The Original, Politically Correct Liars
Political correctness is not exclusive to politics or politicians any longer. It’s epidemic in most public venues today, including modern (so-called) evangelical churches.
We have the news media to thank for the spread of this phenomenon by and large, as they have mastered the art of “double-speak”—saying something without actually saying anything—and have educated our society in it by means of the “evening news” and other news programs (that’s what programs do: they program you) from 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. every night for something like 50 years. “Progress” has brought us to the point where we now have 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week news programs.
Not even those with the strongest constitutions are able to resist the effects of this exposure forever; it will eventually take hold in at least some small way.
The present use of politically correct language is based on the notion that the greatest evil which exists in the world today is the sin of “offending someone.” The idea is, since offending somebody is the unpardonable sin, and telling the TRUTH will offend somebody, let me come up with a vocabulary that sounds intellectual but is, in fact, so disconnected from reality that no one will actually know what I’m saying at all. That way they will have no grounds to be offended or hold me responsible for my words, because my words are either meaningless or deceptively flattering.
The way this effeminate vocabulary (it’s a FEMALE trait to get upset and offended by anything that is not “sugar and spice and everything nice”) is generated is by staying away from language that seems negative in any way, and replacing it with language that sounds positive. “You gotta ac-cennnn-chuate the positive; e-liiiiim-inate the negative; latch ahhhhn to the affirmative; and don’t mess with Mister In-Between!”
(So said Johnny Mercer back in 1945. It’s amazing to note that things were already leaning in that direction by then.)
Examples abound. If you’re short, you’re “vertically challenged;” if you’re poor, you’re “economically marginalized;” if you’re stupid, you’re “cerebrally challenged;” if you’re lazy, you’re “motivationally dispossessed;” if you’re unemployed you’re “non-waged;” if you’re bankrupt, you’re “fiscally challenged;” if you’re ugly you’re “aesthetically challenged.”
Your employer explains that the company is "reducing costs" when he really means he’s cutting your salary. But don’t worry; you won’t be fired. You will simply “enter a career alternative enhancement program.” If you’re lucky, you might just be required to undergo a “verbal coaching” (get reamed out).
This girly, passive-aggressive lingo has even made it’s way into the military. An assassination is termed an "extrajudicial killing,” and Prisoners of war is much too negative a reference; they should be called “political detainees.” If a lot of innocent civilians die in a military operation, you say there was “collateral damage.”
When a missile goes down, it’s a “premature impact.”
I love this one: a bomb experiences the “forcible rejection of its internal components” (i.e. it explodes.)
The military no longer attacks; they “service the target” and “meet the opposition.”
An invading army is called a “peace-keeping force.”
An unprovoked attack is a “pre-emptive strike.”
No one gets tortured anymore; they are now “subjects of enhanced interrogation.”
Genocide is too harsh a word, for mother nature’s sake! It should be “ethnic cleansing.”
See how it’s done? You use jargon and wordiness to pretend something is different than it actually is, in order to insulate yourself or others from the cold, hard, facts.
When you run out of money, you aren’t broke; you’re simply “experiencing a negative cash-flow.” (Mmmyeah; I’ve had some experience with that.)
When you sell a car, you advertise it as “slightly used” instead of “banged up and virtually undriveable.”
When a doctor loses a patient on the operating table, he had a “negative patient-care outcome.”
Folks don’t die; they “expire.” After they’ve “expired,” you certainly don’t put them to bed with a shovel and bury them in the graveyard; you “consign them to reside at the memorial gardens.” (“Memorial gardens?” What, are we planting flowers or vegetables to enjoy?! My, the extremes to which man will go in order to escape the truth that one day he’ll DIE and his body will go into the DIRT from whence it came; after which he’ll FACE GOD IN JUDGMENT.)
Your house isn’t “old, worn out, and undecorated,” but rather it’s shabby chic.
There are no more lame-brain ideas, just “ill-advised options.”
Ladies, next time your husband complains your house is a disaster area, tell him he’s wrong; it simply has a lot of “potential.”
And then we have examples of what we call pseudo-intellectualism, which means FAKE INTELLIGENCE. In other words, you take something that’s common, simple, or mediocre and make it seem fantastic, scientific, or complex. The government’s motto is, “If it’s simple, make it complicated; if it’s complicated, make it IMPOSSIBLE.”
A toilet plunger is a “hydro-blast force cup.”
A barf-bag is for “motion discomfort.”
A garbage can is a “waste receptacle.”
A shuttle-bus is a “customer conveyance mobile.”
A thermometer is a “digital fever computer.”
A bathroom scale is an “ultra-thin micro-electric weight sensor.”
Teachers are "educators" these days, or “classroom managers,” or “learning facilitators” who possess effective “instructional delivery skills” which they demonstrate in “micro-teaching sessions.” They apply “action plans” (lessons) to a “knowledge base” (students).
Students don't study, they “spend time on task” in a “learning environment.”
Horse manure. That is the talk of a hypocritical egomaniac—a liar who’s stuck on himself and pretending to be important when he isn’t. And you wonder why we have a generation of young people today that can’t read or write, and yet think they’re intellectuals who’s opinions should be taken seriously? Well, in what kind of a shape do you think the mind is, after being talked to that way for 17 years in elementary, high-school, and university? One needs only to look around to see the results of filling the minds of young people with that drivel.
When we consider the product that the public schools are putting out these days, we are reminded of the fellow who studied less and less about more and more until he knew nothing about everything. Then, he studied more and more about less and less until he knew everything about NOTHING.
There’s only so much gobbledygook the human mind can tolerate before it short-circuits and blows a gasket.
Speaking of “blown gaskets,” the esteemed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrected a young woman who used the word “mankind” in asking him a question recently. He interjected, “We prefer the word PEOPLEKIND rather than ‘mankind,’ as it’s more inclusive.”
The crowd roared in approval.
Can you imagine that? “Peoplekind” is not a word; it’s gibberish. “Who are you to say it’s not a word?” Somebody with a dictionary, that’s who. And what does he mean, “We prefer…?” Has he got a mouse in his pocket? As far as “WE” can tell, he invented the fake term on the spot; no one has ever used that term in public address in the history of public addresses. But it gets rid of those offensive letters “m-a-n” out of that word—they’re offensive if you’re a man-hating feminazi or an effeminate, lace-on-his-britches, twinkle-toes like Trudeau, I suppose. (Please excuse me; I just had to talk STRAIGHT for a second. I’m suffocating here.)
“We need a more open approach to balanced strategic alignment.” Translation: nothing. Absolutely nothing. That statement is a non-statement; it isn’t there.
“We need to align with industry thought leaders and deliver on our new execution philosophy.” Translation: “we need to DO STUFF.”
“Extinguish the illumination resources upon vacating the premises.” Translation: “CUT THE LIGHTS OFF WHEN YOU LEAVE.”
Shall we continue? But we’re just getting started!
The term “illegal alien” contains two negative words which would “hurt the feelings” of the criminal who is in the country illegally; so it must be changed to “undocumented immigrant,” which is not even a thing. There is no such thing as an “immigrant” who has no immigration documentation. If he has no documentation that allows him to be in the country he’s in, he is not an immigrant but a criminal—he has broken the law. Hence, the word illegal is the correct word to use. Furthermore, he’s a stranger who’s someplace he doesn’t live or belong, which means he IS an “alien,” according to the dictionary. But in the age of SIRI, who even knows what a dictionary is anymore?
The largest terrorist organization in the world used to be called the PLO under Yasser Arafat. The letters stood for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. They weren’t from Palestine and Arafat was Lebanese; further, Palestine was already free (the parts under Israeli rule); and finally, the “liberation” in which they were involved amounted to “taking whatever they wanted by force.” The designation PLO is a perfect example of double-speak. You call a thing what it’s NOT, and pretend that’s what it is. The PLO is now called the “Palestinian Authority.” What does that mean? It means exactly the opposite of what it implies. It’s run by a man who defied authority to remain in office and be his own authority against the will of the people.
(It’s STILL a terrorist organization, by the way; but don’t call it that! They’re “freedom fighters,” don’t you know.)
A muslim terrorist is a “self-radicalized extremist.”
I’m glad you asked; it’s nothing.
It’s not a blasted thing in this world. It doesn’t exist.
“Self-radicalized”? You mean the fellow worked himself into a frenzy and DROVE HIMSELF to blow something up? Do us a favor, and just cut it out, will ya? Put your index finger horizontally at the place your lips meet, and then blow as you move your finger up and down. You’ll be more “productive” that way.
A muslim terrorist shot up a Naval installation (Fort Hood) a few years ago. The media immediately reported that a “lone wolf” was involved in an “isolated occurrence” of “workplace violence,” and that something needs to be done about all the “guns that are killing people.”
Why didn’t they tell it like it was? Because it’s the job of the experts in political correctness to tell it like it ISN’T. The guns didn’t kill anybody, and murder is not “workplace violence.” A muslim who was obeying his koran killed some people, and it wasn’t an isolated occurrence—it’s happening hundreds of times a day all over the world, and has been since Mohammed had his first epileptic fit in the 7th Century.
By the way, when they say “gun control” they mean PEOPLE CONTROL (See? They NEVER say what they mean). Real gun control is the ability to hit your target. The news media’s “gun control” means “law abiding citizens lose more rights for the sake of those who don’t care about laws, so we can help bring in a totalitarian police-state.”
A muslim terrorist in a rented box-truck ran over some people in Central Park, New York a while back. How was it described in the media? “A TRUCK RAN OVER THEM.” You know, the same way “guns kill people.”
You see, political correctness will not allow the media to state that a muslim did anything negative, for fear that a muslim might be offended; so you blame the TRUCK, and ignore the driver! And never-mind how “offended” the people who were killed or injured are.
It isn’t Islamic Terrorism; it’s “radical extremism.”
Which is…what, exactly?
If it’s radical, isn’t it already extreme? And if it’s extreme, doesn’t that make it pretty radical? What in blazes are these nuts talking about?
You’re not allowed to say or know. Somebody might get upset.
For Darwin’s sake, don’t call the homeless beggars “bums” or “vagrants!” Call them “transients” instead. If you don’t, you’ll “trigger” someone, or sound uneducated, and we can’t have that now can we?
Freud forbid you call it a lie! It was just an “exaggeration,” or a “misrepresentation,” or an “error.”
You didn’t lie; you “mis-remembered.”
Let’s wrap it up, shall we?
Here’s the bottom line—you didn’t sin; you were “mistaken.” Don’t use the word sin; someone might think you’re a hick! (You can use hick, because we don’t care about offending hicks. Yep; you can discriminate against, offend, “trigger”, marginalize, mock, insult, curse, and stomp on the civil rights of white, protestant, straight men [what most “hicks” are] all you want.)
And that’s really what political correctness comes down to—hypocritically covering up SIN, and calling it something besides SIN, in order to convince yourself or others that it’s not SIN, when it’s actually SIN.
The dope-head is a “substance abuser.” A junky is a “tropical produce sub-contractor.” A thief is an “after-hours impulse shopper.”
Sex perverts are “gays.” Sex perversion is an “alternative lifestyle.” Fornication is “pre-marital sex.” Adultery is a “consensual relationship.”
The word “queer” means odd or abnormal, so that word is “offensive” and politically incorrect when applied to a homosexual. Why? Because that’s what they are—odd, and abnormal. Political correctness dictates that you’re not allowed to state what a thing is. And to illustrate the further insanity of it, the homos have now taken to calling themselves “queers” (the “Q” in LGBTQ), while at the same time putting the rest of humanity on a guilt-trip and labeling them “homophobic” for treating the queers like they’re abnormal!
I’m not “homophobic;" I’m homo-nauseated.
THE ORIGINS OF DOUBLE-SPEAK
The idea behind politically correct double speak is, because people don’t like the truth, we’ll give them lies instead so they don’t get their feelings hurt. This type of hypocritical, deceptive, worldly, pseudo-intellectual, sycophantic baloney has no place in the mouths of Bible-believing Christians at all—especially preachers of the Bible (I Cor. 1:17-21).
What are we going to do if the gospel offends somebody (and it will; it’s called "the OFFENCE of the cross"—Gal. 5:11)? Give them a DIFFERENT gospel? That’s what you’d have to do in order to be a “politically correct” preacher and have a “politically correct” church. Osteen and Warren are giving out a false gospel—one with no hell, no judgment, no repentance, no cross-bearing, no sacrifice, and no reproach. They scarcely even talk about heaven; it’s all about Your Best Life NOW.
Now, although the media has exacerbated it, they are not the originators of political correctness. No; man has been an expert at justifying his sins and covering up the truth from the very beginning (Gen. 3). Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together for two reasons: to cover up what made them ashamed, and to still their consciences from being reminded of their sin every time they looked at one another.
The reasons for the invention and propagation of politically correct double-speak are exactly the same. It’s man’s effort to continue participating in wicked behavior, while calling it something it’s not, so he doesn’t have to feel badly about it.
The entrance of politically correct, deceptive, cowardly, non-committal, effeminate language into the vocabulary of Bible-believing Christians cannot be blamed on the news industry. As we’ve said, they have only helped to further the cause.
No, the original "Christian politicians” who foisted the language of double-speak on unwitting Christianity (and subsequently the world at large) would have to be the infidels in leadership positions in major Christian colleges and universities over the last hundred years. This was the crowd who originally “changed the truth of God into a lie” (Rom. 1:25) when they perverted the scriptures, and went right on pretending that lie was still the “Word of God” when they believed nothing of the kind. They used JARGON and DOUBLE-SPEAK to get the job done, and they used it for years before anybody knew what a television was, let alone a television news program.
Let’s take a few examples.
Bob Jones University
“Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version (KJV) as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927…We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language.” —Official statement on the inspiration of scripture, Bob Jones University
Ain't that a beauty?
There are so many problems with that paragraph, it’s difficult to decide where to begin. We’ll start with this non-statement, “we…hold the widely-used King James as the campus standard…”
Widely-used? Why say that? What difference does it make whether a Bible is widely-used, hardly used, or never used? Who, pray tell, is “using it”? Does the frequency of its usage determine its veracity? Is BJU’s choice in which Bible they “use” determined by a popularity poll? Isn’t the NIV widely-used? Does that effect the truth or error contained within it?
The NIV is “widely-used;" but not in the circles BJU draws its students from ($$$).
The claim is made that the King James is held as the “campus standard…in the classroom and the chapel pulpit.” You think that means something? Notice the careful choice of words, “we HOLD the widely-USED King James…” With all the gripping, holding, using, stating, and positioning going on, does anybody BELIEVE the King James Bible?
You’re not told.
Somebody’s doing a lot of typing without writing anything at all.
The King James is the “standard” used in the “classroom” and in the “pulpit,” is it? Is It the “standard” in anybody’s HEART and LIFE? As long as It’s the standard in a classroom and a pulpit, any infidel can come preach behind that pulpit to the unsuspecting crowds of potential students and their parents (many from Bible-believing churches), USING a King James Bible (that he doesn’t BELIEVE) which he’s been ordered to read or speak from, and have everyone go away thinking BJU stands for the King James, along with all it’s faculty and staff, when the truth is, you don’t know what they believe at all. And while they’re “holding” and “using” the King James Bible in the classroom, they’re simultaneously picking It apart in the places where It “could have been better translated,” because they don’t BELIEVE the Book they’re “holding."
“We hold the KJV as the campus standard…” That’s jargon and double-speak to make you think BJU is promoting the King James Bible. They’re not; they simply know that most conservative Christian young people whom they have a chance of enrolling in their school come from churches in the South that believe the King James Bible is the word of God. So they dress up the language so the unsuspecting don’t realize they’re LYING.
I’ll prove it.
Suppose you’re a member of the leadership at BJU. Logic dictates that, if you hold the King James as the “standard,” you have automatically identified the other versions as sub-standard. But at the same time, you also allow students who don’t use the King James to use whatever version they want without reprimand or correction. Why make up a “standard” you’re not going to enforce, apply, or defend? Why brag about the King James as a “standard" in the first place? If it is truly the “standard,” then why accept sub-standard Bible versions? I’ll tell you why; because you don’t want to turn anybody away who might use some other version, if there’s a chance they might enroll ($$$).
So the truth is, BJU could care less what Bible anybody uses; but pretending they have a position on the King James will make them the most money, so they go on pretending.
That is, pragmatism is the basis of BJU’s position on the Bible issue—“We hold to whatever ‘Bible’ is widely-used by our base.”
And then comes the greatest statement of nonsense ever pronounced by a double-tongued, double-speaking hypocrite. This is the award-winning, politically correct statement on the Bible parroted by every major Christian college and university for at least the last hundred years. It goes like this: “We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts…”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? It means NOTHING.
What is “verbal, plenary inspiration?”
It’s Winnie the Pooh’s “hefalump;” it isn’t ANYTHING. Just jargon designed to make you think something important is being said, when nothing is being said. The statement is classic Alexandrian gobbledygook.
All that has been stated is that “God inspired something to be written a long time ago.” (What a profundity!) That’s actually a generous representation of the statement. The statement is nonsense; it can’t be rendered to make sense.
First, the original manuscripts did not compose any “Bible.” The “originals” were never on the same CONTINENT together, let alone in the same BINDING together. There was never any such thing as a “Bible in the original manuscripts,” which BJU pretends to believe in.
Furthermore, the statement is designed so as to convey that “belief in the inspiration of the original manuscripts” is a bold stance to take. It is NOT a bold position, as no real Christian has ever argued whether or not God inspired the originals. That is nothing but a straw dummy. The question is, where can the inspired words of God be found NOW?
Belief in the inspiration of the original manuscripts is a COWARD’S FAITH; it’s a faith that can’t be tested, because the originals don’t exist.
The statement ends with another masterpiece of nothingness—“we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today.”
WHERE ARE THEY?
You fools, you haven’t said anything unless you finish the statement by telling us where they are! If God preserved “every one of His inspired words for us today,” then which Bible are they found in?
“I’m sorry; your call has been forwarded to an automatic messaging service which has not been activated. Please hang up and try again.”
These militant defenders of the faith didn’t have the guts to tell you where you could find God’s inspired words. That would require honesty, and they’re fresh out.
Now, that’s a TEN-LINE statement from Bob Jones University which amounts to the literary equivalent of the sound of one hand clapping. They said nothing, stated nothing, took a position on nothing, and conveyed no convictions about anything whatsoever. And they took ten lines to get the job done. A politician could learn a thing or two from them.
Moody Bible Institute
Next on the docket, we have Moody Bible Institute. They tell us,
“The Bible, including both the Old and the New Testaments, is a divine revelation, the original autographs of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit. (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21)”
Masterful! Just tremendous.
As we examine this statement in search of actual CONTENT, we’re reminded of a “snipe hunt” upon which we were once persuaded to embark.
Let's peel back the top layer of the bouncy castle and see what’s holding it up.
“The Bible [without specifying which Bible—there are over 200 of them in English], including both the Old and the New Testaments [glad we cleared that up; we were worried about how many testaments you thought were in the Bible], is a divine revelation…”
Is that so? It’s a divine revelation, is it? WHICH Bible is a “divine revelation?”
They don’t say.
Revealed by which divinity—God or Satan? Don’t ask me; I’m just reading what they printed.
“The Bible…is A divine revelation…”
Really? How many other revelations are there, if this unspecified “Bible” is “a” divine revelation? We aren’t told. We are simply informed that some unspecified “Bible” is “a” divine book in a stack of other divine books.
“…the original autographs of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
More jargon—no one has ever seen the original manuscripts, you don’t have the words of the originals to believe, and “verbal inspiration” means nothing if you don’t have the words that were inspired. By the way, inspiration without preservation is a “Divine waste of time” (Dr. Sam Gipp).
Yep. Just air in the bouncy castle. Hot air.
The most impressive thing about this statement from Moody (the school, not the man, He’s spinning in his grave right about now…) is the peculiar insertion of Bible verses at the end, which we assume are to give “authority” to the preceding statement. This is peculiar, of course, because the faculty at Moody don’t have any authority outside of what’s between their ears (here’s a clue: it’s the same substance mentioned in the last paragraph). That’s not hyperbole; it’s what they’ve stated when they said their authority is the “original autographs”—those don’t exist, i.e. THEY ARE ADMITTING THEY HAVE NO WRITTEN AUTHORITY ANYWHERE ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH. Those scriptures are “window dressing.” They are included to make you BELIEVE something that isn’t so—that they are in submission to the Bible. They are not. The Bible is made to be in submission to THEM, and that’s proven every time they correct it.
But the foolishness doesn’t end with a pretentious reference to a pretended authority, for when we look up the verses cited (II Tim. 3:16 and II Pet. 1:21) we find out that NEITHER OF THOSE VERSES HAVE ANY REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS.
When Paul wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16), he was referring to the Bible TIMOTHY grew up learning—it was a COPY (vs. 15), and not the ever-elusive “original autographs.”
To make matters worse, II Pet. 1:21 doesn’t refer to any inspired writing at all, but rather to what men “SPAKE as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Another misrepresentation.
So we find that the content of Moody Bible Institute’s statement on biblical inspiration is LIES. They lied when they refused to tell you which Bible was a divine revelation; they lied when they didn’t tell you if they actually believed God inspired it; they lied when they made you think they had subjected themselves to a written authority (the “originals”) when they hadn’t; they lied when they made you think “the originals” were for real, when they never were; they lied when they professed to believe in “verbal inspiration” when they couldn’t point you to one, single word in black and white on the face of this earth they believed was actually inspired; they lied when they cited scripture and gave you the impression they respected it, while they were engaged in correcting it for a living; and finally, they lied to you by pretending the verses they gave referred to the “original autographs” when they had nothing to do with any originals at all.
All this, while making you think they said something GOOD! Now that’s some impressive literary gymnastics if you ever saw any!
Pensacola Christian College
Let’s turn to Pensacola Christian College and see how they score—
“We believe that the Bible [A theoretical collection of documents which constitute a MESSAGE God has for man, not necessarily specific words He inspired] is the verbally inspired and infallible, authoritative [man, that’s a lot of impressive-sounding adjectives to throw in] Word of God and that God gave the words of Scripture [see how they capitalize “Scripture?”—such respect for something they’ve never seen!] by inspiration without error in the original autographs [Crash and burn—you blew it again. That flowery and impressive description was in reference to something that never existed]. God promises [How? With words? Where are they—in the originals? Then they don’t exist.] that He will preserve His Word; Jesus said, “my words shall not pass away”–Matt. 24:35 [How do you know he said that? Because of WORDS you said were in the originals, which don’t exist. You’re quoting a Book you think has errors in it to prove God inspired and preserved something infallible that you’ve never seen and can’t get a copy of. YOU’RE INSANE.] We believe God has kept that promise by preserving His infallible Word in the traditional Hebrew and Greek manuscripts [“Traditional” according to who’s tradition? Westcott and Hort? Dean Burgon? And which manuscripts, particularly, are “infallible”? They couldn’t point you to ONE word in ONE manuscript—there are HUNDREDS of manuscripts—they could tell you was infallible with any certainty.] and that the Authorized Version (KJV) is an [one among many others, but we won’t tell you which ones!] accurate English translation of the preserved Word of God.”
A man has to be off his rocker or full of demons, or both, to believe that statement means ANYTHING at all. All these people have done is fill a page with trite, banal cliches and jargon to fool the suckers into believing PCC has convictions about “the scriptures,” when, in reality, nobody in the Bible department at PCC has ever seen “the scriptures” a day in his or her life, and couldn’t tell you where to find them if the eternal fate of their souls depended on it.
Baptist Bible College
“We believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the text of the original manuscripts of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, which alone constitute the inerrant Word of God…”
So the only “inerrant Word of God” the Baptist Bible Fellowship believes in doesn’t exist. Read it again; this time paying attention to the WORDS they chose to write. The “text of the original manuscripts…alone constitute the inerrant Word of God.” Nobody who was alive in the last 2000 years has ever seen the original manuscripts, and nobody who ever lived ever saw them all together in the same room, in the same building, or even in the same country. That means whatever “Bible” you can put your hands on and read today is NOT inerrant. According to their statement, every Bible on the market has errors and could stand to be corrected somewhere. The Baptist Bible College doesn’t submit to any Bible in print today. Their “final authority in all matters of faith and practice” is the PREFERENCE of whatever man or group of men runs the school. That’s what you’re admitting when you confess the only God-inspired, written words that ever existed were the originals, which no longer exist.
An honest conversation with the Bible scholars at BBC would go like this:
“So, you folks believe God inspired the Bible, is that right?” “Yes, we are certain and unapologetic in our position that God inspired his Word, in the original manuscripts.” “Ah; well, would we be permitted to read these words?” “No; it is not a question of permission, but availability. You see, they were lost to the elements long ago. But never fear; we have reliable translations and copies” [he motions to two stacks of weathered and worn-looking written material] that are excellent resources and a wealth of impressive literary accomplishment.” “Oh, are those the words of God?” “Er, no…they are impressive and beautiful words which convey the very deepest of messages and inspirational thoughts…but no, they are not the words of God. The actual words of God could only be found in the originals. These simply contain reliable manifestations of what God might have written once, for better or worse…” “Hmm, I see. Um…these documents CONTAIN the words of God? Which are God’s words and which are not? Which of these copies or translations are reliable? There seems to be two separate stacks of manuscripts here which say different things…” “These are reliable [points to stack one], but not those [stack two].” “Okay; but how is this decided? On who’s authority do I have it, that THESE are the best manuscripts and those are not?” “It’s elementary, m’boy. You see, good, godly men down through the years have believed and taught THESE were reliable; and because they are the oldest and best manuscripts, and based on the recommendations of godly scholars, and in keeping with the TRADITIONS of these godly men, we PREFER to be loyal to THESE, and not to THOSE copies and translations.” “Well…I guess…that is, if you say so. I didn’t go to school to learn about this stuff so, I’ll have to take your word for it.” “I definitely say so. The best thing you can do is take MY WORD for it. I DID go to school for 20 years to learn about these things, and trained under good, godly men, who learned what they learned from other good, godly men. I also am a good, godly man, and you can trust me when I tell you, good, godly, men PREFER these as opposed to those.” “Alright, so THESE are the words of God?” “Ha, ha, ha! My dear boy, haven’t you been listening? The godly men who run our school PREFER these as reliable renditions of what God might have said (we can’t be sure!), based on the latest and most thorough processes known to the field of academic research.” “So, I can’t know for SURE if I’m reading God’s words?” “You can be confident of the fact that we know what we are talking about when we tell you these are the CLOSEST to what God MAY have said. We highly RECOMMEND them.”
Practical humanism. The PREFERENCE and RECOMMENDATION of a man becomes the final authority on what God said, and what He didn’t say. The scholar has usurped the authority of God Himself when he proclaims “only the originals were inspired.” That’s the path to the throne of absolute power—get rid of any authority higher than your own intellect.
Dallas Theological Seminary
“We believe that ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God “were moved by the Holy Spirit” to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error.”
It’s getting to sound like a broken record, isn’t it folks?
Alright, one more time “with feeling.” Divine inspiration that “extends” to “all parts of…the original manuscripts” is absolutely irrelevant to any sane discussion on the subject at hand. Belief that the originals were inspired has no meaning whatsoever, when the originals aren’t available for scrutiny.
These people propagate the lie that “only the originals were inspired” for the same reason a gangster burns all the documents that might incriminate him in an FBI investigation. If there’s no “paper trail,” then it’s their word against his, and there’s no case. The good, godly Bible-correcting infidel brags about the inspiration of the originals so he doesn’t have to be accountable to the Book in front of him. You see, HIS word is just as good as anybody else’s that way. When he comes to a portion of scripture that cuts him to the heart about his sins, he can simply pretend it’s a mistranslation, change it, and get away scot-free, because after all, he’s not perverting INSPIRED scripture. Only the originals were inspired, and, well, they aren’t available to check. Maybe his “correction” has restored the “original meaning.” Who could say? No one. No one can say anything for sure. And that’s the idea.
Dallas Theological Seminary has no statement on “divine inspiration;” it isn’t there. You just thought you read a quote—you read nothing.
The “W”ord of God
We’ve saved the following observation for the “last but not least” category. Did you notice that, in all the above quotations, every time the word of God was referred to, it came out “the Word of God,” with a capital “W”?
Do you know why that’s significant?
You say, “They’re being respectful to God’s Word by capitalizing it.” Nope; it’s yet another way to LIE TO YOUR FACE while making you THINK they have respect for “God’s Word.”
We’ve already established these people lied to you about God’s word and don’t believe in God’s word (at least not in any written form you could put your hands on today); what makes you think they have any respect for an uninspired book they make a living correcting?
Without exception, every reference to “the Word of God” in the Bible, where the “w” is capitalized, is not a reference to anything WRITTEN, but is rather a direct reference to the Person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14; I John 5:7; Rev. 19:13).
It’s no accident every time these politically correct con-artists refer to the Bible, they call it “the Word of God.” They are professional liars. They’ve perfected the art-form. They’ve discovered a way to refer to Jesus Christ as “inerrant” and “infallible” (go back and look at it!) while making you believe they are referring to a book. There is no book on earth they think is inerrant and infallible. They sit in judgment on, and correct every written word in any Bible in order to maintain an income, while bragging about their bold belief in the “infallibility" of the “Word.” See how it’s done?
You might say, “I think that’s a bit harsh; perhaps they didn’t think of it that way.”
That could be true, as ignorance of the Bible should never be underestimated. But if it is, then the kids in my Sunday school department know more about the Word and the words of God than the faculty and staff of every major Christian college or university in the country. The kids in my church know Who the Word of God is, and what the words of God are. That’s your two options: either these folks are liars, or they are ignorant and unqualified for the positions and titles they hold.
Now, let’s wrap things up. From the examples given, the reader should learn:
1) One cannot “stand for the Bible” boldly or otherwise without specifying which Bible he’s standing for. To simply say you “stand for the Bible” is the same as saying, “I’m taking a stand for ‘a church’ as the best of all churches. Out of all the churches out there, I think a church best represents what God accepts and approves of. God founded a church and we should all be members of a church.” Well? Which one? Catholic? Baptist? Church of Satan? Somebody’s gone “cookoo for cocoa puffs.”
2) It requires no boldness at all to believe God inspired the original manuscripts—they aren’t available to consult, examine, critique, believe, or disbelieve. Pretending such a statement is “bold” is neither bold nor intelligent; it’s foolish and cowardly. It’s challenging someone to a duel using imaginary swords, and then bragging that your imaginary sword is sharper than your opponent’s.
3) To say you believe “the Bible is the Word of God (with the capital “W”) is nonsense. The “Word” of God is Jesus Christ every time the term appears in scripture, so what is being said is, “a book is Jesus Christ.” It isn’t true; it isn’t even false—it’s “flibbertygibbet.” It’s, “Thirty days has Septober; April, June, and no wonder; all the rest eat peanut butter; except for grandmother, and she rides a bicycle.”
4) The supreme example of double-tongued, politically correct, lying hypocrites trying to cover up their sins is not found on ABC, CBS, NBC, CBC, CTV, or CNN. It’s not found in The New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or any other newspaper put out in between them. The ultimate example of mealy-mouthed, unspecific, inoffensive gobbledygook is not found coming out of the mouth of any politician. The quintessential representatives of forked-tongued, deceptive hypocrites are the so-called biblical scholars, “preachers,” and/or presidents of Christian colleges and universities, going all the way back to the 1800’s, who told Christians the “Bible” (without telling you which one) was the word of God, going so far as to quote it as an “authority” for their statements, when in reality they didn’t believe God was responsible for one, single written word that presently exists anywhere on the face of this earth. They preached a book they didn’t believe in order to make a living off Christian suckers who were dumb enough to think their statements about biblical inspiration actually meant something.
“The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords” (Psa. 55:21).