmission in The MacArthur Study Bible Updated Edition, which he lists as follows:

1. New American Standard Bible (NASB);
2. English Standard Version (ESV); and
3. New King James Version (NKJV).

These translations as completed bibles have been in circulation for less than half a century from the year of their first printing: NASB 43 years (1971-2014), ESV 13 years (2001-2014) and NKJV 32 years (1982-2014).

Please also bear in mind that the three aforementioned translations that are being used, have also used modernised Greek Texts that have the influence of the two Cambridge professors Westcott and Hort – who not only hated the Textus Receptus calling it vile, but was involved with many heretic beliefs and practices including being members of spiritual clubs. You can also read “Chapter 8: Westcott and Hort” from “Gipp’s Understandable History of the Bible” © 1987 by Samuel C. Gipp). Here is also a short quote from Riplinger:

The Men Who Made Themselves Judges

Westcott and Hort were spiritualists. They sought out contact with the spiritual world (talking with the dead, etc.). Riplinger speaks much on this subject and also aligns them with the New Age movement. They started the “Ghostly Guild” in 1851 and before that the “Hermes Club” in 1845. Riplinger links the spiritualist teachings of Westcott and Hort to the occult teachings of Madame Helena P. Blavatsky who wrote the Lucifer magazine. Westcott, Hort, and Blavatsky are all forerunners of the modern day New Age movement which aims at one world religion.

The NASB uses the Greek Text, quote from page xxxi in the Foreword to The MacArthur Study Bible Updated Edition: “Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.”

The ESV, as quoted from page x in the Preface under Textual Basis and Resources, reads with regards to the Greek text used: “… and on the Greek text in the 1993 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. … Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th Edition …”

In respect of the NKJV, besides the “much speech” in the Preface at pages v and vi explaining The New Testament Text, writer will quote the following: “There is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals. Minor variations in hand copying have appeared through the centuries, before mechanical printing began about A.D. 1450. … In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the center-column notes of the present edition. It is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.” [Writer: This is not a faithful record that the NKJV editors want you to believe. This is the type of marketing hype men will stoop to to sell their product.] You can read more at this link: The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament Text blog posting.

Now let us look at a few errors (of thousands) that appear in the modern pervert bibles against the inspired and preserved, inerrant and infallible Word of God as contained in the 403 year old King James Bible.

Jehovah

In the modern translations of the Bible we see that the proper Name of God has been removed from the text. In some instances only a shortened version is recorded and most times only His titles are used. The most common name which is rendered God comes from the Hebrew word Elohiym. One of the titles for God is Lord, which is translated from the Hebrew word Adonay. While the Hebrew proper Name of God is known by the four letters YHVH, also known as the Tetragrammaton [from Greek τετραγράμματον, meaning “(consisting of) four letters”] is the Hebrew theonym יהוה (r to l Yodh Hē Vav Hē)(from classical Greek theos “god” and –onym “name”). This is one of the names of the national God of Israel used in the Hebrew Bible. While “Yahweh” is favoured by most Hebrew scholars and is widely accepted as the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah is the English translation of the Hebrew Name for God, which while it starts with the letter “J”, and many scholars may say there is no “J” in Hebrew, this is where they err. The English translation of the Hebrew word Yᵉhôvâh which starts with a “Y” is translated Jehovah which starts with a “J” in English. Being an English translation you have the English spelling not the Hebrew spelling, for example, like Israel in English and Yisrael in Hebrew. Further, out of reverence the Jews would not take YHVH’s sacred and holy Name upon their lips out of fear of breaking the Third Commandment of taking His Name in vain:

Exodus 20:7  Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Therefore, when Jews read the Torah they use the word Adonay (“Lord”). As a result, God’s Holy Name also is rendered in the English Bibles as LORD. Whilst the modern pervert bibles do explain in their prefaces why the word “LORD” appears, there is also the contention that “Bibles” do not have the proper Name of God in them. This is untrue. The King James Bible has God’s Name recorded as follows:

Exodus 6:3  And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18  That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2  Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4  Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

In The Strong’s Complete Word Study Concordance Expanded Edition, 2004, JEHOVAH is translated from the Hebrew word:

3068 יהוה , Yᵉhôvâh, yeh-ho-vaw’; from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: – Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069.

A noun meaning God. The word refers to the proper name of the God of Israel, particularly the name by which He revealed Himself to Moses (Ex 6:2,3). The divine name has traditionally not been pronounced, primarily out of respect for its sacredness (cf. Ex 20:7; Dt28:58). Until the Renaissance, it was written without vowels in the Hebrew text of the OT, being rendered as YHWH. However, since that time, the vowels of another word ‘ădônây (136), have been supplied in hopes of reconstructing the pronunciation. Although the exact derivation of the name is uncertain, most scholars agree that its primary meaning should be understood in the context of God’s existence, namely that He is the “I AM THAT I AM” (Ex 3:14), the One who was, who is, and who always will be (cf. Rev 11:17). …

Now let us look at the NASB, ESV and NKJV et al compared to the King James Bible:

KJB – Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

NASB – Exodus 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, ²LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

ESV – Exodus 6:3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty,² but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.

NKJV – Exodus 6:3 “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD¹ I was not known to them.

Whilst each of the above translations exclude the Name of God YEHOVAH from the main body of text, the NASB has a column note “²Heb YHWH, usually rendered LORD.” So why does the NASB rather record a title, for that is what the word LORD or Lord is just that, a title? Therefore, God is named a title, and at the same time doubt is created in the readers’ minds. In the ESV the only footnote on this portion of Scripture is not for LORD, but for God Almighty which reads: “²Hebrew El Shaddai.” It is also noted in the 1982 NKJV by a footnote: “¹Hebrew YHWH, traditionally Jehovah.” So why don’t they say it in the main body of text? So therefore the King James Bible has always been correct for the past 403 years! The ESV just uses a title in this verse.

What is also of great significance is that the punctuation differs greatly from one translation to another, which can alter the manner in which the verses are conveyed. What must also be borne in mind is that whilst the more recent translations have adopted the practice of capitalising the subject, the object, and the possessive pronouns, when referring to God and His Son, it does not make the text more spiritual by this application. It does not appear that there was a hard and fast rule of practice in 17th century English to capitalise subject, object, and possessive pronouns, nouns, or the like, or use quotation marks for speech. However, capital letters are used when referring to Deity of the Godhead – Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the subject, object, and possessive pronouns can be understood in the context of the verses as read with the whole chapter and specific book of the Bible. The Holy Spirit brings understanding and it is made clear by studying the Scriptures.

Let us now look at the second set of Scriptures:

KJB – Psalm 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

NASB – Psalm 83:18 That they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth.

ESV – Psalm 83:18 that they may know that you alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth.

NKJV – Psalm 83:18 That they may know that You, whose name alone is the LORD, Are the Most High over all the earth.

No column or footnotes in the pervert translations to quantify or qualify the title LORD. God’s known Name is removed from the Holy Scriptures in the modern versions of this verse. In this particular verse God Almighty is emphatically stating His Name.

In the third set of Scripture:

KJB – Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

NASB – Isaiah 12:2 “Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; For the LORD GOD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation.”

ESV – Isaiah 12:2 “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD⁵ is my strength and song, and he has become my salvation.”

NKJV – Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation. I will trust and not be afraid; ‘For YAH the LORD, is my strength and song; He also has become my salvation.’”

In the aforementioned translations relating to Isaiah 12:2, the following is evident. The NASB once again has titles with no column notes, but Dr MacArthur attempts to explain LORD GOD in his commentary at page 954 of The MacArthur Study Bible Updated Edition: “The doubling of the personal name of God serves to emphasize His role as the covenant-keeping One.” This is not a faithful interpretation of the verse. The verse is speaking of trust in the One who gives salvation, but more importantly it is referring to the proper Name of God the LORD JEHOVAH (YHVH). The ESV has a footnote: “⁵Hebrew for Yah, the LORD.” The NKJV includes the abbreviated proper Name of YEHOVAH as YAH, which was previously referred to under the Hebrew word 3068 יהוה , Yᵉhôvâh and is the contracted version being the Hebrew word:

3050 יה , Yah, yaw’, contraction for 3068, and meaning the same, Jah, the sacred name – Jah, the Lord, most vehement. Cp. names in “-iah,” “-jah.”

A neuter pronoun of God, a shortened form of Yahweh, often translated “LORD.” This abbreviated noun for Yahweh is used in poetry especially in the Psalms. …

In closing this section, we will look at the fourth portion of Scripture comparisons hereunder:

KJB – Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

NASB – Isaiah 26:4 Trust in the LORD forever, For in ¹GOD the LORD, we have an everlasting Rock.

ESV – Isaiah 26:4 Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD GOD is an everlasting rock.

NKJV – Isaiah 26:4 Trust in the LORD forever, For in YAH, the LORD, is ¹everlasting strength.

Here the NASB and NKJV are attempting to quantify and qualify who the LORD is, whilst they do not appear to be sure how to record God’s proper Name. The NASB uses GOD and has a margin note: “¹Heb. YAH, usually rendered LORD.” And the NKJV uses YAH and has a footnote in reference to everlasting strength: “¹Or Rock of Ages.”

It is evident that the NASB, ESV, NKJV, et al have removed God’s proper Name from the main body of text. These versions might have column and footnote references, but ultimately they cause more dissension by creating doubt, division and mistrust as to what is in the Word of God or what is not! The root causes of this is two fold – firstly the deceptive work of Satan the devil and secondly the love of filthy lucre.

Who Killed Goliath?

According to most first graders attending Sunday School, David killed Goliath the Philistine of Gath – and that is what the Authorised King James Bible says, too (see 1 Samuel 17:49,50).

However, according to 2 Samuel 21:19 in the modern pervert translations Elhanan killed Goliath. From the comparisons of the various Scripture translations one can see that the King James Bible has it correct.

KJB – 2 Samuel 21:19  And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

NASB – 2 Samuel 21:19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, ¹killed ²Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

ESV – 2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.²

NKJV – 2 Samuel 21:19 Again there was war at Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of ¹Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

The NASB has the following column notes: “¹Lit smote ²In 1Ch 20:5, Lahmi, the brother of Goliath”. The MacArthur Study Bible Updated Edition at page 452 also records under the commentary the following: “21:19 Elhanan . . . killed Goliath. The minor scribal omission of “the brother of” (in the Heb.) belongs in the verse, based on 1Ch 20:5 which includes them, and because clearly the Scripture says that David killed Goliath as recorded in 1Sa 17:50. There has probably been a scribal error in the text which should read, “Elhanan . . . killed the brother of Goliath.” A second possible solution is that Elhanan and David may be different names for the same person, just as Solomon had another name (cf. 12:24,25). A third solution is that there were two giants named Goliath.” I would agree with MacArthur on the first part of his commentary that the words “the brother of” in italics confirms who was being slew, i.e. Lahmi, but the “second possible solution” cannot be correct. MacArthur is misleading in his suggestion as he is attempting to explain away the incorrect rendering of 1 Samuel 21:19 that has no Biblical foundation. There were two separate events, one where the Philistines were “gathered together at Shochoh, which belongeth to Judah, and pitched between Shochoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim.” (See 1 Samuel 17:1) In the second account in 2 Samuel 21:19 it reads: “And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines …” (my emphasis). This “second battle” in Gob was without David as in 2 Samuel 21:17b it reads: “… Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel.” The reason? Because “David waxed faint” (see 2 Samuel 21:15). This event preceded the battle at Gob. Also, Elhanan could not be David as Elhanan was the son of Jaare-oregim (Jair) whereas David was the son of Jesse (see 1 Samuel 17:12). Elhanan was one of David’s servants when you read this portion of Scripture in context. MacArthur’s “third possible solution” is also incorrect saying “that there were two giants named Goliath” because when one cross-references 1 Chronicles 20:5 it clearly states that the Philistine slew by Elhanan was named Lahmi the brother of Goliath:

1 Chronicles 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.

Further, the ESV has a footnote: “²Contrast 1 Chronicles 20:5, which may preserve the original reading.” If it “may preserve the original reading” then which is it? Then why does 2 Samuel 21:19 not read the same as 1 Chronicles 20:5 in the ESV for it creates doubt, for if one reads the 2 Samuel 21:9 account it says Elhanan killed Goliath. The NKJV has a footnote: “¹Jair, 1 Chr. 20:5”. Although the NKJV is the translation that is closest to the King James Bible on this particular issue, it lacks credibility in many other verses. It can be clearly seen that column and footnotes together with commentary notes can be misleading and deceptive.

>> No “New Testament” in the New Testament

Whilst we would agree that the Old Testament in the Bible primarily refers to a covenant between God and Israel and therefore referred to as an Old Covenant, our Lord Jesus Christ established a New Testament in His blood through death, as we read in Hebrews 9:15, as it is written:

Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

We will compare the Scriptures in the Lord’s Supper and those found in the Book of Hebrews, hereunder. We do note that the modern versions refer to a covenant, but there is no agreement as to whether it is a “covenant” or a “new covenant.”

SCRIPTURE VERSE	KJB (1611/AV)	NASB	ESV	NKJV
Matthew 26:28	new testament	covenant	² covenant	¹new covenant
Mark 14:24	new testament	covenant	¹ covenant	¹new covenant
Luke 22:20	new testament	new covenant	new covenant	new covenant
1 Corinthians 11:25	new testament	new covenant	new covenant	new covenant
2 Corinthians 3:6	new testament	new covenant	new covenant	new covenant
Hebrews 7:22	better testament	better covenant	better covenant	better covenant
Hebrews 9:15	new testament	new covenant	new covenant	new covenant
Hebrews 9:15	first testament	first covenant	first covenant	first covenant
Hebrews 9:16	testament	¹covenant	will	testament
Hebrews 9:17	testament	¹covenant	will	testament
Hebrews 9:18	first testament	first covenant	first covenant	first covenant

References in column and footnotes –

NASB – ¹testament

ESV – ² Some manuscripts insert new; ¹ Some manuscripts insert new

NKJV – ¹NU omits new

The problem arises with the use of “covenant” when Hebrews 9:16,17 comes around for it reads as follows in the King James Bible:

Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

All the pervert modern versions now correct the errors that they have translated as “covenant”. The NASB uses column notes to refer to “testament”; whilst the ESV uses the word “will”; whilst the unfaithful NKJV uses “testament.” The reason why writer has termed the NKJV “unfaithful” is as a result of the translators who had “set out to only correct the so-called archaic words, initially”, ended up performing a translation where whole words, sentence construction and even doctrines have been changed. Interchanging between “new covenant / covenant / testament” is not a faithful translation when reading the verses in context. Has our Lord Jesus Christ established a New Testament? or Covenant? The NKJV is a totally new translation piggy-backing on the name of the King James Bible, copyrighting a new and different bible for filthy lucre’s sake.

For many years, since 1985, writer was employed at the Master of the Supreme Court (now High Court) offices, at Trust Companies and Attorney Firms as an Estate Controller and Paralegal, and he has dealt extensively with deceased estates that include Last Will and Testaments. In all his years (and even to present date as he does some freelance work to support the ministry by the grace of God providing), writer has never come across a covenant that has been written up by a testator / testatrix. It has always been known as a testament. I have also never heard of lawyers reading out the covenant of the deceased to the heirs. It has always been the Will or Testament. You see a Testator is the author of his Testament. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Author of His Old and New Testaments.

Here are further documents that you should read to get the full picture:

>> Fables And Facts About The King James Bible

Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used for centuries. Such people have fallen for smooth advertising schemes and have actually started believing that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible. It’s very sad that most Christians today have not taken time to study the subject thoroughly enough to see what is really happening. [Read more Here]

>> Why Jesus Cannot Use the New King James Version

This is chapter 8 from Which Bible Would Jesus Use? by Jack McElroy, copyright 2013, used with permission. More information about this book can be found on Jack’s website.

Why can’t the Lord choose the ©1982 New King James Version?

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17) [Read more Here]

>> The Truth About The English SUBStandard Version

THE FRUIT OF THE ESV

The beginning of the ESV was May 1997 with a meeting headed by James Dobson. Dobson was deeply troubled with the gender-inclusive issues within the NIV and TNIV. The results of the meeting was the “proposed” creation of a new version without the new-age, homosexual, gender-inclusive agenda. Surprisingly, the “troubled” group united around the liberal and apostate Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. Thus the dubious birth of the ESV was conceived. In September 1998, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis received the blessing of the ecumenical National Council of Churches to build the ESV upon their 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version. And thus the ESV came to life. . . [Read more Here]

>> The Attack on the Bible

by Terry Watkins

God has placed a lot of importance upon His words.

Matthew 24:35 reads, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away.”
Psalms 138:2 says, “. . . for thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name.”
Psalms 119:89 says, “For ever, O LORD, thy WORD is settled in heaven.”

The spiritual life-blood of the human race is the word of God.

• It brings salvation: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. . .” (1 Peter 1:23)
• It produces faith: “. . . faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
• It produces spiritual growth: “. . .desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:” (1 Peter 2:2) [Read more Here]

>> Was the KJV inspired or preserved?

Related articles: Inspiration and Translation; Two Lies, The

The following is from Sam Gipp’s The Answer Book.

QUESTION: Is the King James Bible inspired or preserved?

ANSWER: The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible is those same autographs preserved up to today.

EXPLANATION: The best way to simply describe inspiration and preservation of the Bible is as follows:

Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus, vellum, etc.) and uses men to write His words. Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses men to preserve them to today. Both of these actions are DIVINE and are assured by God as recorded in Psalm 12:6,7.

6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

In Psalm 12:6 God assures us that His originals are perfect. Even though penned by fallible men with the heinous sins of: murder (Moses and David), adultery (David), idolatry (Solomon), and denial of the Lord (Peter). God’s words are untainted by the sins of the penmen.

That the originals were inspired perfect in their entirety is an undisputed belief among fundamentalists today. [Read more Here]

We conclude with the following statement –

“I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord … We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words … it’s wrong, it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong … I’m in trouble; … I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can’t refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening … there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven’t gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort’s corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn’t gone into it … that’s how easily one can be deceived … Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?”

Dr. Frank Logsdon
Co-founder, New American Standard Version

>> Logsdon’s Pro KJV Anti NASV – Download MP3

“Frank Logsdon was a major player in the development of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He was a friend of Dewey Lockman, and was involved in a feasibility study involving purchasing the copyright of the American Standard Version (ASV) with Lockman that lead to the eventual production of the NASB. He interviewed some of the translators for the job, and even wrote the preface to the translation.

“Slowly, he became aware that there was something wrong with the NASB. He eventually rejected it, and promoted the KJV. This was a major defection for the modern version crowd.

“Below is his speech, in it’s entirety, rejecting the NASB, and endorsing the Textus Receptus and the KJV. (The complete transcript is available here)” ~ quoted from the website www. defendproclaimthefaith.org

If you do not believe that God has inspired and preserved His Word in an English Bible then that leaves you as a bible agnostic!

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Strange Fire

Just recently the Grace to You ministry of Grace Community Church under the leadership of Pastor / Teacher Dr John MacArthur held a three day Strange Fire Conference in Southern California from October 16-18, 2013. While I have previously followed most of the speakers and do welcome the preaching against the false teachings of the Pentecostal / Charismatic / Word of Faith (PCWoF) movements, there still remains some teachings that I do not agree with. One teacher that teaches well is Justin Peters in his A Call For Discernment; I attended his conference that took place at KwaSizabantu Mission at Kranskop, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa in 2012. As early as August 5, 2013, I also got to hear of Conrad Mbewe of Zambia and also posted his blog-posting Why is the Charismatic Movement Thriving in Africa at my Luke 9:23 Evangelism blog.

Whilst I am NOT a Calvinist, and I am NOT an Arminian, I do see myself as a Biblist that believes what is written in the Holy Word of God, The Bible. In faith I take what is written therein to be the very Words of God and Truth for all teaching as it is written in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 ~

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. ~ 2 Timothy 3:16,17

One of the most theologically sound teachings I heard from the Strange Fire Conference was the presentation by Dr Steve Lawson entitled The Puritan Commitment to Sola Scriptura. Agreeing with what was expounded, based on the five points of Calvinism, does not make me a follower of Calvin or should even term me a Calvinist – it can be seen from the Bible what is True. Instead of taking on the name of another man as a Calvinist (who incidentally had Michael Servetus murdered because of a theological disagreement), I do rather profess to being a follower, a disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore need not ascribe to any man’s doctrine to confirm what I believe. The litmus test is: Are you truly a follower after God’s Word – Sola Scriptura? Or is there Strange Fire even in what you believe? We read of the account regarding strange fire from the Holy Scriptures, as it is written in Leviticus 10:1,2 ~

1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Now, whilst much can be learned from the preachers / pastors / teachers from the Strange Fire conference exposing false prophets (see Jeremiah 14:14; Matthew 7:15, 24:11,24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1), false apostles (see 2 Corinthians 11:13), false teachers (see 2 Peter 2:1) and healers – in a description wolves in sheep’s clothing (see Matthew 7:15) – we come to Scriptures that seem to be overlooked by the same main stream teachers that do expose error. If we are to hold to Sola Scriptura, then we are to teach accordingly in all matters the Word of God; this even includes the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ and His crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. It is worrisome to see that Dr John MacArthur, who is an expository preacher, has ignored the Scriptures that give the very historical date that can be calculated of the birth of our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. It is sad that many believers still brandish the name “Christmas” around when this very word does not appear in Scripture. If anyone would want to refer to the birth of Christ, a more accurate way would be to refer to His nativity and not use the pagan infested word of “Christmas” – the mass of Christ with its pagan and popish traditions. As one of the most quoted preachers Charles Spurgeon preached on December 24, 1871, said, quote [writer’s emphasis in italics and bold]:

We have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas: first, because we do not believe in the mass at all, but abhor it whether it be said or sung in Latin or English; and secondly, because we find no scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of the Saviour; and, consequently, its observance is a superstition, because not of divine authority. [C. H. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1971, pg. 697].

John MacArthur’s ministry promotes “Christmas” and along with it the purchasing of his books (even some having “Christmas” in the titles) and other materials as “Christmas” gifts (refer to the many times Carl Miller promotes the buying of “Christmas” gifts on the Grace to You radio show). To hold to Sola Scriptura in the Holy Word of God according to the Gospel of Luke which gives pertinent historical and Hebrew information, we can see that the Scriptures tell us that the birth of the Saviour of the world was at the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). To preach and teach anything else is heresy. When the whole world appears to worship or celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25, discernment would warrant that we should test why Roman Catholics, New Agers, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Word of Faith, unbelievers, pagans, Christians and many other religious and cult groupings “celebrate” at this festival day. One should then ask the questions:

a) What has Christ and Belial in common? and

b) How can a Christian for the love of God mix His Truth with Satan’s deception?

What I have found really disturbing is how preachers would negate certain teachings or teach falsely to fit with the preachers’ dogma. A point in question can be seen from an extract from John MacArthur’s sermon The Announcement of Jesus’ Birth, Part 1 from July 11, 1999 which says, quote [writer’s emphasis in bold]:

And so typically shepherds would stay out in the fields on the elevated plain of Jerusalem, the mountain area near Jerusalem from April to November typically. That’s one of the reasons why people doubt that Jesus was born in December because typically the shepherds wouldn’t be there in December. Well you can’t really be dogmatic about that either, we don’t know what month it was. There is really no way to know. We don’t even know what year Jesus was born, somewhere between 6 and 4 B.C. He was born as we calculated the calendar back, we can’t be specific, we don’t have enough data for that. There’s no reason to believe it was December 25, that was invented in order to try to sanctify a pagan festival. They thought if they put the birth of Christ celebration on the same day as Saturnalia, the worship of the sun god, they could sanctify that and all they did was corrupt the celebration of the birth of Christ with all the Christmas legend. It backfired on them. But there’s no way to know when He was born. It is possible they could have still been out there in December, we don’t know that.

What Dr. MacArthur says is that “There’s no reason to believe it was December 25” and that the date was a “pagan festival” and further “But there’s no way to know when He was born.” All three statements are contradictory and therefore misleading and deceptive for we certainly can calculate when our Lord Jesus Christ was born if we will just believe the Scriptural text and do the math from the very pertinent information provided to us in the Scriptures. Here is an extract from a book writer wrote titled The Birth, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ [incidentally the Christian printers I approached would not undertake the project of printing the book – I guess it goes against the fabric of man’s traditions and customs – you can email me to obtain a pdf version] that reads as follows [Quote]:

To calculate when the course of Abijah would appear in the year we need to first understand the Jewish calendar. The time when Jesus Christ was born into this world, the Jewish calendar would be using the post exilic sacred months as recorded in the above diagram on this page.

The Jewish Calendar

MONTHPRE- / POST EXILIC	OF YEAR SACRED / CIVIL	MODERNEQUIVALENTMONTHS
Abib / Nisan	1 / 7	March / April
Ziv / Iyyar	2 /8	April / May
Sivan	3 / 9	May / June
Tammaz	4 / 10	June / July
Ab	5 / 11	July / August
Elul	6 / 12	August / September
Ethanim / Tishri	7 / 1	September / October
Bul / Heshvan	8 / 2	October / November
Chislev	9 / 3	November / December
Tebeth	10 / 4	December / January
Shebat	11 / 5	January / February
Adar	12 / 6	February / March

Therefore, the year would start off in the month of Nisan and the months were based on the lunar calendar of 30 days per month. This would therefore equate, according to the Jewish calendar, to a 360-day lunar year. In accordance with the course that the priests would appear in the Temple, the calculation would be:

24 Courses multiplied by 2 Temple duties a year equals 48 weeks, plus the three pilgrimage weeks which totals 51 weeks.

The 51 weeks equate to 357 days which fits within the 360-day lunar year calendar.

As a result of these calculations we can therefore see that the course of Abijah, i.e. the eighth course (1 Chronicles 24:10), would serve the tenth week during the first half of the year, as a result of the following:

• Passover / Feast of Unleavened Bread were celebrated starting on 14th / 15th Nisan:

⁵In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’S passover. ⁶And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. ⁷In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.⁸But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. ~ Leviticus 23:5-8

• The Feast of Weeks [Shavuot (Pentecost)]:

¹⁵And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: ¹⁶Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD. ~ Leviticus 23:15,16

Zechariah had his vision while serving in the eighth course of Abijah, which fell in the tenth week of the year, calculating from the beginning of the sacred year in the month Nisan. As with the manner of women, let us add two weeks to comply with the purity laws (Leviticus 15:19,25) which would then bring the conception of John to be in or about the 12th week of the year. If John was born about thirty-nine weeks (nine months) later (for we are not sure of the exact day of conception calculated at about 39 weeks from Elisabeth’s last menstruation cycle) during the fifty-first week (12 + 39 = 51) that would bring us to the birth of John at the Passover festival. [Our present day calendar works on a 52 week year, but according to the Jewish calendar they were working on a lunar 360-day calendar, that equates to approximately 51 weeks.] The writer believes that in God’s providence John the Baptist was born at Passover at the very time that Elijah was, according to the Jewish tradition, supposed to appear.

Now, continuing and using the calculations in operation and the Scriptures told, God’s mandate is perfect and He is very specific about times and shadows of events to come (past, present and future), that His Son Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit six months (about 26 weeks) after John the Baptist’s conception. For we know that the Scriptures say that “thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her” (Luke 1:36). This means Christ Jesus was conceived about the 38th week around the festival Hanukkah. This would also mean the Light of the world [see John 1:9] was conceived during the festival of lights! Conceived, not born in flesh entering into the world, as the Christmas holiday dictates – there is a huge difference here!

To fulfil prophecies, the prophecy would have to be fulfilled to the last detail and therefore it would be clear to understand in fulfilment of God’s prophetic Words, God would not generalize specifics as this would take away from His omniscient glory. To be precise in the prophetic Word given, God, being a God of divine order, would be exact and precise in bringing His Word to pass, just as the star (see Matthew 2:2) in the night sky appeared at the exact time He sent it to appear, and the angel Gabriel appeared at the exact time he was sent by God as His messenger, so too was the birth of His Only Begotten Son precisely when God chose for His Son to enter this world – on time to the last detail, as we read:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, ~ Galatians 4:4

Therefore, understanding God’s precise mandate and ordination of all things, Jesus was born thirty-nine weeks later (around week 76 from the beginning of our calculations at the preceding year’s month of Nisan; that is week 25 of the following year) which brings us to the time of the autumn (fall) Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) in the month Tishri (i.e. September/October). Is God giving us a Revelation of when He revealed Himself as His Son, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin and entered into this world as the God-Man? – “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) – “Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (see Matthew 1:23). [End Quote]

___________

From research we also notice that for about the first 4 centuries no such tradition of “Christmas” was recorded by the early Church celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ and we can also pick up that “Christmas” was not entertained by such men in later years as the Puritans, the Reformers, John Knox, the Scots, the English, by settlers of America and by Charles H. Spurgeon, to mention but a few.

“So why did the Scots ban Christmas? Depending on which site you visit, the blame generally seems to lie with John Knox and dates range for 1562 to 1583, even though he was dead in 1572. What is certain is that with Cromwell and the Puritans, the rest of Britain took on the Scottish policy and Christmas was banned in 1644, being changed by parliamentary decree to a fast day rather than a “popish holiday”.

Charles II restored Christmas in 1660. Unfortunately for America, the Puritans took their anti-Christmas beliefs to America with them. Christmas was banned in Massachusetts in 1659, with the law remaining on the statute books for 22 years, which is strange as the same state was the first one in the US to make Christmas a legal holiday in 1856.

Pennsylvania and New England resisted Christmas celebration too for long periods.”

___________

Spurgeon also said, quote: “When it can be proved that the observance of Christmas, Whitsuntide, and other Popish festivals was ever instituted by a divine statute, we also will attend to them, but not till then. It is as much our duty to reject the traditions of men, as to observe the ordinances of the Lord. We ask concerning every rite and rubric, “Is this a law of the God of Jacob?” and if it be not clearly so, it is of no authority with us, who walk in Christian liberty.” (from Charles Spurgeon’s Treasury of David on Psalm 81:4.)

“Knox believed in the Regulative Principle of Worship, that anything offered to God in Worship should be fully and unequivocally sanctioned in Scripture. Needless to say, because there is no ‘Christmas’ in the Bible, and because we are to do nothing to diminish God’s commands in worship, Knox had no time whatsoever for a Christmas festival, or any other religious festival. He wrote . . .

“That God’s word damns your ceremonies (referring to Christmas and the other Roman Catholic inventions), it is evident; for the plain and straight commandment of God is, ‘Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes, shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee, that do thou: add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.’ Now unless that ye are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies, this his former commandment will damn both you and them.”

See Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 ~

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deut 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

(Quote from John Knox’s History of the Reformation in Scotland (Ed. by William Croft Dickinson; New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), Vol. 1, p. 91.)

So is there Strange Fire being offered to God contrary to what He has commanded? I do think so – it is worship of God not as God has commanded! What Scripture does tell us, and Sola Scriptura for that matter, is that we are to remember the death of our Lord Jesus Christ until He returns at His second coming, as it is written:

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. ~ Luke 22:19,20

and

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. ~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

And then, to cap it all off, here is a disturbing teaching that John MacArthur teaches regarding the taking of the mark of the beast. MacArthur says that a person could take the mark of the beast and still be saved. If he holds to this teaching, he is misleading people due to the fact that the Scriptures teach that those that take the mark of the beast are damned to the lake of fire for they worship the beast. This is what the Holy Scriptures – Sola Scriptura – reads in Revelation 14:9-11 ~

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Since the same sermon [Q&A session] remains up on the Grace to You website and has not been removed; and it appears that MacArthur has not recanted his early teaching on this issue nor publically repented for this false teaching, there is Strange Fire in John MacArthur’s ministry that is heresy and goes against the Word of God! Here is a video that deals specifically with this issue:

In closing, another thing that is disturbing is that the Grace to You ministry is not satisfied with tithes and offerings, the selling of books, CDs, DVDs and other merchandise, but they also request people to partner with them and to donate to their ministry. It’s a very prosperous ministry, akin to the prosperity preachers’ ministries of TBN, and yet they could not answer a call for some financial help on June 6, 2011, nor even having the courtesy of answering the email. I am reminded of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ ~

35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. ~ Act 20:35

SOLI DEO GLORIA