Featured Articles


Agreeing to Disagree on KJV Only and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

Greetings brothers and sisters.  I’ve had several folks comment on Unsealed, YouTube, and Facebook, and email me as well, concerning the question of Bible translation, specifically regarding the KJV-Only Movement.  It’s been on my heart to address this issue, as well as the often closely-tied doctrines of Mid-Acts and Post-Acts Dispensationalism.  We’ve addressed the latter several times (see here and here), but I’ll address it once more and cover some new territory.

First though, I want to address the importance of Christian fellowship in the midst of disagreements surrounding these non-essential issues.  My hand of fellowship is always extended to those who disagree with me, yet are still willing to maintain unity.  I can agree to disagree and this disagreement bothers me very little.  What bothers me much more is when these disagreements and quarrels over non-essentials become dividing lines.  These dividing lines within the body of Christ are not from God, but from Satan.  Christ prayed for unity within the body (Jn. 17:1–26).  Satan seeks to divide and defeat the Church using the most basic trick in the book—turning a kingdom against itself (Mt. 12:22–28).  And Christians fall for it over and over and over again.

If you really believe in the gospel and salvation by faith alone, and if you really believe that the single most important task we have been given is sharing this message with as many as possible before the clock strikes midnight, then it becomes of paramount importance to approach other believers with the benefit of the doubt (1 Cor. 13:7) and in a spirit of humility.  The world will not recognize our identity in Christ by our quarrels and superior intellect, but by our love (Jn. 13:35).  And if we want the world to know Christ, we must love one another.

I’ve observed in many debates between Christians and Christians (and Christians and non-Christians, for that matter) that dividing lines are often propagated by false associations and straw-man arguments.  If you are dividing from or condemning other believers, check yourself to see if you are guilty of applying to them something that they do not actually believe.  These are false accusations.  And false accusations do not come from the mouth of someone who desires unity and the well-being of the other, but from someone who wants you to submit to their own intellect as they seek to win an argument.

A straw-man is a misrepresented proposition applied by an accuser to the other side in such a way that it is easier to defeat than what the other side actually believes.  Let me give you a common example:

1. Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that polytheism is idolatry.

2. Christians believe that there is One God who subsists in three Persons.

3. Many Muslim apologists say Christians’ belief in the Trinity equates to belief in three gods and thus is polytheism.

4. Muslim apologists can then claim that Christianity is false and Christians should reject their belief because it is idolatry.

To summarize: the Christian proposition is that there is One God in three Persons.  The misrepresented proposition is that Christians worship three gods.  It’s easier to defeat the false proposition than what Christians actually believe, because all sides agree that idolatry is wrong.

So in terms of logical fallacy, it is irrelevant to the debate whether Christians are right or wrong in their belief about the Trinity.  To have a logical and fair debate you must acknowledge what the other side actually believes.  Does this make sense?

We see similar such straw-men used by [some] proponents of the KJV-Only and Mid-Acts Dispensation views to attack their opponents.  For example, “we call ourselves right-dividers, therefore the other side doesn’t believe in rightly dividing.”  Or, “those who disagree with KJV-Only do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture [or do not regard the authority of God’s word].”

Straw-man fallacies are akin to putting words in someone’s mouth in such a way that you can then more easily defeat them.  In truth, using straw-men and similar false associations is bearing false witness against your neighbor (i.e., telling a lie).  You’re saying someone believes something that they do not believe, but you’re doing it subtly and with craftiness—twisting words just enough to make others believe your accusation.  Don’t do this.

Because of our corrupted nature (mine included), we so often desire to be right.  Far less often will we humble ourselves to admit we might be wrong.  We often miss the forest for the trees.  For example, all faithful students of God’s word can agree with what Paul wrote to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But can we agree with the immediately preceding verse?

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

Many are so focused on 2 Timothy 2:15, which is absolute, God-breathed truth, but are missing the clear exhortation given right before. They are doing the very thing in v. 15 that Paul exhorted not to do in v. 14.  Teaching and expounding is great.  Quarreling and fighting is not so great.  Especially when the fight is dividing Christian from Christian.

I spent the first couple years of my ministry arguing and the fruit that bore was minimal at best.

No house divided against itself will stand.  Are you really passionate about the gospel and loving your brother if you can attack, accuse, and cut yourself off from your brothers who agree with you about salvation and who also share your faith in Christ?  Don’t we have a mission to accomplish?  And how will we accomplish it if our energies are spent quarreling over non-essentials rather than preaching the gospel in fellowship?

Stop reading between the lines and just read the lines.  Reading between the lines always leads to false accusations.  This can be satanic in origin.  Are you an accuser of the brethren?  You may be saved, but that’s a strange and saddening place to put yourself—to be living and acting in such a way as Satan is described (“the Accuser”).  Hear what people say and acknowledge what they actually believe.

Finally, we must agree to disagree, even on the essentials.  As it says in the Scriptures, if a house doesn’t offer you peace then just shake the dust from your feet and move on.  Don’t remain in endless quarrel.  But only fellowship with those who agree on the essentials.

If you feel like you cannot fellowship with those who agree with you on the essentials, I would ask that you consider: 1. Do you actually believe the essentials yourself? 2. Do you feel like it is possible to fellowship with others who think differently about non-essentials? and 3. Are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong about non-essential issues (I’m not saying abandon your non-essential beliefs, I’m saying don’t hold them as if you’re right and everyone else is wrong, but hold them in humility, holding others up higher than yourself).  Be cautious because there is a fine line: you must hold the essentials without compromising or being moved (as so many are tossed around by every wind and wave of doctrine, moving from one extreme to the next: Eph. 4:14), but the more non-essentials you hold with the attitude of “my way or the highway” the more of a box you’ve potentially placed God in, and by very reason of being closed off to other possibilities, God could be revealing to you many things that would be [literally] impossible for you to see.

I can agree to disagree with those who preach the gospel, but believe in other systematic theologies (Covenantalism, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, Post-Acts Dispensationalism, etc).  However, I can’t have fellowship with those who refuse to put down their swords.  It’s conflict resolution 101: both parties have to 1. approach the other with humility, 2. respect the other before delving into the issue, 3. acknowledge that they could be wrong about something, 4. and, when compromise is not possible, agreeing to disagree without anger, accusation, and, if possible, doing this while maintaining genuine love and fellowship.

Issues With the KJV-Only Position

I understand that there are a variety of positions within the KJV-Only movement and there is not a universally agreed upon definition.  I want to respect that.  I even agree with some of their textual arguments related to the text bases used (the LSV happens to use the same).  Many are “KJV Only”-light, which is to say, it’s not a perfect translation, but it’s the best available.  I respect that view far more and this is not a dig against that particular persuasion.  Here I’m simply offering my humble opinion regarding the inadequacy of the view that the King James Version is the only legitimate or divinely-inspired English translation.

1. It wasn’t the first English translation.  In fact, there were several English translations preceding the KJV.  The honor of first complete English translation belongs to Wycliffe’s Bible, which was completed as early as 1382 by John Wycliffe and his associates, over 200 years before the King James.  Furthermore, many of the arguments used to uphold the KJV-Only position involve its Textus Receptus textual basis, but fully six other English translations preceding the KJV also used the Textus Receptus: Tyndale’s New Testament, Myles Coverdale’s Bible, The Matthew Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and The Bishops’ Bible.  As a matter of fact, the latter was the base text for the KJV.

2. It wasn’t the first authorized English translation.  Another argument used by some among KJV-Only proponents is that by virtue of being authorized by the government, the KJV falls under principles outlined in Romans 13.  Besides being at odds from the outset with the basic principle that God’s word supersedes all earthly government and is direct revelation from God Himself, and besides the fact that many of the books of our Bible were originally “illegal” at the time they were written—or, at the very least, heavily frowned upon by the authorities (including the Old Testament prophets and all the New Testament books)—the KJV wasn’t even the first authorized English translation to begin with.  The Great Bible of 1539 was the first, authorized by King Henry VIII of England.  The Bishops’ Bible was the second and as mentioned before was the basis for the KJV.

In summary, the KJV was the seventh English translation (sixth if you do not count Tyndale’s since his translation wasn’t complete) and only the third “authorized version.”

3. It isn’t the most literal English translation.  It is generally, though not exclusively, a word-for-word (formal equivalence) translation (source).  There are several translations that are significantly more literal, further along the spectrum, including, in this order: the ESV, NASB, Green’s Literal (LITV), YLT, and at this point the most literal (excluding an interlinear) would be our own LSV.  The KJV is a very solid translation, but at the same time it contains thousands of instances of verb tenses which were not literally translated, thousands of missing definite articles, and even varies from the Textus Receptus itself by roughly 1–2% (source).  A number of the animal names in the Old Testament are especially suspect as they were never native to the land of Israel, but seem to be species only native to Europe.

4. The committee that formed the KJV did not think their translation was perfect.  In fact, I’m not aware of even one quotation from any of the translators (Richard Bancroft included) who posited any of the following beliefs: 1. that the KJV is inerrant, 2. that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation, or 3. that the KJV would never be superseded.  In fact, the translators themselves were much more humble.

5. The KJV-Only position is a modern invention.  The King James Only position was first articulated in 1930 by Seventh-Day Adventist Benjamin Wilkinson in Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.  Far from being a defense of the ancient paths and a line in the sand against modern corruptions, the KJV-Only Movement is itself a modern invention.

6. The 1611 KJV has been revised numerous times, including in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769.  The majority of KJV-Onlyists are not even using the original version.  If you hold firmly to the KJV-Only position and you feel like arguments against your position are an assault on your faith itself, is your faith in Christ or in the KJV?  Again, English wasn’t even a language when the Bible was originally written.

7. By definition, no translation can be perfect.  Virtually every language has certain words with semantic range and certain idioms that have literally no counterpart in another language.  Faithful translation is an attempt to accurately and honestly present the best possible translation in the target language.  It is an attempt toward perfection, but it isn’t perfection itself.

8. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  The inerrant, infallible, God-breathed words of Scripture were written by the hands of the prophets, apostles, and their direct associates, not by English Bible translators.  There is a strong sense in which the KJV-Only position actually attacks this fundamental truth.  Since the KJV doesn’t consistently translate the biblical manuscripts, but KJV-Only proponents posit that it is a perfect translation, then this is an attack, though perhaps not intended as such, on the infallibility of the original Scriptures themselves.

9. God’s word will always be with us, but not as some KJV-Onlyists suggest.  Some KJV-Only proponents are quick to cite verses such as 1 Peter 1:25, Psalm 119:89, and Isaiah 40:8, which indicate the perpetuity of God’s word, as evidence for the testimony of the KJV.  In other words, the Bible says God’s word stands forever, so we must have God’s word in full with us today via the KJV.  This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question.  To distill this down, the argument is essentially “because God’s word stands forever the KJV must be the only inspired English translation.”  The argument’s premise assumes this conclusion without actually proving the conclusion.

This argument in support of the KJV is further disproved by the arguments above (specifically #1–4, 6, 8).  Even assuming the English language must have a full translation of God’s word, it can’t be established that the KJV is that translation.  It wasn’t the first English translation, it wasn’t the first authorized translation, and it’s not the most literal English translation.

Furthermore, there are three more points that strongly argue against the KJV-Only use of these such verses:

First, there are roughly 7,000 languages in the world.  Only about 1,500 have a New Testament.  Only about 700 have a complete Bible (source).  Now it’s true that the languages that do have a complete Bible account for a large majority of the world population, but there are still thousands of languages without a Bible translation, with hundreds of millions of people without access to a written translation of God’s word.  This in and of itself disproves this particular KJV-Only argument.

Second, while KJV-Onlyists seem to highly value context and rightly dividing, they don’t seem to give the same level of care to these verses.  The context of none of these verses is about Bible translation, nor do they explicitly define how God’s word will be preserved.  The context of 1 Peter 1:25 more narrowly refers to the word of good news that Paul preached (a.k.a., the gospel).  More generally speaking, the Bible refers both to the capital ‘W’ Word (Christ Himself: Jn. 1:1) and to the lowercase ‘w’ word of God, which is the words He has spoken audibly to mankind, and sometimes into the hearts and minds of mankind.  Indeed, God the Word, the Logos, will stand forever because He is very God of very God.  And God’s words will stand forever because He spoke those words, remembers those words, and will preserve those words in one way or another.  However, the argument that God has preserved 100% of His words in the English language via the KJV is false on its face.

Third, the Bible explicitly prophesies of a time when the word of God will not be found:

“Behold, days are coming,” || A declaration of Lord YHWH, || “And I have sent a famine into the land, || Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, || But of hearing the words of YHWH.  And they have wandered from sea to sea, || And from north even to east, || They go to and fro to seek the word of YHWH, || And they do not find [it].” (Amos 8:11–12, LSV)

10. It seems to me that this movement has too dark a view of what God is doing in the world.  My final point is admittedly subjective, but hear me out.  Yes, there is deception.  Yes, wolves have infiltrated the flock.  But the Holy Spirit still dwells within Christ’s Church and we still have the victory through Christ Jesus our LORD.  Just because something was translated in the 20th or 21st century doesn’t make it wrong, just as ecumenicalism isn’t by definition a bad thing (Jn. 17:1–26), but becomes bad when corrupted into universalism or when presenting a false gospel.  The Church has always faced apostasy.  In each generation there was a massive doctrinal threat to the Church (e.g., Arianism, Pelagianism, sacramentalism, indulgences, etc), and though there are numerous false teachings today, how can we forget that there was a time when the gospel was barely preached at all (roughly 8th through 15th centuries)?  God is still working and the gates of hell will not prevail.

For further reading on the subject of KJV-Onlyism, I would recommend these articles:

The King James Only Controversy

7 Things You May Not Know About The King James Bible

The Haters: The KJV Only Movement

Issues With Mid-Acts Dispensationalism

Before I unpack this I want to first preface my points with a couple of qualifiers: first, ultradispensationalism and hyperdispensationalism technically refer to two different schools of thought.  Ultradispensationalism is also called Post-Acts Dispensationalism and refers to the theory that the Church began with Paul after Acts 28.  Hyperdispensationalism is more properly the Mid-Acts view and suggests that the Church began with Paul in Acts 13 (usually highlighted by v. 46).  Both views reject the historic view held by Christianity since the earliest centuries that the Church began on Pentecost in the year Christ died when the first believers were baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1–2).  Second, many of the points below can be applied to both hyperdispensationalism and ultradispensationalism equally although I’m writing them with a greater focus on the Mid-Acts view.

Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil.  It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad.  So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.
— Harry A. Ironside

1. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is a modern invention.  In all fairness, if the belief is correct then my point doesn’t hold, because it would have been invented by God Himself and first presented in Acts 13, but no one exposited this view until the early 1900s (similar to the KJV-Only view).  J.C. O’Hair who died in 1958 was the first proponent.  Ultradispensationalism is a similarly recent invention, first posited by E.W. Bullinger in the late 1800s.

2. “We turn to the Gentiles” in Acts 13:46 as a dispensational shift marker is based on an argument from silence, not a clear definition.  Paul and Barnabas say that they now turn to the Gentiles, not that God Himself had only now turned to the Gentiles.  God had already commissioned the disciples to preach the gospel to the Gentiles long before (Mt. 28:16–20; Mk. 16:14–16; Lk. 24:45–49).

3. Paul was not the first to explicitly define the gospel nor was he the first commissioned to preach the gospel.  In primordial form it was first presented by God Himself to Eve in Genesis 3:15–16 (see here and here).  In very unambiguous terms it was presented in Isaiah 52–53.  The Prophet Isaiah foretells each of the key details of the gospel: that the Messiah would die as an atoning sacrifice for sin, be buried, and then rise again.  Isaiah even prophesies that the Gentiles would look to Him (Isa. 52:15a) and that this understanding would be concealed from them until they hear the message (Isa. 52:15b).  Jesus Himself defines the good news in the Gospels, including very succinctly in Luke 24:46–48, where He commissions the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations.  Other instances include Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:33–34, and Luke 9:22.  The gospel is also explicitly defined in Acts 2:22–38 and Acts 10:39–43 (Peter being the one delivering the message in both instances!).  Philip also preaches the gospel to a Gentile in Acts 8:26–40.  Although the resurrection event itself is not mentioned in Acts 8 it is implied in v. 35.

The Mid-Acts view is reading into the text (eisegesis) when it proclaims the gospel to belong to Paul exclusively and not the other apostles because of the use of the phrase “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 2:8).  This is a gross and unfortunate error made by those claiming to tremble at every word.  Nowhere does Paul state the gospel is only his.  To the contrary, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul specifically mentions other apostles by name, so it also supports that the other disciples preached the same gospel.  Remember, this passage of Scripture is the clearest description of the gospel given (1 Cor. 15:1–4), yet, in this same passage, Paul offers no distinction between his gospel message and that preached by the other apostles:

...afterward He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  And last of all—as to the untimely birth—He also appeared to me, for I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Assembly of God, and by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace that [is] toward me did not come in vain, but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God that [is] with me; whether, then, I or they, so we preach, and so you believed. (1 Corinthians 15:7–11, LSV)

Many create dichotomies where none exist.  This is a sort of logical fallacy in how one processes logical deduction.  It also causes a problem where one says they are interpreting the Bible literally, while in reality they are “reading between the lines.”  Suggesting that because Paul calls the gospel his somehow it can’t also belong to the other apostles is a false dichotomy because the Bible doesn’t say it isn’t also the other apostles (in fact, just the opposite as shown in many of the points above).  There is no Scripture that denies our mutual ownership of the good news.  It belongs to all of us who receive it and we are the messengers who continue to carry it along.  The gospel is Paul’s gospel, but it is also my gospel, and your gospel, and Peter’s gospel, and belongs to all who believe (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 1:12–17; Eph. 1:3–14).  There is also no Scripture that says there is a distinction between the message to the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision.  That’s another false dichotomy.  The message is the same because the means of salvation is the same.  Paul primarily preached to the nations (though not exclusively; see Acts 15, 22) and the apostles, at least initially, primarily preached to the Jews, though in keeping with Christ’s command, they would ultimately preach to the ends of the earth.

4. Mid-Acts “Rightly Dividing” reads the law into places where it doesn’t exist in order to create arbitrary transitions.  The most pivotal mistake is made in Acts 2 where RD’ers regard baptism and repentance (Acts 2:38) as a message clearly distinguished from the gospel.  However, it is widely understood that repentance is a mistaken translation of the Greek metanoia (and verbal root metanoeรณ).  Repentance is a concept derived from the Latin word from which we get penitence.  It has the connotation of acting out, turning from sin, atoning for oneself with alms, etc.  Biblical repentance (metanoia) simply means to change your mind about something.  In other words, to be persuaded about something or to convert from one position to another.  When Peter tells those gathered from many nations in Acts 2 to repent, he’s exhorting them to be persuaded about the gospel message he just presented to them (Acts 2:22–38) and to believe in Jesus.  In the context of the gospel, to repent = to believe the good news and to believe the good news = to repent.

Regarding baptism, this key detail is missed 99 times out of 100, but John the Baptist had prophesied that his water baptism would be superseded by Christ’s spiritual baptism and this prophecy is recorded in every single Gospel (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:24–27).  Water isn’t mentioned one time in Acts 2:38 or in the surrounding context.  To drive the point home that the baptism being experienced on the day of Pentecost was in the Holy Spirit and not in water, John’s prophecy is established as the foundation of Acts 1–2 (see Acts 1:5).  You can read more about this here.

5. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism makes arbitrary distinctions within the Ekklesia.  One of the most glaring issues with hyperdispensationalism is the explicit references to the Church (ekklesia) throughout the New Testament—not only in the non-Pauline epistles, but also in prophetic form in the Gospels by Christ Himself.  In order to uphold the view that the predominantly Gentile Church is a mystery found only in the Pauline epistles and post-Acts 13, these other references have to be argued away as referring to “some other group of Christians” or “some other assembly of believers” distinct from the body of Christ.  Besides the arbitrary distinction itself, there are several other major problems with this:

First, as mentioned above, the gospel message had already been defined in the Gospels and prophesied of in the Old Testament (#2–3).

Second, in Acts 15, which comes after chapter 13, in which the apostles agree with Paul and Barnabas in their defense of the gospel of faith alone, we learn that Peter and James recognize the predominantly-Gentile Church and the message of faith alone from the Old Testament prophets (Acts 15:14–18; cf. Rom. 10:6–20).  We also see a massive confirmation that Peter had already been preaching the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 15:6–11; cf. Acts 10:1–48) just as Christ had commissioned him to (Mt. 28:16–20; Mk. 16:14–16; Lk. 24:45–49).

Third, the Ekklesia is mentioned again in the first several chapters of the last book of the Bible (Rev. 1–3).  These were Christian communities in Asia Minor (not in Israel!).  It is Jesus Himself, the Head of the body, who commissions John to write letters to these seven churches.  And there is no doubt about the underlying message of the gospel (Rev. 1:4–5; see also here and here).

Revelation is not addressed to Israel and opens with Christ’s atonement for sins.  Is saying otherwise being true to the plain words of Scripture?

There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile post-Pentecost because the atonement already happened.  In Christ’s body the dividing line was eradicated.  The dividing line was removed at the Cross.  Scripture is quite clear about this (Eph. 2:14–15), so there can be no soteriological distinction between Jews and Gentiles / circumcised and uncircumcised post-Crucifixion.

6. Though Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, He ministered to Gentiles anyway.  The first assumption that is made in Mid-Acts Dispensationalism that undergirds the others is that the ministry of Jesus and His twelve apostles was exclusive to the Jews.  It is true that Jesus “was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt. 15:24), however, it is false to suggest that He did not minister to Gentiles.  His mission was focused, but Gentiles were impacted.  As a matter of fact, in the very passage in which “right-dividers” place so much emphasis, Jesus does not use His Israel-only mandate as an excuse not to heal a Gentile woman’s daughter.  He tells His apostles that He was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel and then heals the Gentile girl anyway (Mt. 15:28).  Similarly, Jesus answers another Gentile’s request when He heals a centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5–13).  Hyperdispensationalism attempts to place God in a box that He doesn’t place Himself in.  Jesus and the apostles’ initial mandate was to Israel and the gospel was presented to the Jews first, but in the end, as mentioned earlier, Jesus commissions His apostles to share the good news with literally every nation under Heaven.  And to top it off, the claim Jesus perpetually concealed His identity as Messiah from Gentiles doesn’t hold water either.  He proclaimed who He was to the Gentile Pilate (Jn. 18:37; cf. Mt. 27:54).

7. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism misunderstands the way in which the Church and the rapture were “mysteries.”  Were they mysteries because nothing was said about them in the Old Testament or because they were concealed within the Old Testament until Christ came and subsequently sent His Spirit to reveal everything?  The New Testament writers routinely reference the Old Testament in passages about the Church, the rapture, and eschatology generally.  Even more—the Old Testament plainly reveals the gospel and Christ (e.g., Isa. 52–53; cf. Lk. 24:13–35; Acts 8:26–40) and even the Church (e.g., Deut. 32:21; Isa. 49:6; cf. Rom. 10:17–20) to those who have spiritual eyes to see.  A mystery is something that is unknown to one or more parties, concealed, or hidden—not something that doesn’t exist at all.  Hyperdispensationalism treats the mysteries of the Church and the rapture as if not even one word within the Old Testament pertained to either, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.  The New Testament authors frequently cite key Old Testament passages in discussing not only the doctrine of faith alone as it pertains to the gospel (Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; Isa. 52–53; cf. Ps. 3:8; 32:1–2; 35:3; 43:11), but also the Church (Deut. 32:21; Isa. 49:6) and the rapture (Isa. 26:17–21; 66:7–9; Zeph. 1:14–2:3; 1 Cor. 15:54–55).

It’s true that the Church was a mystery hidden in ages past (Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26; cf. 1 Cor. 2:7), but it was a mystery hidden within the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 32:21, 43; Isa. 2:2–4; 11:10; 49:6; 52:15; Dan. 7:13; Acts 15:14).  Again, hyperdispensationalism attempts to rigidly place God in a box that Scripture itself doesn’t place Him in.  The mystery was fully revealed in the days of Paul, but it was a mystery already present in the ancient Jewish writings that can be seen with the insight given by the Holy Spirit.

Additionally, those New Testament passages calling the Church a mystery, also discuss the gospel itself in the same context.  The gospel was also a mystery that hadn’t yet been fully revealed, but the Old Testament had very clear references to it (e.g., Isa. 53).

8. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism misunderstands soteriology in previous and future dispensations.  This is perhaps my gravest concern with their doctrine.  Hyperdispensationalism loudly (and rightly) proclaims salvation through faith alone because of our inability to do anything good in our flesh, yet, ironically, it turns and presents a false gospel in other dispensations.  It is one of the most dangerous flaws in the system.  God’s plan to redeem the world through Christ via the gospel was being enacted from the very beginning when Adam and Eve sinned in Eden.  Jeff wrote an excellent article highlighting the gospel in Genesis 3–4 here and I wrote all about the history-spanning plan of redemption here.

Works were never the basis for salvation in a previous dispensation nor will they be the basis in the future.  This is a major point I want to raise.  You can argue both ways until you are blue in the face, but sola fide is a central theme found in Genesis all the way through Revelation.  From Abraham whose faith was counted as righteousness, to David who broke the Law and did not pay its due penalty (death)—the multiple death-deserving lawbreaker whom God established an everlasting covenant with!  From righteous Abel who brought an acceptable blood sacrifice, to the high priest Joshua whom God clothed in His own righteousness in Zechariah 3; and from the prostitute Rahab and the Gentile Namaan to the Prophet Habakkuk whose declaration “the just shall live by his faith” formed the very basis of Paul’s explanation of salvation through faith alone in Romans.

Why was the Law given and why the focus on works in the Old Testament and the gospels?  Here is the answer:

And we have known that as many things as the Law says, to those in the Law it speaks, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may come under judgment to God; for this reason by works of law will no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin.  And now apart from law the righteousness of God has been revealed, testified to by the Law and the Prophets, and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and on all those believing—for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God—being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth [as] a propitiatory covering, through faith in His blood, for the showing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the former sins in the forbearance of God... (Rom. 3:19–25, LSV)

  • The Law only speaks to those under it.  It is holy and good and true, but we are not under it (Rom. 3:31; 6:14).
  • It makes the whole world accountable to God, because its stringent requirements are such that not even one person will be declared righteous by obeying it.
  • The Law makes us conscious of our sin.

To say that works are the basis of salvation in a previous dispensation or in a future dispensation is in effect to state that only Church Age Christians will be saved, because the Bible is repeatedly and emphatically clear that no one has or ever will be justified by works.  All are fallen.  None are good.  No one does right.  No one seeks God.

To say that those in the Old Testament (or those in the Tribulation or in the Millennial Kingdom) will be saved by works is to say that their situation is entirely, completely, unalterably hopeless.  It’s shutting the door of salvation in their face.  No!  Salvation has only ever been on the basis of grace via the atoning sacrifice of God’s Son.  See the gospel in Genesis 3–4 and Isaiah 53 in particular.

The gospel was declared to Adam and Eve beforehand in Genesis 3:15–16.  A blood sacrifice—the first death in creation—provided a sufficient covering for our first parents (Gen. 3:21).  This was the declaration of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world:

And all who are dwelling on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Scroll of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world... (Rev. 13:8, LSV)

Why does Christ appear as a Lamb-as-if-slain in Revelation?  Because He was foreshadowed by the lamb slain in Genesis.  And in Genesis Adam and Eve lost their access to the Tree of Life, but in Revelation 22 we regain it.  And right in the middle of this Genesis to Revelation story is the incarnate Christ on the Cross, who bore all of our sins in His body on the tree (1 Pt. 2:24; there’s a little Peter for you).

I’m saved because Christ died and rose again.

You’re saved because Christ died and rose again.

And Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Rahab and Namaan; King Darius and King Nebuchadnezzar; all of these, if any, will be saved only because Christ died and rose again.

Again, why was the Law given?

All of us, like sheep, have wandered, || Man has turned to his own way, || And YHWH has laid on Him the punishment of us all. (Isa. 53:6, LSV)

After the Fall in the Garden, no one would seek God.  No one would listen.  Everyone turned to his own way, and in the end, our ways can only ever lead to death.  So the Law was given to condemn us.  Yes, you heard that correctly.  It finally made us realize that we are each accountable to God for our thoughts and behaviors and if we approach Him with labor He will accept nothing less than perfection.  It finally made us see that we need Him and this life and what our eyes see are not all there is.  We must turn back, repent (“metanoia”; which means “to change your mind, convert”), and place our faith in Him.  And only then can imperfect creatures such as we are become acceptable to a perfect God.

So regarding the Law: believe it, obey it, teach it.  It’s true.  But do not, under any circumstances, look to it as the path to salvation.  That’s not what it is and that’s not why it was given—neither in this dispensation nor in the one to come.  The Tribulation Saints are commanded to worship God and give Him glory, to refuse the mark of the beast, and to refuse to worship the beast, but though these things are necessary for them, it isn’t these things in and of themselves which save them.  It’s still the blood of Christ (e.g., Rev. 7:14).  Only Christ’s blood atones for sin (Heb. 9:22; 10:4).

For further reading on this subject:

Rightly Dividing Wrongly

Rightly Dividing The Word Of Truth

What Is Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?

Finally, here is an entire video series that soundly refutes hyperdispensationalism:

Final Thoughts

In closing, I want to come full circle.  I’ve laid out some pointed arguments, but I have tried to be careful not to personally accuse.  It is incredibly important that we not become accusers of one another and that means we have to stop judging the intent of others’ hearts and listen to what they say.  You can’t label yourself a “right divider” and by virtue of your own label, claim everyone else is opposed to “right dividing.”  That’s a prime logical fallacy.  These type of labels mean nothing.  What matters is the truth itself.  The real question is what systematic understanding of Scripture actually rightly divides the word of truth?  Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?  Post-Acts Dispensationalism?  Covenantalism?  Traditional Dispensationalism?  From my study of Scripture and through my fellowship with many other brothers and sisters in Christ I have come to believe that original/classic/traditional/orthodox—whatever you want to call it—dispensationalism is the happy medium between the extremes that most accurately reflects a literal and plain reading of Scripture.  But guess what?  I’m not going to condemn and ridicule you if you disagree.  As I’ve continuously said, fellowship around the gospel is far more important than unending quarrels over the non-essentials.  Unbelievers look at these sorts of quarrels within the Church and mock at us, for the world will know we are Christians—not by our superior knowledge, perfect understanding, or ability to debate—but by our love for one another (Jn. 13:35).  If we can’t agree to disagree in love and in the bond of unity, then, per the very words of Jesus, the world will not know we are Christians.  They’ll just see us as prideful members of any other cult or sect out there who think they have the special (hint: Gnostic) knowledge that gives one the special track to God.  The only special knowledge needed for anyone to have full and complete access to all of the spiritual blessings in God is through faith in Christ Himself by means of believing the good news.

I know that there are many who hold to the KJV-Only and/or hyperdispensationalist views, and as long as they acknowledge and preach the gospel, I want to maintain unity with them, but they must agree to disagree.  On entrenched issues like these few minds will be changed one way or the other.  As members of Christ’s body, can we be ok with that?  Can we shake the dust off our feet and move on?

All of us, myself included, need to be leery when non-essential issues (like Mid-Acts Dispensationalism or premillennialism) are presented as if they are the be-all-end-all of fellowship.  When they are presented this way they actually can become a stumbling block to the salvation of many.

Lastly, just as faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin (repentance, when accurately understood, simply means to change your mind or to convert), so too, having faith in Christ and believing the gospel are also two sides of the same coin.  There are many instances in the New Testament where salvation is presented simply as having faith in Christ without explicitly defining what the gospel is (e.g., numerous times in the Gospel of John and Acts 16:31).  Other times the gospel is more clearly defined as the message of saving faith (Rom. 10:8–17; 1 Cor. 15:1–4; 1 Thess. 4:13–14).

So is believing in Christ enough (Jn. 3:18; 6:40) or must one believe the gospel defined in 1 Corinthians 15?  These are not mutually exclusive.  To trust in Christ is to believe the gospel and to believe the gospel is to trust in Christ.  Throughout history there have been thousands of men named Jesus, Jesรบs, Yesu, Yeshua, Yehoshua, Joshua, and so forth.  But only one Jesus died for your sins and rose again.  If you believe in that Jesus then you believe the gospel and if you believe the gospel then you believe in that Jesus.  I’ve explained before that many believe in someone named Jesus, but it isn’t the Christ of the Bible and so their faith is not a saving faith (see here).

In light of this, let’s be cautious not to fall into the trap of intellectual legalism (Gnosticism).  It’s much easier to identify behavioral legalism because its proponents more explicitly say that works are necessary for salvation, which is a false gospel.  Yet intellectual legalism is just as real as behavioral legalism (Pharisaism).  Consider where your faith lies.  Is it in Christ Himself?  Do you trust in Him and rest in Him?  Or are you resting and trusting only in your ability to recite 1 Corinthians 15?  Does your assurance come from faith in a person or faith in the knowledge you possess?  Jesus, the One who died for your sins and rose again, is a real Person, a real being.  He demands your faith.  The vast majority of Christians throughout history could not recite 1 Corinthians 15 from memory, but they believed Jesus died for them and rose again.  And they called upon Jesus to save them.

I know these sorts of debates can raise the ire of many, but my intention is not to attack anyone, only to illuminate the Scriptures as best as I know how and to offer grace toward those who disagree.  May we all serve Christ in these few fleeting moments we have left.


Post A Comment


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. I'm not exactly a "KJV" only type of believer, but I do have my doubts with some of these more modern translations that have surfaced, such as the New King James (NKJV), the NIV etc. I've seen some very good reasons put forth to not trust those versions among others (probably too numerous to mention here). It should be very concerning that we are seeing the phenomenon of watered down modern Bible versions distorting and downright “adding to” and “taking away” from the true words of God. This phenomenon should be looked at as very suspicious indeed considering the present effort under way by the Pharisaic Luciferian elite to destroy Christianity (a deeper subject for another time and article). Your feelers should definitely be up in my opinion. But the translations that Gary has cited in this article are the more true and trustworthy ones. I've seen examples where the deity of Christ was suspiciously done away with in some translations. I know many may disagree with that statement concerning the newer translations, but for me personally, I've seen some very suspicious things in newer translations that really do deserve the stink-eye. The video below demonstrates some of this. Take a look and see if you don't come to the same conclusion concerning the newer translations. I don't know anything about the guy in the video as I have not heard what else he teaches, but I came across this particular video awhile back and thought it was interesting.

    That said, I wish I could hunt down the article about the New King James translation I read one time (wish I would have saved it - that was an eye-opener for sure). But on matters such as this, I personally can't find the time to delve into it myself, so I defer to others on this subject matter. That said, enjoy ...


    1. I'm very much not a KJV only person, but I'll agree with you whole-heartedly about watered down or outright false Bible versions floating ng around out there. People have created versions that deliberately distort scripture to suit themselves and their evil sins (Queen James Version, anyone?).

      It's revolting and sad that such things exist.

    2. I can agree with you both wholeheartedly. Especially the revisions from the last 10-20 years with the big effort to de-genderize the biblical language, minimize homosexual sin, or weave in N.T. Wright's interpretation of Paul. Overall I think the ESV and NASB are pretty good translations (excluding the recent NASB revisions). And of course I'm going be a proponent of our own LSV. You won't find any quotes from the Queen James Version around here, haha. Blessings!

    3. ETDD,
      This may be one of the articles you are referring to with regard to the NKJV - they compare they new and old and NOT favorably - as to what God really said and what the new version says and also gets into the translators positions.

    4. The "Queen James Version?" Ha ha, I must confess that I've never heard of that monstrosity before. I can only imagine what might be in it. Gonna have to Google that one for an uneasy laugh.

    5. Jenny ... Yes, that article looks somewhat familiar as one that I read before. Thanks for the link. Think I'll save it for when I have some time to read it in full and dive into it.

    6. Shockingly, this is a real thing:


      Notice the contradiction in the FIRST THREE sentences of the intro:

      "The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.

      Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this - only interpretations have been made."

      If, as they claim, homosexuality was never mentioned prior to 1946, why would they need to edit a Bible made in 1611? Lol.

    7. I used to own a copy of the Queen James Bible, and I was in contact with the authors! It was written by a father and son homosexual team (the son "came out", and then the father realized that he is actually gay too!). I got rid of it long ago and only vaguely remember it, but I do remember that it was extremely blasphemous. Genesis 3 was rewritten as an erotic encounter between Eve and the serpent, and it just went downhill from there... I loved it back in my atheist days. I would hate it now! :)

    8. Gary, can you explain what you mean by “N.T. Wright’s interpretation of Paul”?

    9. @Daniel, N.T. Wright is an Anglican theologian who wrote the New Perspective on Paul. He addresses the doctrine of justification and attempts to—in my opinion—sow major seeds of doubt in the doctrine of faith alone. I'm not sure what his intention was. Perhaps to build a bridge between Protestantism and Catholicism. Unfortunately, many protestants have taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. John Piper offered several major critiques and Wright seems to have somewhat backtracked in interviews, but his book is still making waves. It has some significant exegetical issues, but we live in a period of history (the end of history for that matter, haha) where people are so desperate for something new and desperate to challenge and overthrow what came before that they are willing to swallow poison.

    10. In short, Wright was wrong.

      Sorry couldn't resist. So fitting for our time. :D

      I would caution that not all newer versions are nefarious at heart. Literal Standard Version (LSV) of course. I am a fan of the Berean Study Bible (BSB). These are both modern English versions that seek to track true to original word meaning and context.

      For deep study I always return to my power grid proof Interlinear with both Hebrew and Greek and Strongs and KJV in the margins.

      But modern English is desired in my case for ease of reading. I'm sorry, for me, KJV is simply not easy reading.


      ๐Ÿšซ ๐Ÿ‡

      ··╱ษท ษท╲··

      Foxman on the Wall

  3. Well said. Something in there for everyone to think about. What is the object of our faith and trust? Is it the book, or the One who gave the book...

    God knows the hearts. May He be merciful on those who want to do the right thing, but have gotten confused as to what exactly that is...

    1. "What is the object of our faith and trust? Is it the book, or the One who gave the book..."

      Amen x10

    2. And if I trust the One who gave the book... I can trust that He has managed, against all human opposition and craftiness, to preserve what He wants to say... That we have the Bible today at all is nothing short of a miracle considering all the attacks it has received... It has withstood the 'telephone game' as well.

      The breakdown of the modern translations (mentioned above) seems to be another sign of the times... and it makes sense given the question given at the beginning of the book. 'Has God really said this?'

  4. Awesome writeup Gary simply awesome! Over 4 decades ago I still remember learning from my pastor that a change in a person’s belief system is one of the hardest things to change in a person. Faith in Jesus and what he did for us is very very hard for so many yet it is only in this one belief that allows all who are in Christ to be tolerant of each other based upon this foundational truth.

    Truly amazing to me is in G_d’s infinite wisdom that neither rich or poor, wise or unwise, male or female, etc, etc, etc - Jesus bore the cost and gave us all a path to redemption without any requirements of our own doing other than belief in Him. I cannot think of any other way or other religion to be so inclusive based upon nothing that we have done and only what Jesus has done for us who believe.

    However, this is a very very very narrow path for so many to follow because it also excludes all other religions and rightly so since they are all man made (except for the Jewish nation yet to meet its messiah). My pastor taught me that the only unforgivable sin in the Bible is simply not believing in Jesus and what He did for us. Again awesome writeup!

    1. "...I still remember learning from my pastor that a change in a person’s belief system is one of the hardest things to change in a person. Faith in Jesus and what he did for us is very very hard for so many yet it is only in this one belief that allows all who are in Christ to be tolerant of each other based upon this foundational truth."

      Amen! Everyone has faith in something and faith drives EVERYTHING a person does.

    2. Yeah... a person's deep beliefs are protected by one of the best anti-virus systems ever written... Get too close and just watch it spring into action to protect a person's foundation stones... This is one of the reasons for the 'rule' of 'not talking about politics or religion...' Thing is... these two topics need to be talked about most of all right now...

    3. "a person's deep beliefs are protected by one of the best anti-virus systems ever written..." LOL, how true, I love it and I have seen it in action.

  5. Thank you for such a clear, logical teaching on these two subjects! I also can't agree with you more about the need for Grace when it comes to "minor" issues of disagreement. My family and I tend to have all sorts of different theological opinions (how old is the Earth, is it Post- or Pre-Trib, does baptism need water, etc, etc) Of course, I have the right view on all these issues ;-)

    In all honesty, it can frustrate me when others hold a theological view for no good reason (tradition? Raised that way? Heard it from an "expert"?), But won't take the time to explore what that view really means or whether alternative views might be more correct. I wish some people in my life would care enough to do a little research! But I'm comforted that salvation does not depend on being "right" about such things.

  6. Gary,
    Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on these topics. I, for one, started with the NIV version some 40 years ago and have been using the NASB for the last 8 years. I know many KJC-ers also state that there are verses missing in the translations that are in the KJV. For that and that alone, I would agree, but since it isn’t a salvation issue, I prefer to disagree agreeably with them. Also, the KJV is papacy-approved and leans towards the more “religious” side. Hence, Textus Receptus.
    I don’t trust the newer translations, for blatantly obvious reasons. I believe that the older translations are reliable. As you stated, NO translation is perfect.
    We need to seek unity and encourage one another in these final moments. Not quibble over words.
    Blessings to you and everyone at Unsealed.
    You are all such a major blessing to so many of us and I can’t wait to see you “in the air!!”

  7. Then there are the REALLY NEW "translations" for the LGBT-P folks.
    I've read about their "Bibles", but have never seen one.
    Makes me curious now to know how it has been rewritten.
    Is it the entire Bible or just parts reworded to suit the agenda?

    1. Oh yes. Those translations are intentionally corrupted. The translators have no qualms about the agenda they're pushing. In almost every translation you'll find large segments that are generally accurate, but you have to investigate the key passages that establish fundamental truths (Gen. 1, for example: does the translation have each day of creation as "one day... a second day... a third day", or does it accurately read "first day... second day... third day"?) Removing or adding one word here or there can cause major damage.

    2. Really who cares what Satan is writing for the gullible & confused to pervert the Word of God? Those with the Holy Spirit will discern Truth & those without it will be led astray. JUST do NOT read the work of the devil. SIMPLE!

    3. SFG, while I agree with you about NOT reading it to get into it, if you want to refute something, you do have to read it - all the while praying for God's guidance and direction and discernment. That is keeping in mind WHO the author actually is and knowing that satan has (again) hi-jacked God's Word for his own nefarious purposes.
      It's just like you or I reading the Quoran and learning it's history and the CHANGES that have been made to it over time, in order to be able to Biblically dispel its' teachings.
      In other words, KNOW your enemy!

    4. so we disagree
      I read ONLY TRUTH & Truth is a bottomless fountain deserving my FULL attention.
      arguing with the enemy is NOT my job nor worth my time
      and NO, I will not read the Quoran, the obvious writings of antichrist with the message inside the dome of the rock stating: "Jesus is not the son of God"
      READING the Bible, Bible history, Bible exegesis, word studies, Josephus, ancient history, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc is a FULL time JOB OF JOY!! "Every word of God is flawless;
      he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5
      Anyone may read what they like. More often than not they are led astray; an obvious reason why the world has become a Days of Noah HELLHOLE.

  8. Gary,
    Thank you for another wonderfully enlightening article. Im curious, I was saved reading the KJV, but mostly kept with it for a time because I found it to be beautifully poetic. Once I started to do more deep dives and study I moved to the Holman Christians Standard Bible, which I would be curious to hear your thoughts on. Since 2015 or so I have mostly relied on YLT, Interlinear, and now my very appreciated LSV.
    My wife reads the Voice, which is a paraphrase version that she finds very helpful, but I and very cautious of. Seeing as you work in translation, I would love to know what you think of those the Voice and HCSB. I personally find it most helpful to compare several versions when studying and feel out what each is emphasizing in their word choice.

    Again, thank you for your insight.
    God Bless

    1. I do love the poetic sound of the KJV (and some of the other similarly old translations).

      I will be honest about The Voice: I am very, very leery of it. It is kind of on the extreme end of dynamic equivalence and seems to contain a lot of very suspect interpolation. There are some different reviews out there, including this one, that show the troubling theological impact of their paraphrase: https://randywhiteministries.org/articles/the-voice-bible-translation-a-door-to-the-new-age/

      On the other hand, the HCSB is a solid translation with a number of strengths. I'm not as familiar with the nitty gritty in it, but from what I've seen I think it actually improves upon other similar translations in a number of key passages. Jeff cites from the HCSB often. It is, however, based on the Nestle-Aland critical text, which is off-putting to some.

  9. I spent a number of years attending Independent Baptist Churches that were KJV Only. They taught the KJV was the only version that was the inspired Word of God. All other translation contained the Word of God, but were corrupted and to be avoided. They had some other practices that finally caused me to leave and go to non-denominational churches. I now like using several translations, especially when studying a particular verse. I now find value in many of the translations, and find the KJV only idea seems to be somewhat cultic.

    1. Good thoughts Bernie. I agree that when Christians turn non-essentials into essentials, their behavior does indeed become cultic and even anti-gospel in many ways.

    2. When I first came to belief, all I had was my great grandmother's New Living Translation (a paraphrase), and a Pentecostal preacher suggested that I should get my hands on a KJV asap. Awhile later I was introduced to a parallel bible that had four translations lined up next to each other. Found one of the KJV-Only pamplets that showed the differences between KJV and other more modern translations and researched that as well. I've been thinking that it's interesting this topic came up now since I did spend several months studying it.

      Now I use KJV as a starting point (because it's sitting right there, heh), but often jump over to Biblehub and look at all their stored translations at once if a passage is confusing. Sometimes I must wonder, how does God want us to understand particular parts, and have we gone astray of that?

  10. Dear Gary,
    Thank you for such an insightful article. I need to go back and look up the Scriptures, but love how you came to the conclusion of dispensationalism basically being the splitting of the uprights, if I may put it that way. Personally I find it difficult to read the KJV for my daily reading, there are too many antiquated words. I used the NKJV for years but in the last year or so have been using the Holman Christian Standard and like it alot. They have a giant print edition which makes it easy on the older eyes, too.
    You really explained things well and I always love it when I come to Unsealed and see a new article posted. Love you all and see you in the sky!

    1. Hi Megan,
      I came across a translation called KJVer (the ER stands for "EASY READ" it is basically the KJV with all the antiquated words changed to their modern equivalent.

      The KJVER is not the same as NKJV... I found it to be totally accurate to the KJV (except for the modern equivalent of the old words plus they underline sometimes misunderstood words and expain them in submitted under the verse.)

      Would defo recommend it.

  11. I...... would have to agree.

  12. "of dispensationalism basically being the splitting of the uprights"

    Yup. I believe you're referring to the chart. I do believe classic dispensationalism is the happy medium between the two extremes. Maranatha!

  13. Thanks Gary - Very Well Said - Humbly Said - And representing the heart of Jesus. I love KJV - but just to point out one place that bothers me is Acts 12:4 in that it uses the word "Easter" instead of "Passover" which is just sad to me in that God planned Passover for the time of Jesus to die as the Lamb of God - and then the tradition of the church moved their "Good Friday" and "Easter Sunday" to a different day using a different calendar.

    Some have tried to defend the use of the word "Easter" -

    But it grieves my heart - But whenever I listen or read Psalms, it just has to be KJV -

    The most readable is NIV - just to read the story - a good balance between very readable and mostly accurate (but with some serious problesm), but the most accurate for Bible study in my opinion is NASB....

    God is good! Jesus is Coming Soon - Soon and Very Soon , we are going to see the King -


    And see the comment as a possible interpretation:

    "Thank you so much for sharing. It may very well be meaningful...If I share I possible meaning - The Messiah, The Son of David is waiting for the children of Israel to repent. He loves them. And He Died to redeem them - ื™ืฉืขื” 53 - In 5781 Messiah may come - (Only G-d knows for sure) - but when He comes, the children of Israel will miss the rapture as the Son of David is coming first for those who have trusted in Him to save them from their sins. Isaiah 53 - Many Jews the day of the rapture will come to believe and be saved. ื™ืฉืขื” 53 "


    1. This one was interesting in the Corona is an ancient greek symbol of the end of a major section -

      It is "crown" and crowning is the stage of birth when the head starts coming out -

      and now it comes up in this Bible Code - God is good!

      Jesus is Coming Soon - No Man knows the Day or the Hour - Hallelujah

      I am thinking that the 9th of Av may also a good watch date -


      Link to 40 rapture songs to start your celebration - Hope - Hope - We have a sure HOPE

  15. Gary, literally a few hours before you wrote this article, in my mental exhaustion about mid-acts dispensationalism, I explicitly asked the LORD if He would please clarify it for me. I love it when He has a quick reply :-)

  16. Brother, what a powerful, thoughtful and needed resource you've created for the body of Christ through this article. I pray that eyes will be opened and ears will hear. You have fulfilled so humbly the directive for the servants of the Lord given to us in 2 Tim. 2:23-26.

    "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."

    God is the one who grants repentance and I am sure He delights to use your gentle and truthful words in the lives of those who read. God bless you!

    1. Hey Hillary! Hope you and the baby are doing okay. :)

      Some sad news I wanted to share with you and since I can't in private on FB anymore, just thought you should know that Martin passed away. Both you and I had issues with a lot of his position(s), but I can hope that he was at least truly saved. The rest is sorted at the Bema.

      If you still have my email address send me an email if you wish.

  17. Nice work, Gary!

    It sure is ironic that the linchpin verse for "Right-Dividers" (2 Tim. 2:15) is couched in the context of Paul's admonition not to quarrel about dubious matters that cause strife in the Body.

  18. Gary,

    I am still working my way through this brilliant piece but can say without reservation that this should be a permanent fixture on UNSEALED.ORG (as on the level of an "About Us" page) as a vehicle toward understanding for visitors and enlightenment and teaching to those of us who call this our spiritual fellowship home.

    Brilliant, thoughtful and powerful writing. Penned with humility,sensitivity, truth and out of love.

    And as we all know -- love is the greatest of these.

    I applaud your excellent and loving leadership!


    1. I am much in agreement with Pastor Rich here.

      There are probably a great number of people who would convert if they didn't think that being a Christian was about believing a lot of hard to believe things. All they really have to do is believe Jesus died for their sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. They have to believe Him. All the rest can be summarized as 'Love one another' and 'treating others how you would like to be treated.'

      How often we overcomplicate this by adding more requirements... 'Come as you are!'

    2. Amen! that's exactly it and it's nothing to add!

  19. I grew up in the Baptist church and the understanding the KJV was THE Bible. As I got older I learned to like Paster Rich preaches all the time to dig and find out for myself why I believe what I believe. I dig and found I believe Jesus. And I understand that that the bible was originally in a different language and that the translation to English can often lose meaning or change tone from original intent; so I now use the CSB version as my personal bible and will often dig in original languages when i do indepth study. Much more rewarding and helps me better understand and ofcourse I have also learned to prayerfully ask the Father to guide my stidy so that I may understand what He wants me to.

    So dig! Pray! Happy Hunting!

  20. For those who would like to peruse the GENEVA BIBLE it is available as an easy, free PDF download
    at: https://archive.org/details/TheGenevaBible1560
    This is a public domain site - the download options, including PDF, are on the right.

    Quote from site: "The Geneva Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the 16th and 17th centuries, which was printed from 1560 to 1644 in over 200 different printings. On the advice of John Calvin it became the first Bible to divide scriptures into numbered verses. It was published in Roman type rather than black letter, and all interpolated words were italicized.

    The 1560 Geneva Bible was the backbone of the King James Version of 1611. It was later updated and released as the 1599 Geneva Bible."

    1. I like how the site, under "author/by" put God!

  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. ... It's purpose is to reward believers. I'm not sure how this settles a theological difference though. Are you saying that something like reading only KJV or choosing to read other versions will gain rewards (or that making the wrong choice loses rewards? Or that neither choice is worthy of reward?) I am not sure I understood what the connection was.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. I humbly submit that it would make more sense that we should "study to shew thyself approved" so as to know the proper work the Father requested of us. In knowing the Father's work, we can be "workmen that needeth not be ashamed" of our work "rightly dividing the word of truth". In doing the work of the Father, we are rewarded. Being rewarded for intellectual superiority, or being blessed with greater comprehension of the nitty gritty non-essentials seems counter gospel. We are given wisdom and discernment by the Spirit, so those who are gifted more wisdom in this life are rewarded more in the hereafter?

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. All of God's Word is important and sacred, but I would be hard pressed to find any man who knows it all by heart, let alone has a 100% accurate-to-God's-intentions understanding of it. Hence the purpose of this Gary's article. The Spirit leads us where our cognition fails when we are in the word and praying for wisdom. What I refer to as "essentials" for salvation are the same as Gary states in the article: The Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. Our work in the world should be witnessing that gospel to the lost, and in that task we should be sure of what we believe and why. God's Word, as you said, is perfect and will fill in the gaps where our preaching leaves them, assuming the lost becomes led to seek answers. Our reward for being in agreement with God's word is an eternal relationship with Him. Our rewards beyond that are not for us to know. I would argue that the "non-essentials", for the purpose of this discussion at least, would be things like the above mentions bible preference, when we think the Church actually started, pre-post trib stance, etc... If one spends their whole life reading the word to complete and total comprehension, but never points a single lost sheep towards the Shepard, I have doubts that they will see the rewards of an uneducated Christian speaking and living Christ's witness daily to every person he sees.

      But we can agree to disagree :)

      God Bless

    7. I would think that Paul would know if there was going to be a pop quiz at the end of his life. But all Paul wanted to know was Christ and Him crucified...

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. I will respectfully end this line of discourse, as you seem to be ignoring answers in search of more questions. I did not disagree that doctrine is important, but its portions hold different weight. If you are here to argue, as your original comment and recent response imply, then I wish you the best in obtaining your perfect doctrine.

      Try not to forget the Word in pursuit of the right words.

      God Bless

    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    11. Cloudy18,

      Keep in mind that God has a perfect plan for your life. His plan.

      You said,

      "What if what is being judged at the Judgement Seat is the doctrine we believed and not necessarily the things we did (just like the gospel of salvation)."

      Just to be sure, when you say "Judgement Seat" you're really referring to the Bema Seat of Christ? Correct?

      If so, then that is wholly related to your personal relationship with Jesus.

      Here's an example -- when my wife and I married we shared vows. We agreed upon a set of rules that define our relationship. It was a contract of sorts, a conventional and covanental agreement. BUT!! As we have abided in one another, loved, trusted and forgiven one another our relationship is no longer governed by rules. Our relationship is governed by Love.

      Love is a law unto itself. Christ Himself gives us this.

      You refer to Paul's letters to Timothy. Keeping in mind that Timothy was a pastor are you expecting to be held to the same measure? Paul's letters are great instruction for pastors and ministry leaders and do shed light for those who follow. But what does the entirety of the Word share?


      Love God. Love others as you hope to be loved and love yourself as God in Christ Loves you...and do stuff!

      Are we given gifts and talents that we may hide them? Squander them? No! We are given gifts and talents that we may invest them, share them in ways that produce a harvest in return.

      If there is no greater gift than that given by the cheerful giver, then how can we be rewarded for giving out of compulsion? Such giving would be a curse not a blessing. God forbid! The greatest gift is the cheerful and thankful heart of the giver.

      The Law and the Prophets are very important here. The Greatest Commandment, the Golden Rule, the Great Commission and Christ's Commandment -- but not as a matter of checklist items to clear before you end your day; they are every living breath and every beat of your heart. It is the way we are to live, eat, breathe, share, think and most of all Love.

      If you ask me? What is the GREATEST measure of your progress in these matters? How much you allow Christ to fill your weakness that He shines from within you. How much do others see Jesus in you (instead of you!) not you acting like Jesus. When we come to the end of ourselves, putting away our pride, admitting we are 100% broken. Admitting we have no strength of our own and that wholeness in us is Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit that dwells within us; THEN we are living in the right direction.

      We are all broken. God is the glue that holds us together. He makes us again in wholeness and strength but not of our own -- only of His.

      I wholly believe that we will be reward by how we have LOVED. (Loved God, Loved others, Love ourselves and demonstrated that Love by investing all that we are in all of the above). Not that we followed the rules. The cross proves we cannot do this adequately. It's the depth of our heart, the cheerful giving and the Love we share by the grace we are given and Life we receive by God in Christ Jesus and His Holy Spirit that lives within us.

      May we be measured not by rules but by relationship. Let the Spirit be your guide and bar Him from no part of you that you may be consumed knowing that He is your very strength -- not that we imagine to be our strength.



    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    13. If I may, not out of being critical, but to share on some point you have made...

      How do we not suffer loss? How do we figure that out?

      I wouldn't term it quite that way. It is assumed you're not talking about losing your salvation -- rather missing out on rewards that you may have otherwise been given had it not been for your own shortcoming(s).

      (Romans 10:9-10) is, as far as I am concerned, a daily exercise. Our, "Yes!" to God in Christ is not, and should not, be a one-time event. As such, we in our daily, "Yes!" and the taking up of our cross will bring both eternal (heavenly) and temporal (earthly) rewards.

      Are we performing for rewards? I can't speak for anyone else here but I am not.

      I would suggest though that if "loss" is suffered at the Bema Seat it would be in the form of rewards not given. Rather, if we fail to our calling, purpose and potential in an extreme sense of the word; then we may be able to consider the result as a lost reward. (Make sense?) In other words, if for an extreme case, saved but that's it. Just saved.

      But why try to figure out how not to suffer loss at all?

      May I point you back to my original response on giving -- or to put it another way think about the parable of the talents. Are you giving in nature? Do you point others to Christ in your daily life? Do you pray for those who persecute you? Do you pray for your enemies? Do you reflect Jesus in who you are and do you do so with kingdom building and creating disciples in mind?

      The list can go on-and-on but the simple truth is this. Where is your heart?

      How may you show yourself approved? Again, go back to my original post. Realize how broken you are -- how broken we all are and that you have no real strength of your own. How willing are you to offer 100% of you as space for the Holy Spirit to occupy? There's no part of me that has real strength. Any part that thinks such things is pride.

      May we boast in our weakness!

      If we give ourselves wholly and freely and walk in Love AND are filled with the Holy Spirit; are we not approved? God certainly shows His Love for us. This is another way we know we are approved.

      If we love the LORD then we do these things, the things that He asks of us to do, and do them out of Love not compulsion. Again, see my original post.

      As you say, test the spirits. Amen! We should be listening to what the Spirit has to say. Is He not our teacher? If your learning comes from the pages of the KJV then so be it. I started with the NIV and quickly moved to Greek, Hebrew and NKJV. The ESV was a hard one to get used to and I reference it a lot in this space but still I default back to the original languages. The NIV (for me) has been found lacking what I feel is precision. That precision I find in original languages while the KJV/NKJV are what I use when discussing Biblical topics with those who use them as well as cross references in my personal studies.

      I still prefer original languages but that's just me. YMMV. Either way it is not a salvation issue. Chalk that up to providence and how God is guiding you in your walk with Him.

      Finally, if we are to be wary of corrupt doctrine then we need a teacher and to search out truth. That requires one digs for the truth and not be willing to take the word of another just because they said so.

      That is why I encourage everyone to dig for themselves. Don't take my word for it! Get on your knees and pray. God Himself will share His wisdom and lead you in all Truth. He sure did it with me!

      Blessings, always!

    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  22. Has anyone else noticed that the Jewish Temple Institute put out a short video updating the public on the Red Heifer situation? They've got two cows that are a few months from their final Rabbitical examination. (I think they were born in August or September of 2018?) Anyway, if either of them passes the test, that's pretty much the final thing needed for a temple rebuild (save for the land itself). Considering the Jewish belief is that the Red Heifer only is born when it is divinely required, I'd consider this a sign of the nearing End too.

    1. https://www.israeltoday.co.il/read/getting-ready-temple-institute-practices-burning-the-red-heifer/
      Been keeping updated on it as well - last year, they had a "practice" run.

  23. I'm more Textus Receptus Only (KJV was based on this) for New Testament translations.
    I avoid the Wescott and Hort translations from the Alexandrian texts. I believe G. A. Riplinger is correct with many of the topics she covers in her books about KJV vs others. I don't place much weight to the personal attacks but the theories she has about the text are spot on.

    I use this interlinear for Texus Receptus translations if anyone is interested:

    1. Here is a link to G.A. Riplinger's main book on the KJV topic

      Full Web Archived book - New Age Bible Versions

  24. While I try to read the Bible every day and get through it once a year, I am in no way a Bible scholar. In fact, I generally need to rely on other Christians (think about the Ethiopian in the Book of Acts) to help me through some difficult passages. Moreover, there is something new every time I read it.

    I have read a lot of the KJV only stuff and some of its opposition. I even got in the middle of a heated debate once between several folk online. That debate essentially became very much unheated when I explained that it was through the NIV that I found my way to Christ back in the 80s. The bottom line was this, God is sovereign and what man meant for evil God can use for good. Since then I found that I am not a real fan of the NIV for bible study but it was the right tool at the right time and caused the right outcome. During that time, I also tried to read the KJV but all it did was confuse me. Now when I read the KJV I can see its beauty and appeal but I still need to examine other versions. Now if I could only read Greek and Hebrew :-). I can read and write almost any computer language but not those all-important languages.

    I also think that we need some, not all, of these alternate translations (okay do not shoot me but I have zero use for the Message) because there are sometimes layers of a message and multiple meanings. In other words, it may be this or that, but it could be both. Two examples are Jesus is both full God and fully man, that one is easy and mostly communicated right in most versions. But what about the departing or rebellion in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition” GNV. Does it mean falling away from the Lord in ‘apostasy’ or does it mean taken away by the Lord as in ‘apostasia’ as argued by Thomas Ice. Or, does it mean both. They both seem to fit and neither interpretation seems to adversely alter our understanding of the times. What is that style of language called, double entendre?

    BTW, thanks Gary for a great article!!!


    1. I too found my beginnings in the NIV, mostly because that is what was given me, but migrated to original languages very early on.

      If you can hack code in Notepad then you can learn Greek and Hebrew. There are so many open resources out there for FREE. Being a daily driver of Linux I'm all about open-source!


    2. Hi Joe,

      firstly, thanks for your posts a little while back on the evolution/creation discussion (now I'm second guessing myself but pretty sure it was you! If it wasn't you just take credit for it anyway! : ) I was thankful to read those posts reaffirming creation seeing the discussion was rapidly heading out into left field!

      As to 2 Thes 2:3... Yeah, I'm not sure we'll ever get to the bottom of that one. Firstly there is too much riding on it from a rapture timing perspective to ever get any type of consensus. And secondly, there are able scholars with valid points on both sides of the debate. Dr Andy Woods has an interesting little booklet arguing for 'departure' (as in the rapture) called 'The Falling Away: Spiritual Departure of Physical Rapture' - I just add that in case you haven't seen it. Worth reading.

      If Paul did have a physical departure in mind, it could help explain why vs 7-8 seems to be linked to, and repeating, vs 3. ie:

      Vs 3 (paraphrase) The 'departure' comes first then the man of lawlessness is revealed
      Vs 7-8 (paraphrase) The restrainer is taken out of the way then the lawless one is revealed

      It seems that the 'apostasรญa' is linked with the restrainer being removed which makes sense if Paul was meaning a physical departure. Anyway... it could be a double reference as you said. Or it could just be meaning a spiritual departure from the faith. Thankfully, the belief in a pre-trib rapture doesn't depend on knowing what Paul had in mind in 2 Thes 2:3. There are plenty of other verses declaring the church will not see the wrath of God and the structure of Revelation especially show that the events of the tribulation occur after the Church age.

      All the best : )

  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

  26. Excellent Gary!

    I think perhaps the most frustrating part for me is those who would split the Gospel up into more than one. or tell you that the first 4 books (Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not for us, and that we are to ignore the Red Letters, and that we are to only read Paul's writings.

    It's almost shockingly unfathomable how they can say it with a straight face. I think of (2 Peter 2:1) here. "They will secretly introduce destructive heresies that even deny the Master who bought them..."

    In the case of the Paul only group, they are so quick to run to 1 Corinthians 15 for the definition of the Gospel, as though it is different than that of the other Apostles, and saying this is Paul's Gospel and not that of the others. Yet they don't stick with it through to verse 11.

    1 Corinthians 15:11 (BSB)

    "Whether, then, it was I or they,
    this is what *WE* preach,
    and this is what *YOU* believed."

    You get the feeling from 1 Corinthians 1 right from the onset that Paul was dealing with the same thing head on in his day.

    1 Corinthians 1:12-13 (BSB)

    What I mean is this:

    Individuals among you are saying,
    “I follow Paul,”
    “I follow Apollos,”
    “I follow Cephas (Peter),”
    or “I follow Christ.”

    Is Christ divided?
    Was Paul crucified for you?
    Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

    I mean... How much clearer does it have to be? :D

    ๐Ÿšซ ๐Ÿ‡

    ··╱ษท ษท╲··

    Foxman on the Wall

  27. I go to a KJV only church, although we wouldn't condemn anybody for bringing in another version. I suppose I fall into the KJV-lite camp. Most KJV onlyists actually like the older English versions prior to it. I think the uncomfortably comes with the history of some of the other versions. For example, Wescott and Hort weren't exactly people I'd trust with theology. For awhile also verses were removed because it was thought the KJV was an inferior translation. The verses concerning the Ethiopian Eunuch were questioned as legitimate as well as verses in Mark as being added to the Bible when in fact later this was found to be false. I think KJV onlyists go too far when the state that the only way to get saved is out of a KJV or that the KJV came down from heaven as some Ruckman Baptists would say. It's my favorite version, and I stick to it, and can understand why many still do. A version doesn't make you a brother or sister in Christ though. Faith in Christ does.

    1. I can definitely respect the KJV-lite view. This was really part of the heart behind the LSV—to have a Bible as faithful as The Great Bible, Geneva, KJV, etc, but in Modern English. The case for the KJV's inclusion of 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Johanneum) is actually very strong, and we include it, too.

  28. I love the language of the KJV and trust the accuracy of the LSV but when I want to KNOW biblehub.com is where I go. We have the ability to see scripture in the original language so why wouldn't we make the effort. It's about conforming myself to the truth so I need to know The Truth.

    1. For nearly 1.5 millennia most people didn't even have the Bible in their own language. Now, not only do we have that, but even the layman can see the raw Greek and Hebrew. It's a blessed time to be able to study the Bible.

  29. https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ro&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://pastebin.com/raw/Rqnfsm2M&usg=ALkJrhg4PIyYt8jPxo9-M16e2BhNUJO4MQ


    10.f. As of 01.09.2018, the O.N.U. takes over the role of World Government and moderator in international unions

    14.b. Starting with 15.08.2017, all Christian Churches will accept the abolition of nation states and the establishment of multinational, multicenter, multicultural and multireligious state units, as well as the establishment of religious state units, such as the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

  31. 2c. As of 19.10.2017, the O.N.U. will take over the leadership of all religions on the planet.
    2d. Starting with August 14, 2018, religious centers will be established on the entire planet under the patronage of the World Council of Churches.

    from 10.12.2016 the dissolution of the national states and the establishment of a one world government.

  32. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36352/was-a-new-world-religion-memorandum-signed-in-strasbourg-in-june-2014

  33. I'm not surprised that back room deals like Butterfly has shared are happening. I'm just thankful that no matter how many papers they sign, something holds them back from actually acting on them... Hello Mr. Restrainer... :)

    1. KG, YOU are right - no matter how many back room deals are worked out by the dark/deep state, God's plans and His purposes will prevail - THANK GOD!
      We even know satan's time frame once the AC comes to power.
      If the Rapture takes place SOON, the NWO 2030 Agenda could take on a whole new meaning in terms of the Millennial Kingdom - that truly would be peace on earth and good will for all men (at least at the beginning).

  34. So I noticed the picture for this article is Psalm 133. It reminded me of this show I started watching called The Chosen about Jesus' followers. Really good show that everyone here might enjoy. You can watch it for free from an app you get in the app store, apple or Android.

  35. Anyone in North America see comet NeoWise c/2020. We have had cloudy skies when I try to find it. Discovered March 27, 2020. Supposedly visible by the naked eye but for sure with binoculars. Another sign?

    1. I've seen a fair number of photos of it on spaceweather dot com.

    2. Jeff M and Kris, there is some great discussion about it over at https://rev12daily.blogspot.com

  36. https://youtu.be/yH2Ztj4Do00
    Incredibil incatusat la metrou ca nu purta masca corect

    incredible what is happening in romania that he is not wearing a mask correctly, what abuses

  37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNyALV2T-F0
    people abused for shopping because they refused to be termoscan

    The local police arrest a bus driver in Bacau, because he does not have a protective mask,in the bus without air conditioning they were over 40 C...

  38. Romania is the only country in the world where asymptomatic patients were forced locked up in a hospital for up to 60 days in a hospital with a key without leaving the hospital ward...

    Please pray for Romanians and Romania, now politicians want to pass a law through which even if you sneeze can lock you up indefinitely, to quarantine your things, phone, house, car .... that is to confiscate or destroy so they are not contaminated and they can take your child to the orphanage, it is incredible. Please pray for us not to pass this aberrant law.
    God bless you !!!

    1. Butterfly, I will be praying for Romania and talk of your news with my local Romanian brothers and sisters in Christ. I am sure they are praying and will pray for these things especially!

    2. Tkankyou very much!!!
      God bless you!!!

  39. I watched a five-minute video last week that presented three reasons why the Church Age didn’t start at Pentecost. It made sense to my untrained eye. Later in evening I read this and thought: “boy, those righteous guys from the video sure are wrong!”

    Thanks for sharing this – it’s a very humble rebuttal to the “If you’re not in agreement with me, you’re rightly dividing” loud mouths.

  40. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/1308848/world-war-3-china-iran-defence-pact-partnership-us-sanctions/amp

    World War 3: China closes in on military partnership with Iran in terrifying warning to US

    China and Iran are on the verge of signing a defence pact worth $400 billion dollars. In return china get 25 years of oil supply for discounted price.

    Are we close to sixth trumpet war? China in the Middle East??? If war breaks out between Israel and Iran, will it lead to face-off between US and China? Will China move in 200 million army as prophesied in Rev 9:16?. Cant imagine losing 1/3 of world's population. Looks like it can set off this year. Will continue to pray for unsaved souls. Maranatha...!!

  41. Emmanuel

    The second Woe, which is the sixth trumpet is passed by the 14th verse of the 11th chapter. We are still about the middle of the great tribulation week.

    And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

    By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

    For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

    They are not from China!

  42. https://www.mintpressnews.com/mass-tracking-covi-pass-immunity-passports-slated-roll-15-countries/269006/

  43. https://nerdist.com/article/invisible-tattoos-vaccination-records-tracking/?amp


    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwRJSuw6LOA&t=4s
      Suspicions The Tests May Be The Vaccine!/US Army Officer: Warning COVID tests could also contain the vaccine!

    2. Countries that have not had RT PCR tests or those where few such tests have been done have no problems with COVID 19 disease and the alarming increase in the number of diseases.

      The RT PCR test now used for COVID 19 was invented in 1984 by American researcher Kary Mullius. This RT PCR test does not test for the virus! The inventor of the test stated that the RT PCR test cannot be used to diagnose infectious diseases! However, during the alert period, the Romanian State authorities base their decisions on the results obtained following the use of the RT PCR test. In fact, this test collects genetic material that it amplifies and depending on the number of magnification cycles gives the result, a negative or positive test (at a higher number of amplification).



    3. Action commander,in Romania for for emergencies
      and for management of covid 19 is Raed Arafat ,he was born in Syria,Palestinian Arab ethnicity
      Religion:Islam,is an antichrist

    4. https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law

    5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fska-JPbNI
      The president of Ghana tell the truth !!!

  44. This sort of goes along with agreeing to disagree and the inerrancy of God's Word.
    The above is a link to a recent article in Israel Today by the Editor-in-Chief.
    He basically writes that God LOWERED His expectations with regard to humanity in order to be able to accept our imperfections, but ultimately to bring about perfection.
    I've read things before that have shocked me, but this one...
    This is from the EIC of a top Israeli paper!
    It just goes to show how NOT believing in God's omniscience, His plans for mankind, and not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, can cloud one's perspective - it's a completely different,and erroneous world view.

  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

  47. Thank you, Gary, for this informative article and for this very encouraging website.

    I like to share one reason (among many) why I have returned to the KJV, and that is that I have discovered how God speaks to me regularly through numbers. For example, an exact search on the phrase “the voice of the Lord” would yield 14 (7+7) books of the Bible with this phrase and 14 (7+7) times in Deuteronomy. Also, the phrase itself has 17 letters and Psalms 29 (2+9=11) alone is the phrase mentioned 7 times. Related to number, I can also do a search on the first time such a phrase is mentioned and it is found in Gen 3:8 (3+8=11) after man had sinned. Then a quick rundown on the context throughout the Bible, I realise this phrase is usually linked to obedience, and the consequences to disobedience, and so on and so forth as my personal study goes. My point in these examples is that the Lord speaks to me simultaneously in words and numbers and it is only by the KJV that I can have such consistency. For example, the phrase “the voice of the Lord” that appears the first time in Gen 3:8 has been changed to “the sound of the Lord” in the NIV. Such a change I feel has diminished the richness of my findings In numbers, and the glory in the revealing of the Lord to me. So I guess, it’s a ‘thank you but no thanks’ to modern versions, I’ll still stick to my Voice of God found in my old KJV.

    1. YES! Also, the ability to do in depth research is beyond a blessing I would never have imagined when I began my Bible studies years ago before the internet. "By accident" I was in a mall one day & noticed a very "fat" Bible in the window of a bookstore. This is when malls had bookstores & Bibles were actually in the window! So I went inside to see why a Bible was so "fat" just out of curiosity. Still not really sure why I did that. WELL! It turned out to be the Amplified Bible which I still have & is very worn & marked. It was then I discovered the fact Bible verses refer back to one another which was how after decades I found the Bible is an amazing tapestry written by the Finite Mind. The KJ Bible would never have begun such a journey nor any other Bible I can think of. Jesus will personally open the door since HE IS THE DOOR!

  48. The idea is read everything you can use for illumination because you will still not scratch the surface. At some point discerning truth is not that hard & is a much better use of time than debating insignificant topics.

  49. Really awesome article Gary. Thank you brother. You are a treasure to us all.

    1. so true Jordan, as are you brother! may joy abound . . .

  50. Personally I like the KJV or the NKJV if the old English gets to be to much. When I was younger. I used to go to the library and find all the bibles I could put them side by side and compare while reading, before computers.
    The KJV has a fluid narrative easy to follow, not so much with later Versions.
    I was just on www.breakingisraelnews.com scouring Mideast news and found this one:

    A Breaking Israel News report last month described how the U.S. drone strike that killed Gen. Qasem Soleimani and ten of his cohorts left behind little to identify his body. Soleimani’s death was confirmed by the remains of his arm, still wearing a large red ring he never removed. Haman was also noted for wearing the king’s signet ring.

    Thereupon the king removed his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the foe of the Yehudim. Esther 3:10

    The Book of Esther culminates in Haman being hanged along with his ten sons, and the Jews successfully defending themselves against their Persian enemies.

    Then I remembered that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."

  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

  52. This comment has been removed by the author.


    For so many of us we struggle to come to grips with everyday life. We seek answers to the complexities of daily living many times not knowing where to turn. This was me early in my walk -- before I understood the condition(s) of my circumstance(s) and how utterly lost I was.

    There was a time that I asked the question, "Why come to faith?" "Isn't salvation for the sake of saving myself a selfish act?" "How does that love anyone else?" The doctrine of "turn-or-burn" made no sense and was something I could not accept by itself. Where was the love in that?

    Then one day the LORD provided the answer to my problem. The question that eluded me -- why come to faith?

    The answer was, and is, "Because He loved you first." That was, and is, the answer I can abide in. My faith in God was sealed. Because of this I was now able to not only cling to faith but to do so out of LOVE for the LORD not out of legal obligation but everything that I am. Heart, mind and soul.


    Because He loved me first.

    Thus I cleave to the LORD with a heart and desire that doesn't just visit but dwells in the Fortress of His Love. This is the place in which we are given to live -- not for a time but for all time. Permanently, for all eternity, not to satisfy the rule of law. No. I abide because I get to.

    I abide because of Love, for...

    1 He who dwells in shelter of
    the Most High will abide in the
    shadow of the Almighty.

    2 I will say to the LORD,
    "My refuge and my fortress,
    my God, in whom I trust."

    3 For he will deliver you
    from the snare of the fowler
    and from the deadly pestilence.

    4 He will cover you with his
    pinions, and under his wings
    you will find refuge; his
    faithfulness is a shield and

    5 You will not fear the terror
    of the night, nor the arrow that
    flies by day,

    6 nor the pestilence that stalks
    in darkness, nor the destruction
    that wastes at noonday.

    7 A thousand may fall at your
    side, ten thousand at your right
    hand, but it will not come near

    8 You will only look with your
    eyes and see the recompense of
    the wicked.

    9 Because you have made the
    LORD your dwelling place --
    the Most High, who is my
    refuge --

    10 no evil shall be allowed
    to befall you, no plague
    come near your tent.

    11 For he will command his
    angels concerning you to guard
    you in all your ways.

    12 On their hands they will
    bear you up, lest you strike
    your foot upon a stone.

    13 You will tread on the
    lion and the adder;
    the young lion and the
    serpent you will trample

    14 "Because he holds fast
    to me in love, I will
    deliver him; I will protect
    him, because he knows my

    15 When he calls to me,
    I will answer him;
    I will be with him in trouble;
    I will rescue him
    and honor him.

    16 With long life
    I will satisfy him
    and show him my salvation.

    (Psalm 91:1-16 ESV)

    1. Truly beautiful and encouraging! God is love and nothing separate us from it. Nothing can snatch us out of His hand. His love for us is a Fortress we can dwell in. In all the chaos we can rest and find comfort in His love.
      Thank you.

  54. Alright, I know I've been "quiet" for a few days, but I'm working on something big. Could use all of your prayers! Thank you.

  55. https://thearabposts.com/news/2020/07/27/erdogan-islamic-brand-from-hagia-sophia-to-al-aqsa-advertising-stuns-of-the-most-hated-man-after-adolf-hitler/



[Top Post][grids]

World News

[Top World News][bleft]



Bible Study

[Bible Study][list]





Wolf Watch


Birth Pangs

[Birth Pangs][bleft]




[Top Science][list]

In-Depth Articles