That thorough knowledge and familiarity of scripture affected the formation of our nation. For example, Isaiah 33:22 says, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” This verse teaches that God’s government is three-fold: For the LORD is our judge – Judicial; the LORD is our lawgiver – Legislative; and the LORD is our king – Executive. A human government based on God’s government has the upper hand in being blessed of God.

And we cannot discount the influence of early American preachers on our founding documents. Rev. John Wise was a Congregationalist minister from Massachusetts in the late 1600’s. He preached a sermon looking at the different forms of taxation in the Bible
and showed that taxation without representation was tyranny. He preached a sermon looking at different forms of government in the Bible and said it is clear that Gods government is the consent of the governed. He preached a sermon where he said all men were created equal and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. In 1772 his sermons were printed and spread over the colonies. They were reprinted again in 1774. Then in 1776 the Declaration of Independence was written incorporating phrases from Wise’ sermons. So great was this preacher’s contribution to the Declaration that later Calvin Coolidge referred to Wise as the inspiration for the Declaration of Independence.
So what about personal property rights? One of the most important issues to our Founding Fathers was the guaranteeing of personal ownership of property. John Adams said, “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist”. This principle again is one whose origin is found in the Word of God.

In Acts 5 we read the story of Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, selling a parcel of land and bringing the money from that sale as a contribution to the early church. The result of that action did not end favorably for the couple because they claimed they were giving the entire proceed of the sale when, in fact, they were keeping part for themselves. But Peter made it clear that their error was not in keeping back part of the money but in claiming that they were giving all. Peter’s words were “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” The early church recognized the personal ownership of individual property.

Some might argue that Acts 2 shows a different regard to personal possessions by the early church for there “all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need” (vs. 44-45). This principle has been attempted under Communism and Socialism with negative results. That is because they are leaving out the pre-requisite for making that system work; “all that believed”. You can’t make that system work when God is shut out. In fact, that system worked voluntarily only for the church in Acts 2, but was never practiced or taught again thereafter. It is interesting to note that the early settlements of Jamestown and Plymouth both tried this system (people could take from a common store regardless of their work effort) and almost starved to death. Pilgrim William Bradford said that some colonists believed “the taking away of property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing”. But the experiment instead bred “confusion and discontent, and retarded much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort”. Bradford recorded the colonists’ switch to private property and the result: “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious”. This is the Biblical principle “if any would not work neither should he eat” (2 Thess 3:10).

In Matthew 19 a young man comes to Jesus Christ asking what he needs to do to have eternal life. The Lord tells him to “go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor…But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions”. The Lord did not rebuke him for having possessions but the problem was that his possessions had him. In the next chapter of Matthew a man hires laborers to go out and work in his vineyard. He hires some early in the morning and sends them out into his field to work. Three hours later he hires some more idle men to go out and work his vineyard. The same thing happens throughout the day. At the end of the workday he begins to pay his workers, beginning with those who were hired late in the day. When the first-hired workers come to get their pay and realize that they received the same amount as those who were hired later, they begin to complain. The man replies, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” The Lords approval of this interpretation of personal property rights is obvious as He tells this story as a picture of how He deals with His laborers.

The personal ownership of property is so important in Scripture that even a king could not take possession of someone else’s land! In I Kings 21 King Ahab desires the vineyard belonging to a man named Naboth. He offers him a “better vineyard” and then offers the worth of it in money, but Naboth refuses both offers. King Ahab goes away “displeased” because he could not get the land he wanted. He recognized that he had no authority over personal property rights!

May our nation and our government continue to respect the principle of personal property rights.

In Acts 22 Paul gives a lengthy speech to the Jewish multitude in defense of his conversion and his call to the Gentiles. Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, records in Greek every word that Paul spoke.  But Paul didn’t give his speech in Greek, he gave it in Hebrew (Acts 21:40; 22:2).  So the original Greek is not the “original”, it is a translation from Hebrew!  The same thing is true of the conversation between the Lord and Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.  Paul tells us in Acts 25:14 that the conversation was in Hebrew although Luke again wrote it in Greek.  So which is inspired, the Hebrew Paul actually spoke or the Greek recorded by Luke?  The answer is BOTH because “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).  The “original” and the “translation” are both inspired.  There are other Scriptural examples but these will suffice for now.

Why is this important?  There are two things that happen when someone elevates the “originals” to the detriment of the inspired translation.   First, by putting the emphasis on the “original language”, the man (or woman) in the pew is not getting anything to benefit them in everyday living.  For example, when the preacher gets all worked up over “agape” and “phileo” in John 21, he’s showing his ability to use Greek and missing the importance of the passage.  The person in the pew needs to learn from that text how he can be restored to fellowship with the Lord after sinning, not which kind of “love” is supposedly being referred to.

Secondly, the emphasis on “the original” tells the person in the pew that they can’t possibly understand the Word of God without a knowledge of the original languages or someone who can tell him what it says.  Here is one preacher’s personal testimony of that obvious truth:

“I did a lot of that when I first got out of seminary.  I used my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew in the  study and in the pulpit.  One day a woman wounded me with a compliment:  ‘I just love to hear you preach.  In fact, when I see the insights you get from the original languages, I realize that my  English Bible is hardly worth reading.’   I went home asking myself, What have I done?  I’m trying to get people into their Bibles, but I’ve taken this lady out of hers.”   (“Making a Difference in Preaching”, Haddon W. Robinson)

Reading and studying our English Bible will give us all the depth (and insight)  of the Word of God that we need.  If anything is worth knowing (and if it’s right) we’ll find it in our Bible.   You and I can read our English King James Bible with the complete assurance that it is just as much the Word of God (and the words of God) as the “original languages” were at their time.   “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”  (Matthew 24:35)

Now when I received this book in the mail, it should have gone into its proper place in line with the books I am currently reading and planning to read. But, curiosity got the best of me so I have pre-emptively read the Preface already. Here, briefly, is the summary of his 7-page Preface:
1. If you are religious, you are a victim of “childhood indoctrination”.   The author hopes that his book will reach some of this class of people who are still “open-minded”; those whose “childhood indoctrination…didn’t ‘take’, or whose native intelligence is strong enough to overcome it” (page 6).  Personally, like many, many Christians I know, I wasn’t raised in a church going, Christian home.  My father was an agnostic when I was growing up and I simply believed like he did (i.e.  “if there is a God than why is there war, famine, etc ”).  Thankfully, my father did trust Jesus Christ as his Saviour at age 45 (after I had already become a Christian; would that be “reverse indoctrination”?) and was ready to meet the Lord when he passed from this life.   
2. If you are an atheist, you are enlightened and “among the educated elite” (page 4).  This is the predominant thought process of the atheist; “we don’t believe in God because we are smarter than everybody else”.  Don’t believe this?  “…atheism nearly always indicates a healthy independence of mind and, indeed, a healthy mind” (page 3).  Translated: if you are a Christian you have a mental problem.  Yes, they really believe that!  The puzzling thing is that atheists are not smart enough to realize how smug and intolerant they sound when they stroke their own ego’s like this. 
3.  Religious people are “faith-heads” (page 5) while atheists are “free spirits” (page 6).    “Faith-heads” sounds eerily like “ditto-heads”, which makes me wonder if the author is a closet Rush Limbaugh fan!  This atheist, like most, feels that he is superior because he is a self-proclaimed open-minded free-thinker, which he definitely is not!
 
I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the book so that I can be more intelligently educated on the delusion of atheism.

1.  I have had no problem reading the 1611 translation.  Yes, the words are spelled differently, and the type set is different, but the variations are not enough to hinder easy reading.                                 

2.  No words have been updated /modernized from 1611 to 1769, neither have any words been left out.

 3.  No verses have been shortened or omitted through the “revisions”. 

So in the 158 years from 1611 to 1769 the only changes are spelling, type set (from Gothic to Roman) and some capitalization (most notably the word “Church” [1611] to “church” [1769]).  In fact, the four “revisions” (more correctly called “editions”) of the 1611 King James Bible could be briefly described as thus:

                                    1. 1629  correction of earlier printing errors

                                    2.  1638 same as above

                                    3.  1762  standardization of spelling

                                    4.  1769  same as #3

When you look at the dates you see that this is actually just two “revisions” not four.  The correction of printing errors took two efforts to complete as did the standardization of spelling. So then from 1769 to present (240 years), with the above corrections of printing errors and standardization of spelling, there have been no changes whatsoever.

 Compare this to the multiple versions from the Revised Version of 1881 (the first English translation after the King James), to the American Standard Version of 1901, to the Revised Standard Version of 1951, to the New American Standard Version of 1971, to the  New International Version of 1977, to the English Standard Version of 2001, to The Message (an irreverent and blasphemous 2002 translation), and many others.  In them, words are drastically changed, and/or phrases are completely omitted (i.e. “through his blood”-Eph 1:7), and in some, sixteen verses completely disappear (Matt 17:21,18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,46; 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Romans 16:24).   That’s not revision, its robbery!

This historians observation for the greatness of America was that in her churches the ”pulpits flame with righteousness”.   America’s early churches were not “seeker sensitive”, “contemporary”  or “emerging”.  They weren’t designed for social activities or entertainment.  No praise teams, no electric guitars and drums, no Starbucks in the lobby, no cafe’s in the church.  The thing that brought the people together was fire and brimstone, Holy Ghost-filled, Bible preaching.  In most of our churches today we are losing this, or have already lost it.  You could enter into many churches today and not even need to bring a Bible with you.  The Bible is nothing more than a backdrop for our touchy-feely, sensitive, fleshly, conscience-soothing pleasure.  You can gather many for “Gospel sings” or “concerts” but those same attendee’s would shun an old-fashioned heaven-sent Bible-preaching revival!   The main problem in America today is not our politicians, our courts or our schools; the main problem is our pulpits!

Can you imagine the shock that Jefferson would experience if he were to come back to life today? Just his mention of “God” and His justice would make him politically incorrect! And many of those who hold him in high esteem would incorrectly brand him as a member of the “religious right” and turn against him!

Those with a knowledge of Jefferson and what he stood for know that he would be saddened by our enormously oversized, over-budgeted government with its escalating debt. He would be disappointed in our over-reaching federal judicial system. He would listen in disbelief when we tried to explain to him that the 10 Commandments were forbidden in our courtrooms and schools because he once made reference to a “wall of separation between church and state”! And imagine the bewilderment when he would hear that the Quaran he used to learn about Mussulmen (Muslims) when he was considering going to war against some of them, was used by a Muslim when sworn into office of the United States House of Representatives!(2)

Yes, times have changed since the days of Jefferson. And if he trembled in his day at the thought that “God is just” how much more so should we tremble today?

Psalm 9:7, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God”.

(1) Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Boston:David Carlisle, 1801) Query XVIII, pg. 241
(2) Congressman Keith Ellison from Minnesota

Here’s the problem:  the only Bible that has the word “Calvary” in Luke 23:33 is the King James Bible.  Again, no problem….if you use a King James Bible.  But if you use ANY other Bible Version the word “Calvary” does not appear!  Do the people that use these other versions believe that Jesus died on Calvary?  Of course.  Do they realize that the Bible they are using has removed “Calvary” from the text?  NO.   ( The same thing is true of the only appearance of the name “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12; it’s in the King James, but no others.)

.

Now, name the Founding Fathers (note the plural) who were of some denomination of Christianity and/or used the Christian Bible (not the Tipitaka, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, or the Torah).  So where does the insistence that our Founding Fathers were of a “religious plurality” come from?  No Hindu’s, no Buddhists, no Muslims; nothing but Christians (so-called atheists/agnostics don’t count, that’s not a faith, that’s foolishness-Psalm 14:1).  Where’s the “religious plurality”?

This is not to suggest that all those of non-Christian beliefs be deported from the United States, or that they be “forced” to convert to Christianity.  This is simply to remember that our blessed country was started with a firm reliance upon the Christian God  (there really is no other-Isaiah 44:8) and the Christian Bible.

As a result of the trial John Waller trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour and was baptized.  He then began to proclaim the gospel throughout his state of Virginia.    In June of 1768 John Waller was arrested in Spotsylvania, VA along with two other preachers.   The fanciful statement made against them was “these men are great disturbers of the peace, for they cannot meet a man upon the road, but they must ram a text of scripture down his throat”.  Waller and the others were imprisoned  for 43 days.

In November 1770, Waller was preaching in Middlesex, VA when a magistrate attempted to pull him off of a stage, leaving him (Waller) bloodied.  In August 1771 Waller, along with three other preachers, was arrested while preaching and was imprisoned a second time,  in Urbanna, VA.  In Essex County, VA on March 21, 1774 Waller was arrested for “preaching and expounding the Scriptures contrary to law” and fined.  In all, Waller spent 113 days in four different jails in Virginia.  These things happened because the State was united with the Established Church (in this case Anglican/Episcopalian)  in opposing Christian denominations other than their own.

It is because of men like John Waller that we have the religious liberty we have experienced in this great nation.   Though Jefferson and Madison (and others) put down on paper the tenants of our religious freedom, the “footwork” was done by John Waller, James Ireland, Joseph Criag and a number of others.   It was their suffering, because of their faith, that has given us religious liberty.

Example:  the following is a letter written several years ago by an employee of the television station ABC in response to a complaint regarding programming which included homosexuality.

“How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says “All Men are Created Equal” – and try treating them that way for a change!?  Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your crutch for your existence.” 

Although this employee was fired and ABC then made a more “politically correct” response to the complainant; this attitude is common among a very vocal minority of people.  This is none other than fear of the Bible, or “Biblephobia”.