COMMENCEMENT ADVICE
Irven Lee
To children and young people the years may seemto move slowly but they do pa
, and finally thdiploma and degrees are handed out at commencement. Commencement! Are they not finishing? Are they just beginning? All those early years were for laying the foundation, and now it is time to start with the superstructure. Let us rejoice with those who have laid a good foundation.
Where shall we start? With what shall we com
mence? Work is a good solid material with which to
begin the superstructure. Infants must learn to do
things for themselves, but graduates learned lon
ago to tie their shoes and to feed themselves. Now
they can earn their own dollars in providing their
own shoes and food. How ridiculous it would seem if
a strong, well developed graduate still depended on
his mother to tie his shoes! He need not depend on
his mother for such services. Neither is it necessary
for him to continue to depend upon his father to pay
his way. He is as tall, as strong, and as able to work
as is his father. His father has become more skilled,
but he developed that skill by work. It is time, gradu
ate, to take hold of work. You are commencing a dif
ficult but worthy effort when you begin to provide
for yourself and for those who need you
God ordained that a mail earn his bread by the sweat of his face. "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would notwork, neither should he eat" (II Thessalonians 3:10).The world does not owe you a living. The able bodied graduate who will not provide for himself is kin to the imaginary strong, capable graduate who still depends on his mother to tie his shoes. We do notdepend upon others for that which-we can do for ourselves.
Industry calls for workers, but the man who goes
by the pay window should know in his heart that he
has earned his pay check. Some must produce o
there would be no product. Some must earn or there
would be no resources to divide at pay day. It is a
matter of honesty and decency to "work with you
own hands. . . that ye may walk honestly towar
them that are without, and that ye may have lack of
nothing" (I Thess. 4:11,12).
Money does not grow on trees. There is a limit to
one's ability. No man can buy all the earth and all
the things upon it. One of the great lessons is to
learn not to covet the things beyond our reach. This
means that we MUST learn not to buy and buy and
buy until we have obligated ourselves beyond our
ability to pay. A good name is too precious to destroy
in careless buying. We need to be willing and able to
earn, and it is just as important that we be willing to
live within our means.
"Godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain that we can carry nothing out. And having food andraiment let us be therewith content. But they thawill be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men indestruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after,they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (I Tim. 6:6-10). Learning how to be content within reasonable limits is as important as learning how to earn.
The learning process does not cease when one com
mences the responsibilities of adult life. "Whatso
ever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might"
(Ecc. 9:10). Promotions are earned, not just de
manded. They come from increases in ability and not
just from seniority. If a thing is worth doing, it is
worth doing well. Produce, improve, abide within the
limits of your ability to provide, and enjoy reaping
what you have sown.
The workers are not the wrecking crews. Listen to
the radio or read the newspaper and be alarmed that
so many Americans belong to the wrecking crew.
They disrupt, burn, and steal. What if every one
were like them? Then there would be no schools or
industries to burn. There is no suitable place for the
anarchist outside the jail. One who does not learn to
rule his own soul needs to be restrained. Is there
room enough in our prisons for the growing number
of people who destroy rather than produce?
A worker who earns his bread by honest labor is an asset. His self control, or self discipline as it maybe called, is an outgrowth of the firm discipline administered by worthy parents. The psychology ofpermi
iveness has produced an abundant crop ofanarchists. Our generation has sown to the wind so the whirlwind may shake us and our children dreadfully. Are the young graduates prepared to lead this nation back toward the work-and-earn idea? Some one must sow good seed if there is to be a good harvest. Let us pray that the dead-beats and bums of the wrecking crew not destroy this good land that
has so much for so many willing workers.
Work for more than money. Let there be love for
home and family, and let this love be expressed by
more than dollars. Do not ignore the Lord and the
church that He purchased with His blood. The man
who is too busy to worship is too busy. Man must
provide for himself and his own or he is worse than
an infidel, but there are things that money will not
buy. "Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a
man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the
things which he possesseth" (Luke 12:15).
P. O. Box 866
Hartselle, Ala.
CLUB RATE SUBSCRIPTIONSFOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ONLY $10.00SEND THEM TODAY!
RESPECT OF PERSONS
I get that feeling of disgust mingled with anger when I observe some brother in the Lord being mistreated, ignored, even slandered, and for no other reason than that he is poor, uninfluential, or less educated than others. Every time I see or hear of this I think of the scene the Lord gave of the judgment in Matthew 25. He said the treatment one gives to "one of the least of these my brethren" is the treatment given to the Lord. You just remember this: what you do (or do not do) to the brethren you do to the Lord.
That feeling of disgust becomes more loathsome
when I see some brother unduly honored, praised and
bowed to as if he were an emperor, and for no reason
other than that he is rich, popular, highly educated
academic-wise, and socially or politically powerful.
The political maneuvering, financial mergers, and
social alliances are avenues by which many seek to
have others respect their persons, or they seek to
express their respect of the persons of others.
I can imagine someone saying, "That editor is trying to make himself a champion of the poor and less fortunate among brethren" or "He is envious andjealous of those who are more fortunate and more popular than he." Nothing is further from the truth on both counts. There is no special virtue and purityabout poverty or illiteracy, and there is no specialevil and impurity about wealth, fame and academicattainment. It is as disgusting to me to see the poor and less-educated look with disdain upon those who have worked hard to acquire wealth and education as it is in reverse. The extremes in wealth, popularity,education, etc., have nothing to do with how onbrother ought to treat another. This is the very pointof this le
on. Men ought not to be judged and respected upon their persons, but upon what their lives
are as measured by the word of God.
Let me give the reason why I abhor the abuse of
some and the unearned praise and honor of others.
To show respect of persons means to accept (or re
ject) one upon the basis of who he is or what he has.
It means "acceptance of faces" or persons; to re
ceive or reject one on appearance or recognition of
hisperson alone.
The matter of showing "respect of persons" is mentioned nine times in the New Testament: five times of God and four times of men. In each of the five passages relating to God it is affirmed that He is NO respecter of persons and the areas where He does not respect persons are given. But in the four verses where showing "respect of persons" relates to man they show the very nature of the sin and where itleads. Three verses are found in James 2 and one in Jude. This respect of persons is unjust and unfair in the measurement of a man; it makes man a judgeof others by his own standard and ignores God's standard of right and wrong, and the word of God says it is sinful. This pits the truth against the person. If I respect the person I tend to "bend" the truth to make it conform to the person. But if I honor God and His truth I will strive to persuade the person to conform to truth. He then deserves respect, not because of his person, but because of his obedience to the truth.
We are taught to be like Christ. All who believe
the Bible believe God to be perfect in every sense. If
God does not respect the person of any man, it must
be right, merciful, just, holy, and Christ-like to show
respect to no man's person. If we learn to do this the
law of the Lord will be far more meaningful to us.
The law of the Lord will become the standard of
judgment and not the person of any man
First, God respects the person of no man in accepting those who become His children. The Jews had the notion that they were favored by God because of their nationality, but God showed Peter and the six Jews with him when they went to the house of Cornelius that "God is no respecter of persons: but inevery nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34,35). Every man is not accepted by the Lord, but it is not on the basis of his person that he is rejected; it is because of his disobedience. Peter said the truth is that "God is no respecter of persons: but in everynation" (Jew and Gentile) "he that feareth him,and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." It is what a man does and not who he is that determines whether he is accepted with God.
Second, God respectsthe person of no man when sin is involved. The righteous judgment of God, "who
will render to every man according to his deeds"
(Rom. 2:6), applies equally to "the Jew first, and also
to the Gentile" (vs. 9,10). With God sin is sin whether
it be by Jew or Gentile. "For there is no respect of
persons with God. For as many as have sinned with
out law shall also perish without law: and as many
as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law"
(Rom. 2:11,12). If you transgress the law of the
Lord, He will not stop to check whether you are
Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, popular or unknown
ruler or servant, scholar or unlettered. You will be a
sinner whoever you are because God respects the person of no man when sin is involved.
Third, God will render good to those who do good
without respect of persons. The poorest, least es
teemed man on earth will receive good from the Lord
for the good he has done, and it will be by the same
standard and on the same principle that the most es
teemed on earth will receive it. "Knowing that what
soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he
receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free .. .
neither is there respect of persons with him" (Eph.
6:8,9). Whatever good any man doeth he will receive
of the Lord, and the person of that man has nothing
to do with it. It is what the man does, not who he is,
that counts with God.
Fourth, God will render just punishment to all who do wrong without respect of persons. "Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance : for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hatdone: and there is no respect of persons" (Col. 3:24,25). T he most noted evangelist or the most highly esteemed bishop in the Lord's church will receive the same punishment for his wrong as anyother person on the face of the earth. His position orhis honor will in no wise affect God in dealing out thejust wages for his wrongdoing
Fifth, the judgment of God toward every man will
be without respect of persons. "But as he which hath
called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of con
versation ; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am
holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without re
spect of persons judgeth according to every man's
work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear" (I Peter 1:15-17).
Now compare this with man's dealing with man"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a goldring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poorman in vile raiment; and ye have respect to him that wear eth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sithou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou here, or sit here under my footstool: are ye notthen partial in yourselves," and are become judges of evil thoughts ? . . . But if ye have respect to persons,ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors" (James 2:1-4,9).
These verses picture the abominable condition so evident among many brethren today. A well-known evangelist will come into an assembly and some brethren will act as if Christ himself has arrived. They must honor him with special eulogies and favors. They do the same for a very rich man, a famous political figure, or a noted entertainer. But these same brethren will hardly speak to an unknown, poor man who is "just a faithful Christian." If you think I am saying that all well-known evangelists, rich brethren,and brethren who have become successful in their fields of endeavor should be ignored and the poohonored, you have missed the point of this study.The word of God teaches that we should treat the rich and poor alike. We should honor the brethren — all brethren, regardless of who they are or what theyhave. They should be respected for what they havdone and are doing of the living word of God. This is
the way God deals with all of us.
We show respect of persons for personal advan
tage. It is a selfish move. We tend to favor the wealthy
because we hope to profit by it. We run after the in
fluential because we expect to enhance our own
influence and popularity by the a
ociation. We as
sociate with the powerful because we desire to be
secure. What can the poor, weak and unknown do for
me ? Nothing! Why then should I give him any spe
cial attention ? This is the root of the whole matter.
There is no love for the brethren, and, consequently,
no love for God (I John 4:20,21)
The Spirit said by Jude that the evil "brute beasts" who had committed every conceivable sin known toman, were "walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage (Jude 16). The A.S.V. says, "showing respect of persons for the sake of advantage." Like many brethren today,these were using flattering words to show respect of persons for their own personal advantage. Let us learn to treat others without partiality and measure them by what they do according to the standard ofGod's word and not according to who they are, whothey know, and what they have.
THE COKE OF THE COVENANT
Mr. M. L. Moser, Jr. publishes a religious paper in
Little Rock called "The Baptist Challenge." In the
i
ue of February, 1969, he expressed his shock and
chagrin over the fact that some Baptist Churches
are now using Coca-Cola instead of grape juice on the
Lord's table. His statement follows: "Coke at 'Lord's Supper' " "According to the Baptist Standard, December 18,
1968, at least two churches in Texas have recently
used Coca-Cola instead of wine or grape juice at the
Lord's Supper. In the letters to the Editor column,
appears two letters stating that a letter appeared in
the November 27 i
ue written by an Oliver Sum-
merlin stating that his church celebrated the Lord's
Supper by using Coca-Cola. I don't know which
church this was, but one letter said that it was 'the
First Baptist Church in a large city in Texas.'
"A second letter written by a Susan Henderson of
Austin, Texas said that their church too used Coca-
Cola and plain white bread. She said: 'The use of
Coke instead of grape juice made me experience the
Lord's Supper in a new and wonderful way. I sin
cerely believe Christ was with us that day.' A com
panion letter in the same issue expresses our feelings
but mildly. 'I cringed with horror when I read Mr.
Summerlin's letter about using Coca-Cola for the
Lord's Supper. I still sit in stunned unbelief about the whole matter.' "
These gentlemen need not get so upset, for the
haven't seen anything yet. In a message delivered in
St. Louis on April 22nd, Methodist Bishop James
Thomas of Des Moines, Iowa advocated the use of
hamburgers and a soft drink for the Lord's supper.
He said, "It is proper to say that this time-honored
sacrament must be interpreted with meaning an
vitality in every age." "We are determined," he con
tinued, "not to continue doing the things that have
no meaning in the modern world."
The inspired apostle Paul said, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show theLord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). For thtrue Christian, the bread and fruit of the vine havereal meaning, and will until the Lord returns. There is no doubt about Jesus using unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. T he apostle further declares that the Lord revealed unto him "That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, tookbread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it,and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my
blood; this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance
of me" (I Cor. 11:23-25). There is something wrong
with the knowledge and spiritual attitude of the
person who must substitute something else in order
to "experience the Lord's supper in a new and
wonderful way.But back to Mr. Moser and his objection to Coke
on the Lord's table. I charge that he is inconsistent!
Why does he contend for bread and the fruit of the
vine? Perhaps he would say that that is what the
Bible authorizes, and he would be right. But the Bible
does not say that we cannot use something else, does
it? Would he accept the silence of the Bible as
authority for hamburgers and soft drinks on the
Lord's table? E vidently he would notMr. Moser endorses the use of mechanical instru
ments of music in worship. Where is the passage in
the New Testament which authorizes such? If he
makes typical arguments, one of them would be that
the Bible does not say to use the instrument. But
why would he object to the hamburgers and Coke?
Oh, he would tell us that the Bible does tell us what
to place on the Lord's table. Exactly! And the Bible
also tells us the kind of music to use in worship:
"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your
heart to the Lord" (Eph. 5:19). Why would he or
anyone else use the silence of the Bible as authority
for the instrument in worship and refuse to use it
as authority for Coke in the Lord's supper?
God has revealed what he wants us to do. We
cannot use his silence as authority for anything.
Such an attitude cost Nadab and Abihu their lives
(Lev. 10:1). It would have allowed priests from the
tribe of Judah, but the Hebrew writer implies that
such would have been unlawful (Heb. 7:14).
There is as much authority in the Bible for hamburgers and Coke on the Lord's table as there is for a mechanical instrument in worship, sprinkling baby, praying to saints, baptizing "because of" the remi
ion of sins, wearing human names, a denomi
nation, and many other such things.
My friend, if silence is the only authority you have,
you have no authority! Such an attitude opens the
floodgate for every departure and innovation that
the mind of man can invent. We must not go beyond
that which is written (I Cor. 4:6; II John 9-11)'.
CONGREGATIONAL COOPERATIONof theCHURCHES OF CHRIST byH. E. WINKLER
A well arranged and documented book of 158 pages dealing with church sponsorships, centralized power and control, orphan homes and Herald of Truth. Diagrams and charts help emphasize the truth.
$1.00 per copy
"PERFECT" (TELEIOS) Modern English Uses
In modern English dictionaries the adjective "per
fect" is said to mean, among other things, "flawle
."
Perhaps this meaning is most commonly associate
with the word. As a result of this association, when
the word "perfect" is encountered in the Bible, most
readers immediately think of something that is
"flawless" or "sinle
." But, to the contrary, th
Greek adjective "perfect" (teleios) does not ever
denote flawle
ness or sinless perfection. If such
were true it is obvious that this concept would be in
conflict with such passages as I John 1:8-10.
Primary Greek Uses
The Greek adjective teleios (perfect) primarilydenotes that which has been brought to its end(telos). Consequently, teleios denotes completion, or a state of being finished, or a state of maturity.Hence, when we are admonished to be "perfect" (teleios) in Matt. 5:48 we are not being taught le
on on sinless perfection. To the contrary, we are admonished to be complete or full-grown morally and ethically; that is, one who loves only his friends is not "complete." He must love his enemies also.
"Perfect" Men
When teleios was applied to a man it primarily denoted one who was mature or full-grown. It is so used in Heb. 5:14 in a spiritual sense, where it is contrasted with the "infant" (nepios) of verse 13. This use of teleios is found in ancient cla
ical literature as well as in Hellenistic literature that is contemporary with apostolic usage
It has been obser ved ear lier in this study thateleios might denote a man who is "complete" mor
ally and ethically, Matt. 5:48, etc.
"Perfect" Things
The adjective teleios is also used to describe animals and things. Non-Biblical literature contains references to "perfect" (full-grown, mature) animals. An excellent Biblical example of a "perfect" thing is the reference in I Cor. 13:10 to "that which is perfect." Here, the adjective teleios describes the complete or finished revelation of God's will to man. The teleios revelation is contrasted with those things (tongues, prophecies, knowledge) which were "from a part" (ek merous). Even apostolic knowledge was "from a part" of revelation, and not from the whole, or complete, or perfect revelation. Today, we haveaccess to the complete or "perfect" revelation.
THE HOLY SPIRITNo. 4
J. T. Smith
In this article we want to continue our thinking ofthe Holy Spirit and conversion. As we noted in our last article, the Holy Spir it has a part in the NewBirth. We also noted that the New Birth did not constitute conversion in the fullest sense. The word "convert" means, "a reformation of life." Sometimes the word "repent" is confused with the word "convert." Repent means "a change of will." T his in turn leads to a "reformation of life" and the new birth is the first step toward that reformation (cf. Acts 3:19).
However, when we talk about conversion we learn from the Bible and from the meaning of the word itself that there is more involved than simply the newbirth. For example, Isaiah said of God's people (and was quoted by Chr ist in Matthew 13:15) ".. . lest at any time they should see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and shouldbe converted and I should heal them." Jesus told Peter,one of his own disciples who had been faithful to the Lord for almost three years, "when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." James said, "Brethren,if any of you err from the truth and one convert him ;let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). Hence,many people who are actually born again children of God think that the new birth is all there is to conversion. Not so! It is only the first step. Conversion is a continuing process of reforming our lives to meet the demands of the Bible as we learn more truth while being led by the Spirit of God.
Next we will talk about what it means to be led bythe Spirit of God.
300 HaynesSt.
Dayton, Ohio 45410
WHY I BECAME A CHRISTIAN,A MEMBER OFTHE CHURCH OF CHRISTPART No. 5
Joseph Lee Block
Let me ask you this question, "Are you a Christian?" With some the answer will be, "I was born a Christian — born into a Christian family." That is not the right answer for it takes the new birth tomake one a Christian. One must search the scriptures with readiness of mind. "And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of thJews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily,whether those things were so" (Acts 17:10,11).
Were you ever in darkne
, not able to find your
way, although there was plenty of sunshine? Were
you able to look and not see the right things ? Do you
hear and not understand? Do you speak and yet are
not able to utter a word ? This all happened to me. I
was in darkness before I became a part of the body
of Christ-
Do you remember your first pair of long trousers, your first date, your first job? All these were important to you as you were growing up. But do youremember when you first became a Christian? Because you were born of parents who were Christians does not make you a true Christian. Some Christians take our Lord for granted, but some day they wilwake up and it will be too late.
I was given the opportunity to become a Christian,to let Christ be my Saviour, my Master, and examplefor all that is good upon the earth. I beg you to accept Him and live like He wants you to live. Look into the Bible and do what He tells you to do. Be a real Christian. Don't wait too late. Do not forsake the assembly of the saints on the first day of thweek.
When I was in the Jewish faith I always looked to
God for help, and I still do, but now through m
Saviour Jesus Christ. Many people are sick, bu
when things are going well and you are healthy you
might tend to forget God, but when you are sick, the
first thing you do is call upon Almighty God. I was
very sick, but I did not lose faith in God and His Son
Jesus Christ. In fact, I prayed more and more and
my prayers were answered and I am now able' to
serve the Lord.
Members of the church of Christ, wherever I go, are always ready to help me to become a better Christian. I was given the opportunity to preach the gospel in Santa Monica; Casita Springs, Calif.; iDouglas; Bisbee, Ariz.; Lordsburg, New Mexico aswell as the congregation where I now worship, andon Wednesday evening at Winnetka Avenue in Canoga Park, Calif. This congregation established aplan some time ago to give all the men an opportunity to talk on Wednesday nights. This was a wonderful opportunity to allow us to develop as Christians.
I do not know what the Lord has in store for me,
but if it is the will of the Lord, I will preach the
gospel of Christ as long as I have a breath of life
in me. All that I have is through the goodness of God
by His Son Jesus Christ.
Why did you become a Christian ? What prompted
you? These are the questions that are always asked
of me. I believe the record in Luke 22:19, 20 helped
me as much as anything to understand my duty
"And He took bread and gave thanks, and brake it,
and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is
given for you: this do in my remembrance. Like
wise also the cup after supper saying, This cup is
the New Testament in my blood, which is shed fo
you."
Take a walk with Jesus after he was found guilty,as he bore His cross and started toward the hill of
Calvary. As He walked He stumbled, picked himself
up and started again, knowing that "He would be put
to death. As He stood upon Calvary, looking over the
city of Jerusalem, looking around Him, looking up to
heaven to His Father, waiting to be crucified for you
and me. Still humble, kind and full of love for you
and me. He died for all men. He arose and said He
would come again. When you think the going is hard,
think of His walk to the cro
. His church was es
tablished on the first Pentecost after His death.
When he said, "Upon this rock I will build m
church" (Matt. 16:18), this is what is meant by the
"church of Christ." It is His church, the true church,
the Lord's church, the church of the living God. Be
come a Chr istian and be a member of that true
church.
THIS I BELIEVE
Voyd N. Ballard, Glendale, Ariz.
I believe the problem of "church attendance" would
be eliminated if members were truly converted to
Chr ist. I believe true Christians will want to be
present for every assembly of the church that they
can po
ibly attend
I believe that you believe that it is good to attend
every assembly of the church. James says, "There
fore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not,
to him it is a sin" (Jas. 4:17)
I believe we show our love for the Lord by our
desire to assemble with Him and His people. He said,
"For where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt.
18:20)
I believe many take Matt. 18:20 far too lightly
Surely if we really believe Jesus is in our midst when
we meet together in His name we will want to be
present for every assembly of the saints.I believe Christians should delight in being "sted
fast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the
Lord" (I Cor. 15:58). The members of the early
church "continued steadfastly in the apostles'
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread,
and in prayers" (Acts 2:42)
I believe we will all one day stand before God in
judgment and give account to Him for the way we
have lived here. How will you account to Him for
mi
ing mid-week and Sunday night services?
______________________________ Page 7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN PROOF OF EVOLUTION NATURAL SELECTION (No. 2)
Lest some might contend Darwin's doctrine ofNatural Selection isn't taught now we suggest that the Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries, through his experiments with his evening primroses, noticed rather abrupt changes and some which appeared with unusual structures and these he called MUTANTS. From that day until this "MUTATIONS" (to be discussed after NATURAL SELECTION) has been considered a vital part of the mechanisms to bringabout evolution. But in this process NATURAL SELECTION is just as important as MUTATIONS. Prof. Graebner says, "While evolutionists to a large extent have discarded the Darwinian Theory THEY CANNOT GET ALONG WITHOUT NATURAL SELECTION IN SOME FORM — WHENEVER EVOLUTION DARES TO SPEAK ITS MIND IT SPEAKS THE LANGUAGE OF NATURAL SELECTION" (GOD AND THE COSMOS p. 278-279).Prof. C. P. Martin says "An overwhelming majorityof biologists believe that evolution proceeds bMUTATIONS AND NATURAL SELECTION" (American Scientist p. 100). The "modern" theoryof Evolution, often called 'neo-Darwinism' depends,in every way, on NATURAL SELECTION. In EVOLUTION, 15th Ed., p. 38, under the heading NEODARWINISM OR SYNTHETIC EVOLUTION, Dr. C.H. Waddington of Edinburgh, says, "On these two foundations— NATURAL SELECTION operating onvariation which arise from random MUTATION of Mendlelian genes — the present day neo-Darwinism has been built up" (WORLD AFTER DARWIN, Vol.1, p. 386). Prof. Theodosius Dohzhansky of Columbia
U. affirms that "Evolution has occurred because the
conser vation of her edity is counter acted by th
forces of change" and that "these forces are MU
TATIONS ON THE GENE LEVEL AND NATURAL
SELECTION ON THE POPULATION LEVEL"
(SPECIES AFTER DARWIN, p. 22, also EVOLU
TION, GENETICS, AND MAN)
Huxley also confirms the importance of both of
these mechanisms, "Natural Selection produces mu
tations and mutations guarantee natural selection
BUT NEITHER CAN BE PROVED BY ITSELF"
(EVOLUTION IN ACTION, p. 43). No wonder the
writer who quotes this (C. C. Ryrie pp. 9-10) says,
"MUTATIONS AND NATURAL SELECTION. This
is the basic and most important proof that evolution
ists advance for their theory." Prof. Ramsey in MU
TATIONS AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION says. "In the years following De Vries' work a new school of evolutionary thought grew up combining thetwo principals of natural selection and mutation toform an explanation of the evolutionary mechanism.In the last few decades this school of thought has all but saturated biological ranks. It is widely acknowledged that NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATION is held by evolutionists to be one of the most important considerations pertaining to the evolutionary mechanism. — Their books are written entirely within the presupposition laid down bthe theor y (E VOLUTION BY NATURALSELECTION AND MUTATION) ;— it is clear that evolutionists have put their eggs in the mutation-natural selection basket, but it is well to point outhat their basket is full of holes" (BIBLE-SCIENCE
NEWSLETTER, AUGUST 15, 1966, p. 1). In his book CHARLES DARWIN, De Beer says,
"Natural Selection — controls evolution" (p. 191).Huxley says, "Natural Selection is not only an effective agency of evolution but it is the only effective agency of Evolution." EVOLUTION IN ACTION, p.35. In a public debate in Marinette, Wis., as carried in B-S Newsletter, p. 4-5, Walter Valentine, Prof, oGenetics, said, "Well, simply stated in fairly simpleterms, evolution is TWO things. You have to havevariation (or mutation) and you have to have selection. The selective factor sorts out this variation. — Selection is a meat grinder through which you pass a population and only the fittest survive." This is in harmony with a statement of James F. Crow inScientific American, Vol. 201, Sept. 1959, p. 142"The general picture of how evolution works is now clear. The basic raw material is the mutant geneAmong these mutants most will be deleterious but a minority will be beneficial. These few will be retained by what Muller has called THE SIEVE OF NATURAL SELECTION." Thos. Dobzhansky, well known evolutionist, after admitting most mutations are deleterious, says, "Therefore the Mutation process ALONE, not corrected and guided by NAT URAL SELECTION, would result in degeneration and extinction." American Scientist, Vol. 45, Dec
1957, p. 385.
To again point up the importance of these two dogmas to the theory of evolution, Prof. RemeyCollin, after showing that de Vries had the basicelement in his theory of SUDDEN variations or MUTATIONS directly inherited said, "SELECTION played the same sorting role as in Darwinism. THUS IT IS A POSTULATE COMMON TO THE MUTATION THEORY AND TO DARWINISM THAT NATURAL SELECTION ACTS EITHER ON VARIATIONS OR ON MUTATIONS; so one or the other would have to be such as could account for all the aspects of the evolutionary picture of the story olife" (EVOLUTION: PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES, p. 72). The Textbook, so highly regarded by evolutionists, B S C S, Yellow (mentioned last month) says (p. 158) "This process of NATURAL SELECTION, first clearly proposed by Charles Dar
win, was his greatest contribution to biology —
Mutation plus Natural Selection results in E volu
tion." — also, "Mutations to dark or light occur b
chance. But once they do occur, NATURAL SELEC
TI ON will determine what happens to them" (p.
599).
So we feel we have adequately presented in these two articles what NATURAL SELECTION means;how it is to be defined; its origin and history andthat in the days of Darwin, de Vr ies and in 1969 it is absolutely indispensable to every evolutionist as a mechanism for EVOLUTION by which he tries to account for the existence of all living things from a simple form of life. Next month we shall prove, fromdozens of sources of authority, that NATURAL SELECTION is inadequate — it does not do and can not do what it MUST do if their "theory" of Evolution is true. We shall prove it is NOT a "creative agency"and cannot br ing into being any new form or species. (Continued)
Paul Foutz
"Searching The Scriptures" continuesto be a most outstanding publication. Thank you for the great amount of work you must put forth on it." — Calvin
C. Essary, Fontana, Calif"I do appreciate your paper, and I want to encourage it." — Irven Lee, Hartselle, Ala
"Your kind but uncompromising stand is appreciated. If you ever feel yourselves getting 'mushy'against the inroads of infidelity, sell out quick, cancel your subscriptions. Till then, keep up the good work." — Larry Ray Hafley, Piano, Ill.
"May I say also, I enjoy the paper very much. I believe that it is, if not THE best in the brotherhood,it is one of the very best. I am sure that you spendmany hard hours to get the paper to us, for this I am grateful." — William C. Sexton, St. Joseph, Mo
"I enjoy reading Searching The Scriptures. You are doing a good work in meeting today's needs and i
ues. May the Lord bless you with wisdom andstrength to continue." — Oaks Gowen, Orlando, Fla
"I do enjoy the paper very much and look forward to receiving it each month. It is a great help to mein doing His work." — H. R. Padgett, Beaufort, S.C.
"I really appreciate the stand for truth that yotake. May the Lord bless you in all good things." —Lionel W. Gary, Dalton, Ga
"I think that Searching The Scriptures is amongthe best of religious journals." — Weldon E. Warnock, Bowling Green, Ky.
"The i
ue (October) is excellent and will, I think,do much good . . . You are to be commended for devoting the paper to such a study and for selectingable men to present both sides. I appreciate the paper." — Earl Kimbrough, Tuckerman, Ark
"I do not see how anyone could not like the paper,whether they agree with it or not. One good thinabout it is that it gives both sides of an issue, nojust one side. With me it is among the best." —
J. G. Jones, Crestview, Fla
"Keep up the good work. Your articles on worldlytendencies of the day were the kind we need today."
— Wm. Clyde Sutton, Mineral Springs, N. C
"Searching The Scriptures is one of the finest and I always read it with interest and profit." — Walton Weaver, Memphis, Tenn.
THE NASHVILLE DENOMINATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST
T his month I continue to review the sermon preached by brother John McRay at the Otter Creek Road church on May 12, 1968, in Nashville, Tenn. This sermon has as its text a conversation between McRay and a man from the Christian Church andMcRay is discu
ing how they are divided and how they might be united. Speaking of how division exists McRay says, and I quote from page 3 of his sermon:
"I believe the problem is just as old as the NewTestament. The church at Corinth was divided. If we are going to pattern ourselves after the first century, it is my feeling that we are going to have toallow diversity within unity." Notice what he said:"DIVERSITY WITHIN UNITY."
Recently in Murfreesboro, Tenn., the Catholic Church and some of the protestant denominations had a meeting for several days and the theme of theprogram was "Diversity Within Unity." I don't know who borrowed the statement.
Can you imagine a preacher of the gospel sayingthat the kind of unity we need is in division? T his is what the denominations have been saying for years. Sectarianism has said that there is just one big church of Christ— unity. Then they turnaround and say that all the denominations make uthat one church. Each church is a branch in the vine. I have actually heard sectarian preachers thank God for so many denominations so that each person could
have the church of his denominational choice.
"Diversity within unity" is the whole idea behind
the modern unity movement in the denominational
world. Each church can believe different things;
practice different things; worship in various ways
have different forms of church government and yet
all of them say that they are united. How can there
be any unity between two churches when one of them
teaches immersion is baptism and another teaches
that sprinkling is baptism? There is no unity be
tween the two ideas. Yet the denominations think
they have unity when they have just agreed to disa
gree. There is no unity between or among them
They are still divided, they just recognize the divi
sion and say they are united.
Notice that McRay and this man of the Christian
Church are divided ( ?) over the use of instrumental
music. Yet, according to McRay's statement, the
can be united — united in division. According to this
McRay could unite with any and all of the denomina
tions, both Protestant and Catholic.
Jesus prayed in John 17: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on methrough their word; T hat they all may be one; asthou, Father, are in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe thathou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they maybe made perfect in one; and that the world may knowthat thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:20-23). Notice how many times the word 'one' is used in these words of Christ. Jesus prayed for believers to be one; notdivided. Wouldn't it have been wonderful for the Lord to have had McRay there to tell him how his followers could be divided in unity. Just think howthe Lord was missing such wonderful knowledgfrom McRay.
To Corinth, Paul said, "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that yeall speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joinetogether in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. 1:10). Paul said he received from theLord that which he delivered unto the Corinthians,I Cor: 11:23. Wonder why the Lord did not deliver to Paul the idea of "diver sity within unity." Paul said that there should "be no divisions among youbut McRay has learned how to "allow diversitywithin unity." Isn't it just wonderful how a manwith a Ph.D. can lear n so much mor e than the apostle of Jesus Chr ist knew?
Yes, McRay has learned more than Jesus Christ
and the Apostle Paul and this is just exactly what is
wrong with a good many of the Ph.D.s in the church
today. Jesus prayed for unity and now a Ph.D. in the
church has learned how to disregard the prayer of
Christ and formulate his own plan for unity. Christ
and Paul wanted all to be one: McRay wants division.
Dear reader, we had better stand with Christ and
Paul.
THE NEWS LETTER REPORTS
"... They rehearsed all that God had done with them..." — Acts 14:27
Donald R. Givens, 4349 Vassar, Port Arthur, Tex. — Since our last report, we have had two more baptisms at Thomas Blvd. in Pt. Arthur. Our vacation Bible school and singing school is scheduled for August 4 through 8, 1969. Bro. Clint Springer will be teaching the singing school. Bro. Springer is also available for preaching appointments in southeast Texas and nearby Louisiana; he worships with us at Thomas Blvd. The work continues to go very well.
Kenneth E. Thomas, R.F.D. # 1 Box 5-B, Kirkland,
Ill. 60146 — The church here just completed a fine
gospel meeting with Larry Ray Hafley of Piano, Ill.
doing an outstanding job of presenting the gospel of
Christ. One was baptized into Christ and one was
restored, and all were strengthened in the faith.
This young man is outstanding in his knowledge
of the word of God, and in his ease and clarity of
presentation. Any faithful church would do well to
seek his services for a gospel meeting. We are sorry
that we closed with only one week as interest was mounting even toward the end of the week.
The church here continues to grow numerically, and spiritually. I have been here now for five years on my second tour of work with this good church. We are in the process of appointing Elders to feed theflock. When in the northern Illinois area stop andworship with us.
Dan S. Shipley, McAllen, Texas — In June, after almost three pleasant years with the Laurel Heights church here in McAllen, I will be moving to Prescott, Arizona to work with the Miller Valley church. My new address will be: P. O. Box 2553, Prescott, Ariz. 86301. I appreciate Searching The Scriptures.
Larry R. Devore, Box 5, No. Carlisle, Ohio 45344
— After two years, pleasant work with the Funston
Avenue church in New Carlisle, Ohio, I am moving
to South Bend, Indiana to work with the Caroline
Street church. My new address after June 23 will be:
1802 Caroline Street, South Bend, Indiana 46613. We
solicit the prayers of the faithful in our behalf in the
work there. Keep up the good work with SearchingThe Scriptures.
Hoyt H. Houchen, Aurora, Colo. — Homer Haileyis to be in a gospel meeting with the Boston Street church, 1297 Boston Street, Aurora, Colorado, June 22-29. All in this area are invited to attend.
E. Lacy Porter, 216 E. Evelyn Ave., Monticello, Ky.
42633 — On August 1st, 1968 we moved to Monti
cello, Kentucky, to work with the church here. In
September of last year I conducted a short meeting
for the Fairview congregation near Monticello. In
February of this year two were restored and on May
4th two young men were baptized.
On May 19th, 1966, Lois, my wife, had major
surgery in Jonesboro, Arkansas for cancer. We thought we had the disease under control, but on
January 13th of this year she took a sharp pain in
the right side of her back. On January 27th we took
her back to the doctor in Jonesboro, Arkansas. She
entered the hospital that day for tests. On February
4th about 4:55 in the afternoon she passed away,
The malignancy had entered into her brain.
Funeral services were conducted at the Gregg Funeral Home, Monette, Arkansas, February 6th by brother James Yopp, and the body was placed in the Monette Cemetery to await the resurrection morn.
MARY.. . A 'MEDIATRIX'?
The Liguprian, a Roman Catholic publication having 'ecclesiastical approval', and published monthlfrom Liguori, Mi
ouri, contains an article in its November 1955 i
ue, entitled "Why Mary Can HelpUs." It is penned by the Editor, Donald F. Miller. In the third section of this treatise, Mr. Miller devotes himself to the answering of the following question: "Can proofs be given that Mary has helpedother men and women on their way to heaven?" We copy below, the author's complete reply to the above question, with our own remarks immediately following each portion of his reply
As an introduction, Miller states: "All true doctrine revealed by God, rightly understood, can betested by experience. The doctrine that Mary cahelp us, which we learn by merely analyzing the office and the privileges that God freely bestowed on her, has been abundantly proven by facts throughout the history of Christianity."
[Comment: We DENY that ALL true doctrinerevealed by God, rightly understood, can be tested by EXPERIENCE, as the author asserts! For example, we believe in the Divinity of Christ... so do the Roman Catholics ... but it is not a DOCTRINE that can be TESTED by EXPERIENCE ... in this life. Therefore, by only one illustration, we havshown his premise to be false. L.W.M.
The author continues: "1) The first proof was given during the very lifetimes of Our Lord and His mother. When her request brought forth a miracle of help from her Son during the wedding feast of Cana, even a miracle worked 'out of time', or 'before the time of public miracle had come', it was God's way of saying to the whole world to the end of time: 'I have given my mother the power to plead with me effectively in behalf of human beings in need'. It is difficult to understand how anyone can read the storyof the miracle at Cana and then deny that God has granted any intercessory power to His mother."
[Comment: We do not deny that Mary possessed 'intercessory powers' with Christ during her lifetime. We DO ask for Scriptural proof that such powers were to continue after death. IF this PROVES that Mary possesses 'intercessory powers' then it also PROVES that DEMONS today have intercessory powers with Christ. Because the demons of Matt. 8:30-32; Mark 5:11-13; and Luke 8:32-33, were able to intercede with Christ. L.W.M.
Author Miller continues: "2) Public proof ofMary's God-given power to help human beings is to be found in the history of her apparitions in the midst of men.
"It is true that apparitions of the mother of God to certain persons, at certain times, in certain places,do not become matters of faith for all Catholics in the sense that they are bound to believe in themunder pain of sin. But sensible people form theirjudgments of such events on the basis of the evidence. The evidence in many instances is clear that Mary has appeared among men, has proved heridentity by working great miracles, and has r epeated the very doctrine we are discussing here,that she has been given the power by God, who was her Son, to help human beings in their needs of soul and body."
[Comment: "Many other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU MAY BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, thSon of God, and that BELIEVING YOU MAY HAVE LIFE in his name." (John 20:30-31). Therefore,THESE THINGS WRITTEN are sufficient to produce FAITH or BELIEF in CHRIST. An active, working, obedient faith produces 'LIFE IN HIS NAME'. Phantoms, specters, ghosts or apparitions . . . are NO PART of the Christian religion of the1st century, nor of ACTUAL Christianity of th20th century. Certainly, 'sensible people form their judgments of such events on the basis of EVIDENCE'. Any court of Law will attest to that fact .. . but phantasms do not constitute acceptable EVIDENCE in ANY court. If the inspired writers of the New Testament indicated a sufficiency of God's word being contained in the Sacred Writings, then whave no need whatsoever for the entire phantasmagoria of Roman Catholicism.
[Paul wrote: "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God anduseful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting,for instructing in justice; that the man of God maybe perfect, equipped for every good work" (II Tim. 3:15-17). "Now, brethren, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos by way of illustration for your sakes, that in our case you may learn not to be puffed up one against the other over a third party, TRANSGRESSING WHAT IS WRITTEN" (I Cor. 4:6, emphasis mine. L.W.M.).Yet, the New Testament contains NOTHING aboutMary as a 'mediatrix'.
[lit might also be well to point out that the author claims that Mary "helps human beings in their needs of soul and body." If that be the case, then God becomes a RESPECTER OF PERSONS . . . which is an UN-TRUTH according to Peter in Acts 10:34. Also,even the miracles of Christ were not designed t'actually help' the person upon whom they were wrought, but to PRODUCE FAITH IN THE MINDS OF THE WITNESSES. "Then those men, when theyhad seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, 'This is of a truth that prophet that should come into thewor ld'" ( John 6:14).
The Old Testament contains many, many prophecies concerning Christ who was to come, and who was to be a doer of wonderful works. He came and fulfilled ALL things that were written in the law and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning Him.See Luke 24:44. But where in ALL of the Bible . .. either the Old or New Testaments, do the Roman Catholics find ANY prophecies attesting to any work of Mary, other than being the human mother ofJesus of Nazareth ? Certainly, for that reason alone,future generations would call her blessed, for havinggiven birth to Jesus, who became the Saviour ofmankind. But not one single other purpose or reason for her being remembered is given by INSPIRATION. Any further elaboration upon the later life and actions of Mary, is simply so much speculation. Even the Catholic Dictionary admits that the placeof her death is unknown. L.W.M.
The third and last reason given by the author as 'proof that Mary helps other men and women ontheir way to heaven, is: "3) E ven apart from the great apparitions and the public miracles that havebecome widely publicized, Mar y has proved thatGod wants her to help her children to millions of ordinary men and women. Even the non-Catholic and Calvinistic writer John Ruskin attested to this fact, while, by that strange contradiction that is po
ible to the human mind, he himself refused to avail himself of Mary's help.
[Comment: How can Mary have 'proved' anything'apart from the great apparitions and the publimiracles that have become widely publicized'? Mr. Miller's third and last 'proof is mere assertion with no foundation in FACT. Obviously we cannot acceptsuch baseless claims. If we did, we would also beforced to accept the equally unfounded assertions of snake-handlers, faith-healers and medical treatment rejectionists. Such an action would be the absence of evidence and logic, and would constitute a complete surrender to the forces of voo-doos, fetishes,witch-doctors and ghost-stories. L.W.M.]
JOHN 3:16 — THE GREATEST WORK OF GOD
Harry E. Ozment
The story of God's scheme of redemption is, without a doubt, the greatest story every written or told. Men thrill to hear it every day. This is perhaps the reason why John 3:16 is so popular with Bible-reading people — this one verse summarizes the essence of God's scheme of redemption: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son,that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,but have everlasting life." God has done many wonderful things. He has created this vast universe, Hhas created all the beings found in this universe, Hehas created man and has given him a soul. All ofthese deeds of God are great, but John 3:16 tells of the greatest work that God has ever performed —the providing for the salvation of men. There are three reasons that come to mind why this is the greatest work ever performed:
(1) This work hinges around the greatest fact
ever known — "God so loved the world." Our God is
a God of love. God created man, gave to him a sinless
soul, and put him into a paradise called the Garden
of Eden. Man could have asked for nothing more — he should have been perfectly happy and satisfied. However, man could not follow God's way to happiness — he succumbed to the smooth words of Satan and disobeyed God. Sin then found its way into theworld and man was indeed a miserable being. Man deserved no better than this. God would have been perfectly justified in turning His back upon man and"washing His hands of the whole affair." But ourGod is a God of love and mercy. The same apostleJohn who wrote that favorite verse of verses — John 3:16 — also wrote: "God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that wmight live through Him. Herein is love, not that wloved God, but that He loved us, and sent HisSon to be a propitiation for our sins" (I Jn. 4:8-10). The apostle Paul had a great deal to say about this love which God possesses for man. In Rom. 5:8, he said, "But Godcommendeth His love toward us, in that, while wewere yet sinners, Christ died for us." He wrote inEph. 2:4-5, "But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together withChrist." Again, in writing to the young preacher Titus, Paul said, "But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but accordingto His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:4-5). Yes, "God so loved the world" is the greatest fact ever known, and this is one contributing factowhich makes the provision of salvation the greatest
work of God.
(2) The greatest act ever done is involved in this greatest work — -"that He gave His only begotteSon." This act, of course, was the manifestation of the love which God had for men. This act of God is great because it affords to man the opportunity tobe spir itually r aised from a death in sin: "Beingjustified freely by His grace through the redemptionthat is in Chr ist Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declar e His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Rom. 3:24-25). God gave all that He could to save man.All that heaven had to offer was sent down in Jesus Christ. And if one rejects Christ and His gospel, thenhe has spurned and rejected all that God has done or will ever do. In spite of this, millions of people reject Christ each day. After hearing the gospel time after time, they are still bound and determined to stand in open defiance of all that God has said and done. How a person could do this in view of what God has done for him is beyond my comprehension.
(3) The greatest promise ever uttered makes this
work of God the greatest ever performed — "whoso
ever believeth in Him should not perish, but have
everlasting life." Eternal life' in the bliss of heaven
can be ours! This great promise is conditional, how
ever, upon our faith in God. And John here is not
speaking of dead faith — one that does not work —
as some believe. A dead faith can save no one (James
2:14-26). But if one has true faith in God — an
obedient trust — he can be assured of receiving
eternal life in heaven as a gift of the grace of God.
If we are not Christians, this should inspire us to be
come a Christian and a Christian only. If we are
Christians, then this great promise should inspire us to better service in the vineyard of Jesus Christ.
That wonderful song, "At Calvary", expresses the Christian's joy very well:
"Oh, the love that dr ew salvation's plan!
Oh, the grace that brought it down to man
Oh. the mighty gulf that God did span At
Calvary!"
423 Donelson Pike
Nashville, Tenn. 37214
--------------o ---------------
THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSTRANSLATION — PART I
by Maurice Barnett
In 1950 the New T estament portion of the NewWorld Translation appeared. It was the official translation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It was revised in 1951. From 1953 to 1960 the Old Testament portion appeared over several volumes. In 1961 the whole work was revised and combined into one volume, and is the edition used today by the Witnesses. The 1961 edition did revise some of the more flagrant abuses, and also deleted all the footnotes, cross references, and most of theAppendix and shortened the Forward from 23 pages to about a page and a half. By far the earlier edition is the most interesting and informative as a view totheir beliefs and perversions. Still, it remains, in thepresent form, as one of the most brazen perversions of the Bible. Joseph Smith of Mormon fame and his"inspired Translation" is the only one that coulbeat it.
The persons who "translated" the New World Translation are not known, and it is doubtful that they will ever be with any certainty. One or two of the "translators" can be identified; Nathan Knorr,President of the Watchtower Society, and Fred Franz, Vice-President. During a court trial in Glasgow, Scotland in 1954, Franz was asked by the Government lawyer just who the translators were. Franz replied, "That is an absolute secret. It will never be revealed now or even after death." Only someone with something to hide would be so intent on secrecy.Franz further revealed that there were seven members of the organization's translating committeeincluding himself. He was asked: "What happens if somebody submits a translation. Does the committee examine it? Mr. Franz: No. I give it my O.K., then the President, Mr. N. H. Knorr, has the last word." He was further asked to explain how "translations and interpretations of the Bible were made." Franz replied that they emanated from God: "They are passed to the Holy Spirit who, invisibly, communicates with Jehovah's Witnesses — and the publicitydepartment." (Franz is the head of the PublicityDepartment). Of course, if that is how they camup with the New World Translation, it was no better inspiration than Joseph Smith's inspired works, since both have needed extensive revision since first appearing.
SOME EXAMPLES OF THEIR "TRANSLATING"
In Colossians 1:16-20 the word other has been
added five times. The 1951 edition simply included itin the text as though it belonged; the 1961 editioat least encloses it in brackets. That does not deter them from using it as though it belonged however. Their purpose is to try to make Jesus just another of God's created beings and thus rob him of his Deity.In Luke 13:2-4 they have also inserted other and point to its presence there as justification for including it in Col. 1. However, it does not belong in thattext either .
In Acts 20:28 they rearrange the wording so thecan insert the term Son even though it is inserted in brackets. They render it "... to shepherd thecongregation of God, which he purchased with theblood of his own (Son)." They do this again to rob Jesus of his Deity
In Acts 22:16 they render it — "And now why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized and wash your sins away by your calling upon his name." There is no justification for such a rendering
In I Cor. 16:2 they say — "Every first day of thweek let each of you at his own house set something aside in store as he may be prospering ..." There is nothing in the original text to justify that. Besidesit comes out ridiculous: you can't put your money ithe cookie jar at home except on Sunday
Acts 20:7 gives "to have a meal" instead of "break bread". Many other like changes are made. Too,their own peculiar jargon is imposed on the scriptures. For example, Deacons become ministerial servants.
On page 9 of the 1951 edition, the Forward, it states:
"We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures.
Our endeavor all through has been to give as
literal a translation as possible, where the
modern English idiom allows and where a literal
rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the
thought. That way we can best meet the desire
of those who are scrupulous for getting, as
nearly as po
ible, word for word, the exact
statement of the original. We realize that some
times the use of so small a thing as the definite
or indefinite article or the omi
ion of such ma
alter the correct sense of the original passage."
We have seen, in just a few examples above how theyhave no scruples in making additions, deletions andchanges in the text to suit their doctrine. Their goodintentions stated here amount to nothing but smoke screen to hide perversion. Their duplicity aninconsistency is well seen in their rendition of John
1:1. "In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Their doctrine insists that Jesus was A God, but not just God.They deny His Deity, and use this passage to try toprove it. The noun God in the last part of the passagedoes not have the definite article in the Greek phrase, so they maintain it must be rendered with the indefinite article (a). But, they are quite inconsistent in their translating. Theos (God) is likewise found in John 1:6,12, 13, 18, and without the article in Greek. Yet, the Witnesses translate it into English withoutany article at all. Why not "a" God in those passages too? If they are correct in one place, why not therest? Well, the first verse is essential to their doctrine.
In John 19:21 we have an exact par allel to John
1:1 in structure, "I am King of the Jews." The article does not appear before "King" in the Greek. It is the predicate noun preceding a copulative verb, just as in John 1:1. Yet, the New World Translation does not read "I am A King "of the Jews"! InJohn 20:28 Thomas refers to Christ as "My Lord and My God". The definite article precedes both "L or d" and "God" in the original of that passage. Since the Witnesses argue that the definite article before "God" in John 1:1 would indicate the almighty God, then this pass-age must prove the deity of Christ because that is just what we havein John 20:28.
Or how about "the" Christ in Matt. 16:16 and Acts 26:23? They give it correctly in those passages. Yet, in Rom. 5:6 where there is no article in theoriginal, they do not translate it "A Christ". T hey put in the article and take it out as it pleases them, forcing the texts to harmonize with their own peculiar doctrines. T hey wind up with a big God and a little god in John 1:1, and then turn around andaccuse us of believing in more than one God.
Again from page 9 of the Forward they say:
"T o each major word we have assigned onemeaning and have held to that meaning asfar as the context permitted. T his, we knowhas imposed a restriction upon our diction, but it makes for good cross-reference work and for a more reliable comparison of related texts or verses."
They fail to live up to this intention too, when it gets them into trouble with their doctrines. For example, the word worship, from the Greek proskuneoo, is render ed worship in one place, and do obeisance another. When used in reference to Jesus (with the exception of Hebrews 1:6), the NWT uses the weaker statement do obeisance, since worship might implythe Deity of Chr ist.
A comparison of two other passages show their dilemma. T he Witnesses believe that man is whollymortal; that all there is to his spirit is his breath. So they r ender Matthew 27:50 —
"Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, andyielded up (his) breath." T his was translated in keeping with their doctrine. However in the parallel account of Luke 23:46 they hit a snag. Here is howthey give it:"And Jesus called with a loud voice and said: 'Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit.' And when he had said this, he expir ed." T he original wor d is pneuma in both passages. Why not render it the same in both passages? Simple. They could not have Jesus saying in Luke, "Into your hands I entrust my breath." (Continued)
1606 W. Indian School
Rd. Phoenix, Arizona
85015
BOUND
Bound in beautiful Fabricord covering, navy blue, printed in gold. A companion volume to previously bound volumes of Searching The Scriptures.
$7.50
