Revival News Archives
January to March 2006 (Part 2)
4) Removal of the Landmarks
 The landmarks of George,  Stephen and Edward Jeffreys, Smith Wigglesworth, Charles Harthern, Howard Carter, D.P. Williams, in the U.K. have been largely removed for the lure of academic learning and apparent chasing after current "moves of God". In my time at what was Elim Bible College, now physically named Regents Theological College - a removal of a landmark in itself, the very word God gave to Elim's founder George JeApril 1, 2007hen Principal of the Assemblies of God College describing the fulfilment passage of Matthew 8:16,17 as a mere evangelistic aside by Matthew. Note the attack on the Word here for Jesus had cast out spirits with HIS WORD! See the attack as with Jezebel on the word!
Deuteronomy 19:14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it. Deuteronomy 27:17 Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Job 24:2 Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed thereof. Job 24:13 They are of those that rebel against the light; they know not the ways thereof, nor abide in the paths thereof.
Proverbs 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 23:10 Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless: 11 For their redeemer is mighty; he shall plead their cause with thee
Hosea 5:10 The princes of Judah were like them that remove the bound [NKJV: a landmark]: therefore I will pour out my wrath upon them like water.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king. I Sam. 15:23
Continuation of the Word given to me from the Lord at Rhos: 09 September 2004
The political system has been changed to pander to the 'gimmee, gimmee' brigade. The political system in Britain is responsible for the death of more children than any other system that's existed upon this earth. By ignoring the Christian constitution of  your nation - by the breaking of the Acts of Parliament you have brought to the forefront, you've seen a turning away from the Christian values of your nation. You've seen a breaking of the Act of Union which has been in the construction of an apparent parliament in Edinburgh, which is no more than a fiasco of masonry. In Scotland you have bound up the Leviathan, taking the same action there as you did in Cornwall. You are to warn the people of Scotland that what you've witnessed in Cornwall is to happen in their nation too - for the complete disregard for the constitutional acts of Britain has placed the nation under a curse - for it's been these acts that has placed the nation under blessing.
(Picture shows Boscastle, Cornwall before the great flood - as in Boscastle - this nation needs to return to its Christian Constitution and come back to the rock on which it is built)
"The Church is My covering of a nation, & as you witnessed a church embracing witchcraft at Boscastle, you've witnessed a falsehood in the islands of Scotland - a falsehood of dead religion - for it's from the islands that I brought Christianity to Scotland, & it's from the sea that destruction will come, unless My Church picks up the mantle of the fathers
5) Widespread Rejection of the Authorised Version Landmark
No greater  landmark than the Word of God himself! John 1. Without getting into too much technical detail it would seem that the new translations are based on two manuscripts: the Vaticanus (Codex B) and the Sinaiticus (Codex Alaiph), Westcott and Hort leaning heavily on Codex B in relation to their underlying Greek used in the Revised Version of 1881 and more recently in the N.I.V., Good News Bible etc. etc.
What concerns me is the contradiction that exists today between the versions that are based on the underlying Greek presented by Westcott and Hort and that of the Received Text known more commonly in its Latin form Textus Receptus. The use of the word "received" simply means that this is the text that had been passed on through the centuries from generation to generation as the inspired Word of God until today! Today we have confusion between the versions of Westcott and Hort - the N.I.V. Good News Bible, Revised Standard etc. etc. and the Authorised Version based on Textus Receptus.
Many "churches" today have doctrines out of line with the "received" text passed on through the ages preferring to develop belief systems based on the different doctrines that have come through the work of Westcott and Hort. Here are just some examples:
Daniel 3:25. NIV: He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods"
A.V. : He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the foApril 1, 2007f God or sons of the gods? How do you refer to Jesus? THE WORD STATES: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; Deut. 6:4 and whilst accepting that God now has sons; For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God; Rom. 8:14 who are partakers of the divine nature; II Peter 1:4 and that the Bible does refer to God's children being gods; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34 this is in the context of our oneness with Christ Jesus. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; John 17:22.
The John 10 passage declares I and my Father are one; 10:30 and so the Daniel 3 passage must relate to Jesus standing with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego going through their fiery trial within the context of having a trust in one God; the A.V. being monotheistic and the N.I.V. referring to Jesus as one of many gods! Westcott (underlying Greek to modern versions) commenting on John 10:30 declared; "it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power." The oneness of God is, therefore, being questioned leaving Jesus as a distinct being from the Father, we can only assume as one of many gods!; this comment being consistent with Hort's reference to "a holy spirit".
This apparent "Son of God" denial continues in John 6:69 where it would seem Simon Peter in the N.I.V. declares Jesus to be only "the Holy One of God" whilst the A.V. boldly declares Simon Peter saying, "And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." On the same theme Acts 8:37 is omitted by the NIV; the A.V. declaring Philip saying; "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered (the Eunuch) and said 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God'"
The lack of the term "Lord" in the NIV also supports the view that the N.I.V. writers are denying the very deity of Jesus and examples of this are in Luke 23:42; John 9:35,36; I Cor. 15:47.
If this is not enough proof, then please look at I Timothy 3:16 which states simply in the NIV that and I quote "He appeared in a body" whereby the A.V. declares "God was manifest in the flesh."
Micah  5:2 NIV: But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.
A.V. But thou, Beth-lehem Eph-ra-tah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Here the whole question of Jesus position in the Godhead is in question for in the N.I.V. his origins are only from ancient times whereas the A.V. is in line with with Col. 1:17; And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. This question of Jesus position in the Godhead continues in the N.I.V. Matt. 8:2 which states that the leper only knelt before him. The A.V. clearly states that he worshipped. To seemingly support Jesus relegation from the Godhead, Hort refers to Rev. 3:14 in which Jesus refers to himself as being, the beginning of the creation of God. "The words might no doubt bear the Arian meaning 'the first thing created" declared Hort; Arius (256-336 A.D.) being the pioneer of the teaching that Jesus was a created being, the primary Christological doctrine of present day Jehovah's Witnesses.
William  Tyndale gave his life praying for the King to authorize the real Bible in English, and so we know that blood was shed for the Word to be passed on from generation to generation but now it would seem that the Word of God has been replaced by versions that have appeared from the halls of the English University system at Cambridge where Westcott and Hort were students and teachers.
I now move on from the technical information, well documented by many on the internet and in many books to my own personal experience in the British University system studying theology. God told me on no account to accept the Manchester University degree offered to me as it would affect the prophetic anointing God had given me, to have no truck with this system of the world that had been infiltrating and taking away places of learning including what was Elim Bible College, Nantwich, Cheshire and the Emmanuel Bible College, Birkenhead which were both mighty training places for missionaries sending men and women all over the World with the Word of God. Both were taken over by the University system and now are skeletons of their former selves, both colleges being taken over by the same University the Assemblies of God magazine Redemption Tidings warned about in 1924.
I can only talk of the fruit and my experience, Bruggeman declares that Westcott and Hort did not hold to the fundamental Christian doctrines of the inspiration of scripture and the doctrine of blood atonement. Bruggemen is declaring this but Bruggeman is a man reporting history. The proof is in the word and following is a key scripture in relation to scripture. The key question is not what people are saying about Westcott and Hort with their new underlying Greek presentations but do the newly presented manuscripts match up with the truly inspired word, and are their fruits to show it?
II Tim. 3:16,17 NIV: All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
A.V.: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
There  is a major doctrinal difference here and the reason why those, like us who are portraying Wesley's doctrine of perfection are having problems reaching those infected by the new translations. The A.V. declares the scripture to be inspired by God to enable the man of God to be perfect, our perfection coming through Christ Jesus, perfection being omitted in the N.I.V. In addition to this the omission of blood from Col. 1:14 is in line with widespread questioning of blood atonement in the University theological system of Britain dominated by Westcott and Hort "Bibles". It is, therefore, time to have the true English Bible restored to the "Churches", the Bible which William Tyndale shed his blood for, and the Bible which emphasizes the blood of Christ Jesus.
Col. 1:14 NIV: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins
A.V.: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
There is no end of information about Westcott and Hort's involvement in the Cambridge "Ghost Club", a club seemingly devoted to necromancy, the organization moving on from this into the beginnings of the modern "New Age" movement and operations of "channeling" through the follow on organization: Society for Psychical Research. One of the leading members of this society was a student of Westcott called Henry Sidgwick who declared; "Recent historical and textual criticism had shown beyond doubt that most of the evidence for the New Testament miracles (not to mention the Old Testament) can not be unfairly described as remote and hearsay...[I]t is quite certainly far weaker than the evidence for, let us say, the miraculous events associated with modern Spiritualism." [quoted by Riplinger from pg. 53 of The Founders of Psychical Research ].
We are now dealing with a root in the British University system and its influence on modern day ministers who clearly are so often bound with doubt and unbelief. I went to Elim Bible College pulsating with the passion of its founder George Jeffreys and the great healing crusades of the 1930's but was met with this barrage of unbelief, one paper by David Petts, the then Assemblies of God Bible College Principal stating that he did not accept that sickness was a result of Adam's sin and that healing was indirectly in the atonement. (Petts D. Healing and the Atonement. EPTA Bulletin. Journal of the E.P.T.A. Vol. X11 1993. p.34,35. The wonder working power of Jesus is in the blood and so if blood and atonement are removed from the Bible, how can we hope for revival? Charles H. Spurgeon summed it up when he said, "The craving to alter the Word of God is accursed. This is the crime of the present day. The Lord preserve us from it."
Matthew 18:11 NIV: Omitted
A.V. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
If it is true,  therefore, that Westcott and Hort were liberal members of the Cambridge Ghost Society and part of the beginning of the modern New Age Movement as Bruggemen and Riplinger seem to report, then the vast majority of Christians are going to Church with pagan "Bibles", A.A. Waite in his book Heresies of Westcott and Hort giving direct quotes which follow: Picture is of the present day Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge University.
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did." - Westcott, 1890
"(Revelation 1:1) The conception of the book is not that the primary Revealer is Christ, though by the will or permission of God .; but the primary Revealer is God." - Hort.
"Have you read Darwin? How I should like a talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book." - Hort to Westcott (in Final Authority)
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us as they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. I Peter 1:12
1 Peter 1:12) "(by a holy spirit sent from heaven) ." - Hort
No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18
(John 1:18) "The bosom of the Father (like heaven) is a state and not a place" - Westcott
If this was not enough, there is now a new feminist edition of the NIV. At Elim Bible College, we were told to write "humankind" and not "mankind" in essays and so now the "Bible is being changed so as to be like everything else: POLITICALLY CORRECT!
NIV:1 So God created man in his own image, ...
TNIV: So God created human beings in his own image, ...
The reasons for there being modern versions comes from the politically correct school as well! It is often said that the new versions are more accurately translated, easier to read with more up-to date language making them easier to understand. This however is not the basis on which the Word of God is scripturally presented.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Finally, the question of copyright. Many of the new Bible Versions are copyrighted for commercial reason. The A.V. has a crown copyright, the monarch of Great Britain being described as the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England; 1534 U.K. Act of Supremacy, meaning that the copyright is to the Church. Let us return to the God given Authorized Version and speak the Word out loud declaring that this is not the work of liberal commercialism, but the inspired Word of God.
Richard Murdoch,  pictured here having been part of the British University system, an M.A. from Oxford and a Roman Catholic from Melbourne, Australia received an "anointing" from Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney to become members of the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great 1998 acknowledging an "unblemished character" and his promotion of the interests of the Catholic Church and Vatican. This man is the Publisher of the N.I.V. as Zondervan is one of the holdings of News Corporation to which he is Chairman and Chief Executive. Which landmark to you trust - Tyndale's or Westcott, Hort and Murdoch?
Ref. http://www.jesus-is-lord.co.za/murdoch.htm
6) Altars made with hands and crosses. Communion rails too!
 Jesus does not live in altars made with hands.
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, Heb. 9:24 for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; II Cor. 6:16; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Eph. 5:30 I am married to you - Jer. 3:14 partakers of the divine nature - II Peter 1:4; partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Col. 1:12 whom he justified, them he also glorified. Rom. 8:30 - partakers of Christ .. Heb.3:14
Why, therefore, do "Christians" bow down before altars made with hands? Why, therefore do "Christians" bow down before altars made with hands with a cross there?
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Ex. 20:4; refer to Deut.5:8 too.
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God. Lev. 26:1
Why  do "Christians" kneel over a rail to receive "communion" when the veil has been broken by Christ Jesus, there no longer being a rail between us and him? Hallelujah!
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; Matthew 27:51
. which veil is done away in Christ .. II Cor. 3:14
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Eph. 2:6
Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth. At the bread and wine table of Mel-chiz-ed-ek - no mention of a rail between Abram and the priest of the most high God. If Abram was possessor of heaven and earth - how could there be a rail between him, the priest and God? Gen. 14:18-22
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. 3:29
Continuation of the Word given to me at Rhos 09 September 2004
The next obstacle is in the area of your own behaviour. You are confident in your victory through Me. You are victorious through My victory. You've declared into the realm of the spirit the victory of Christ Jesus, yet others are motivated by their feelings of defeat. Someone in defeat is uncomfortable with someone in victory, & so you are right to teach the teaching of moving from the cross to the throne. You see, even pagans are wearing crosses today. As Dr. Oliver pointed out - the cross is the scene of Satan's finest hour. Look how many people wear crosses - even footballers are crossing them selves on the football pitch, My Word warning not to bow down to a graven image - so people are binding themselves to death, whereas you are looking to take people to the life of My resurrection. No wonder you are so rejected. |
 |
BACK TO ARCHIVES
|
