Before we begin, the reader should know that I don't know how to read, write or speak any Greek whatsoever. I understand that will deter a number of new-age version users away from our website, since so many of them are obsessed with scribal authority. The reason I'm telling everyone this from the start is because I don't need to know one bit of the Greek language to understand the game that's being played by modern-day preachers, so don't be afraid to continue; you don't need to understand Greek to understand this article.
The first thing we need to understand is that most of these people don't use the King James Bible; they instead turn to their corrupt new-age versions that water-down the Word of God and remove key doctrines. For example, this author is one of those men who swaps around a multitude of versions to get the bible to say what he personally wants it to say, and concerning Mark 7, he says:
"This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so
we have to look at the original Greekto see what Paul was really saying."
-Cliff Leitch, "What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?" retrieved Dec 3, 2014, [christianbiblereference.org/faq_homosexuality.htm]
This man is only one of hundreds of thousands of church-goers that make similar claims. What he's actually doing is creating a guru status for himself; meaning that you can't actually read the Word of God for yourself, you need him to interpret it for you from "the original Greek," but in reality, he doesn't know much of anything about Greek, he just goes to his Greek grammar dictionaries (lexicons/concordances) and regurgitates it for you on his website or from behind the pulpit.
It's not only bad enough that they fool Christians into thinking they are standing on Biblical authority, it's worse that they teach these deceptive habits to the next generation. It's get so bad that some church building leadership puts children behind the pulpit to do the same corrupt things:
"I was a youth director at a church in Ohio, and we had a talent contest... all these churches got together, and they had a preaching contest, and
The reason I make this point is to first get you to question the slight-of-hand illusion that's being done here -- if a 14-year-old boy can do this, it doesn't take a doctor of Greek in order to chop up the Bible and make oneself sound like a Greek scholar. We will now demonstrate how these leavened preachers give glory to themselves by playing this Greek Game, instead of giving glory to the Lord God, and fool other people into thinking they understand the Word of God.
We're about to give some examples of how this process works, but first, we need to go over the three basic rules of the game.
GREEK GAME RULE #1: You are more intelligent than other people.
The first thing you must do to play the Greek Game is
GREEK GAME RULE #2: Everything you say and do is directly from God.
You have to build up the prideful mentality that you have all understanding, and therefore, people need you to interpret the Bible for them. Following rule #1, we have to believe that people can't read the Bible in English and understand it for themselves, so you must ignore 1Jo 2:27 and be the guru of truth on their behalf.
GREEK GAME RULE #3: When the KJB translates a word, it's wrong.
Whatever the King James Bible says, if you have a choice, automatically
First, you need to grab a concordance, like Strong's or Thayer's for example, but most new-age versions have made it easier for you and added in a mini-concordance and commentaries. So if you don't understand the verse, you can just read from the commentary, and if you do understand the verse, you can simply select words in the verse, look at your Greek Lexicon, and choose a new definition of that word to make a brand new teaching no one has ever heard before so you can look amazing in front of your church group.
Let's try it out and see how this works:
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up
Now remembering game rule #2, the King James Bible is always wrong, we can skip the first definition of 'anafero'. Instead, we can choose
Folks, some of you may not like how I'm point this out (I've already had people rake me over the coals for this teaching), but this is EXACTLY how it's done. Most of these guys took a semester of Greek in their seminary college, and they lead you to believe their experts in the field, but they're really just reading this junk out of a commentary or concordance.
Or we can choose
Some people might think
Many of you have heard this junk go on behind the pulpit of church buildilngs, but some of you may think this doesn't actually happen, or that people wouldn't actually believe this stuff. You would be surprised what people will believe if you wear a suit and stand behind a pulpit, or if you have an 'officially' published book about "Christianity." Take a look for yourself:
"Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. Matthew 17:1[NIV]
... These three men were becoming intimately connected with Jesus, and it was becoming instinctive for them to follow His voice. What encourages me most is that, even thoughPeter was accused of allowing the enemy to use him, Jesus still included him. The other word in verse one is
led, or anaphero, which means 'to carry or bring up, to lead up men to a higher place.'I'm sure we can all think of a time when we felt we could have 'left behind.' Jesus doesn't work that way, though. He doesn't reject or exclude us. He includes us... We can then assume there was a work of repentance in Peter's heart for Jesus to lead him to a higher place."
-Sherry Budd, The Leader Who Followed: A Study on the Life of Peter, Tate Publishing, 2011, p. 69, ISBN: 9781615669776
See what I mean? There are huge leaps of
"'Jesus led them.'
Led here is anaphero which actually means carry. Two things we can be sure of. He knew where He was going and He was looking forward to blowing these guys’ minds."
-Terry Clark, "See Jesus In His Kingdom?" retrieved Dec 3, 2014, [catalystpeople.com/matthew-171-13-see-jesus-in-his-kingdom]; Clark is the founder of a 501c3 ministry.
This guy's changing it from bringing them up, to led, and then to carry, and then concludes that Jesus wanted to "blow their minds." This is the kind I'm referring to; the illogical, waste-of-time preaching that's based on
Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.
"Now it is Jesus who takes the initiative, leading his disciples to the 'burning bush' of the mystery of God.
The word 'lead' (anaphero: to lift on high, to offer) used by Matthew conveys the idea of offering something in gratitude. Jesus wants to teach us that everything is a gift... It is precisely this offering that reveals the Master’s freedom of heart–he is not afraid to enlighten the world with the transfiguring power of a completely new kind of love."
-paoline.org, "The Light of Listening," retrieved Dec 6, 2014, [www.paoline.org/paoline/allegati/4263/II_domenica_Quaresima_eng.pdf]
Not only does this not make much sense, but it also wastes a lot of time. It's a lot of vain words designed to emotionally influence the reader, instead of getting to real Biblical teachings because most people who play the Greek game have no interest in the truth to begin with; they're more concerned with trying to impress others.
The new-age church buildings are so focused on emotion, church-goers will believe just about anything from behind a pulpit. After all, most of us are respecters of persons, and we worship our brains and human education instead of God, and therefore, when someone with a degree or pastoral position comes along and tells us a "fact," we tend to believe him/her over God without question.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess... for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
I should also say that you can do this with a Bible commentary as well, and it happens more often than church-goers are willing to admit. I have been guilty of doing this exact same thing.
When I was a teenager (before I was saved), I had a Max Lucado NKJV study Bible (Lucado believes in a number of false doctrines, but that's another topic), and I decided to visit my mom and dad's adult Sunday school class. While I was in there, they were reading some verses from Peter, but the whole time they were reading the verses, I was reading Lucado's commentary on the side of the page in my new-age version. Then, I just waited for the right moment, and spoke up, paraphrasing exactly what the commentary said, and everyone was so impressed and thought I was really smart and knew my Bible, but I didn't know my Bible at all; I just read the commentary, and this exactly what many church-goers do.
Remember, the Bible commentary is NOT the Word of God. There are many pastors out there who correct the Bible from the Greek, based on what a Bible commentary said, not by what he actually read in the Greek himself. So the pastor's preaching is not really coming from what the Lord showed him, but what someone else told him it says in Greek.
The key to understanding what the King James translators did, and why it is the preserved Word of God, is not only that the new-age versions are translations of corrupt manuscripts, but the King James Bible is understood in its contextual use of words.
(Read "Why I Use a King James Bible" here at creationliberty.com for more details about the corrupt manuscripts)
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
|άγαπάω - "agapae"||VS||"phileo" - φιλέω|
It is a common teaching today that Jesus asked Peter if Peter loved Him with agapae-love, which is intimate, deep, and selfless. Peter answered Jesus with phileo-love, which is approving, friendly and casual. Jesus asked Peter again if Peter loved Him with agapae-love, and Peter answered Jesus a second time with phileo-love. The typical Bible-lesson a preacher will give to his congregation on this will say: On the third time around, Jesus instead asked Peter if Peter loved Him with phileo-love, and here Peter was grieved because Jesus changed from agapae to phileo, and so Peter answered Jesus once again with phileo-love.
Here's an example:
"Jesus was graciously teaching Peter, since He knew that if Peter were to face judgment regarding his obedience to the greatest of commands, he would be found lacking. The greatest commandment requires us to 'agape' the Lord our God with all our heart (spirit), soul, mind, and strength (body) and to 'agape' our neighbor as ourselves.
Peter admits that he indeed did not 'agape' his Lord, but rather he was only able to attain to the level of 'phileo' love.That is why Peter was so grieved when Christ pursued him with His line of interrogation."
-Dennis Bank, Sanctiprize: Restoration to the Person You were Created to Be, Holy & Without Blame, Embodying the Father's Love, Charisma Media, 2012, p. 12, ISBN: 9781616389819
I would contend that when our Bible says "love," it is talking of only one kind of love, the only kind of true love, which is intimate, deep, selfless love that is shown to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, and there is no difference between agapae and phileo in context, but for the sake of argument, let's use their ruleset here about agapae and phileo. The new-age Christian scholarship will say there is a definitive difference between agapae and phileo, and in the following test, I will provide the Scripture, and you will mark your answer as agapae-love or phileo-love based on the context of the verse.
Don't worry if you didn't score 100% because you just demonstrated that the context of the verses you are reading defy the Greek grammar rules. So now I'm going to ask you the most important question of all:
If you are struggling to answer that question, let me present a bonus question on your exam to help you out:
How could I know you're wrong when I do not know your answer? Because even though this verse is talking about the same kind of love, it uses both agapae AND phileo interchangably. The phrase "brotherly love" uses phileo, and the phrase "love one another" uses agapae, so if you play the Greek game, you'll always be wrong.
The context of God's Word defines God's Words. So we have to choose who we allow to interpret God's Word for us -- do we allow God to do it, or do we turn to our own brains, selecting interpretations we prefer?
And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.