Culty is as culty does

I never used to think that the YWAM (Youth With A Mission) organization that I had worked with for over two years was a cult.  I had experienced manipulative and abusive behavior from members, but I didn't think that they had extremely radical beliefs. Later I started learning the actual definition of what a cult is from independent cult research organizations.

Contrary to popular belief, a group is not considered to be a cult because of the beliefs of the organization, but instead because of how members, ex-members, and non-members are treated by the group.

Several cult watchdog societies publish a list of red flags for cult-like behavior. The more red flags a group has, the more likely they are to be classified as a cult, regardless of what they say they believe.

Here is one such list from Rick Alan Ross (from reddit.com/r/cults).

1. Zealous commitment to the leader.
2. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
3. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
4. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
5. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
6. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
7. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
8. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
9. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
10. The group/leader is always right.
11. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.
12. The group is elitist.
13. The ends justify the means.
14. A strong “us” vs. “them” mentality.
15. A preoccupation with new members.
16. A preoccupation with money.
17. A huge time commitment.
18. There is nothing worth pursuing except the group’s goals.

--Cult Education Institute

My first experience with YWAM was in a “Crossroads” DTS (Discipleship Training School) school in Switzerland. The “Crossroads” schools are for older students, such as young married couples and retired people. I had been a Christian for over ten years before I entered this school, and was an amateur at reading the bible in Greek and Hebrew. My childhood experiences were Baptist and Lutheran, so I had a very high regard for scripture. I had attended multiple charismatic churches as an adult, and I was familiar with spiritual gifts and their usage.

In my classes in the DTS I immediately earned a negative reputation for asking questions of the speakers and having my own opinions on biblical topics. Not all teachers were scared of independent thought, but I have to say that the majority were. My wife also had a bible college degree and was as outspoken as me, so we quickly became problem children for the DTS. The sad part is that we were not even trying to stir up trouble, we just wanted to discuss the speaker’s topics using scripture. Most speakers felt threatened by this and wanted us to just sit silently and believe what they said. This should have been noticed by us as a huge red flag, but we dismissed it because we assumed that the Lord wanted us to submit to these apparently wise older missionaries.

My wife was pregnant during our DTS with our second child. The leadership had prayed and “heard from the Lord” that Autumn was supposed to be assigned house cleaning work. This sometimes involved lifting heavy objects that were dangerous for a pregnant woman. Autumn started having abdominal pain, but her concerns were ignored because the leadership could not be questioned about this because they had “heard from the Lord”.

Sure enough, Autumn started bleeding one day and had to be rushed to the hospital. She had a tear in her uterus from the heavy lifting and came very close to losing our child. Let me repeat, because of what people thought God had told them, OUR BABY WAS ALMOST KILLED! Let that sink in a bit.

YWAM regards hearing God’s voice as something they have mastered. This becomes even more of an issue because leadership is thought to hear God’s voice better than anyone else. They did NOT hear God correctly, but never admitted it. I am trying, but I cannot think of one single instance where any leadership in YWAM has ever admitted to not hearing God correctly.

The doctor ordered Autumn to not lift anything heavy and to avoid housework. The staff at the base reluctantly agreed, but kept referring to her as a “lazy American” who had “found a way out of her work”. This was only the beginning of our DTS. We were further trained to not question our YWAM leadership or, God forbid, speak anything negative about this beloved organization.

I was assigned a staff person to be my mentor. I would go on long walks in the Swiss forests and try to have conversations with him. He was very quiet, and I started getting the feeling that I was actually mentoring him. Later he confessed that he was ordered to not be our friends, as being our friends would somehow destroy the value of the DTS. This forbidding of friendships is a common YWAM practice that I have butted heads with at multiple bases, and it is foolish, harmful, and unbiblical.

A friend of my wife and I visited us at the base once. He was a traveling missionary, who actually had relationships with YWAM bases around the world. Even though the mission base had available room, they wanted to charge him a large quantity to stay one night. He camped outside on the lawn instead, because he didn’t have enough money. One of the other YWAM staff families felt sorry for him and camped outside with him. Later, once the base leadership found out that our friend knew some important base leaders from around the world, they changed their attitude and invited him inside. The important point is that YWAM leadership is highly regarded, and those who have relationships with the upper leaders receive special treatment.

I have to say that I did receive some good teaching from a few of the teachers at the base, but overall the experience had left a bad taste in my mouth for YWAM. This was mainly because what I perceived as a low regard for scripture, staff secrecy, strange rules against friendships, and constant treatment of students like they were rebellious juveniles who needed to be whipped into shape by constant micromanagement and being told what to think.

YWAM treats students like they are in some sort of spiritual boot camp for the missionary marine corps. This treatment is not publicized, and can resemble a sort of “hazing” like a college fraternity would perform. A great example of this is “Niko camp”, which you can read about on my wife’s blog here:

https://autumnspringer.blogspot.com/2019/11/ywam-niko-urban-paris.html

Several years later, I felt as though the Lord called me to join a base in France. Maybe He did, but if so, I believe it was so that I could stand up against some of the problems I encountered. I did almost nothing of the sort, but instead tried to “be a good Christian” and submit to my leaders. I did not work full-time at the base, because God had provided me with a telecommuting programming job that I could work from France. Finding that job was an incredible provision of the Lord, but caused constant friction with the base because YWAM assumes all staff are full-time. I worked part-time for YWAM in the mornings and worked afternoon and evenings at my 40-hr a week job.

My wife worked full-time for the base. She was assigned to hospitality, which was mostly just cleaning. She did not enjoy the work, and soon transitioned into transportation. She constantly was rebuked for doing too much for the base visitors, and eventually started just using our money to buy them gift baskets instead of using the very little provided by the base. We were criticized for having an income. When Autumn had a good work-life balance, we were criticized for being lazy. When she tried to work harder, she was criticized for ignoring her family. When we hired nannies, we were criticized for “ignoring our own responsibilites as parents”.

The staff was organized into little groups that each had a leader. The leaders themselves seemed to have very little oversight, but instead operated with free reign over their groups. While I believe we had a base leader in name, there did not seem to be a single figure guiding and directing operations.

For me personally, I saw the same low regard for scripture that I had seen in Switzerland. By this I do not mean that people do not give lip service to the bible, but instead that the bible seems to have no power in the face of YWAM’s rules. A lot of the teaching was based on YWAM tradition and second-hand psychology from self-help books instead of scripture. Base organization and ministry seemed to have almost nothing to do with the bible. People were constantly annoyed and angry when I would bring up scripture that challenged the base rules and practices or that would direct the base to certain actions.

Here in France we were gaslighted (made to doubt ourselves constantly), spiritually abused, and manipulated into working 6 days a week (including 12 hr+ days) during schools for free "for the Lord." Our savings and resources were spent to try and provide some amount of a normal life for our four young children. Were we saving souls? No, we were essentially running a B&B and Christian conference center. This was a space meant to create more ywamers, running ywam schools with ywam policies as the focus instead of biblical discipleship. YWAM students were taught how to extract more "support" from their loved ones to further the name of YWAM here on the Earth. Very few ywamers I've met do anything except recruit people for ywam schools, even on the outreaches. They might perform a skit or give out free flowers for Jesus (just like Paul did, right?) once in a while but the organization as a whole is severely ineffectual in preaching repentance from sins and faith towards Christ’s finished work on the cross.

I was also reprimanded for making friends with the dts students. I guess this would disrupt the “spiritual marine corps” environment that YWAM is trying to create in order to toughen the students up. Also in France we were shamed for being Americans, shamed for quoting the bible, shamed for questioning leadership, shamed for not having as much musical skill as others, shamed for working a job and being a part time missionary, shamed for hiring nannies, and shamed for WORKING TOO MUCH FOR YWAM!

YWAM teaches students to "give up your rights". This means that leadership can ask you to do anything and you have no right to say no. If you question leadership you are told that you should not "touch the Lord's anointed" The things that you may hear from God are not as reliable as what your leadership hears, and if you disagree, then you are a sinful rebellious person. This creates opportunities for narcissists to abuse control. At one base in Germany, the photography teacher asked to take nude pictures of the female teenage students. He even tried to share hotel rooms with them. The students were told what a great honor it was to be picked by a great man of God. I think you can still google this story and find the facebook thread were the base is telling the students how sorry they and the perpetrator are, but that he has been restored to staff leadership.

I haven't even talked about being forced to write down and confess to a group every sexual sin you have ever committed and every sexual sin YOUR PARENTS have ever committed. This information and other confessed sins from supposedly confidential "one-on-one" sessions with leadership are then sometimes used against you when you start to question things or whenever someone wants to put you down and treat you as inferior. And these things are done to teenagers who are 18 and 19 years old.

These things are being done by those claiming to be the leaders and trainers of missionaries. These things are being done to missionaries. There is little to no accountability for anything the leadership does. I was told directly by two different base leaders that they had "no standards" for leadership because everyone is just a human so we shouldn't expect leadership to live by any sort of a higher standard. However these same leaders want absolute control, without being questioned, and with no accountability.

Spiritual Abuse is when a person in a position of spiritual authority manipulates or takes advantage of those that are submitted to them. YWAM’s policies are a set-up for abuse to happen, and the culture based around YWAM will blame the victim instead of the abuser 99 times out of 100, because the name of YWAM is seen as a sacred idol that must be protected at all costs.

After my own experiences, I have met several people who were told that they would fall away from their faith and lose their salvation if they left YWAM. I have met several people who have given up on Christianity because of the cruelty they experienced. I have met several people who, after trying to discuss their negative YWAM experiences with their churches and families, were told that the problem was with them, that they were just horrible sinners who shouldn’t question such a reputable missions agency that is doing so much for the gospel. Blaming the abused is the last thing a real Christian should ever do.

For anyone else who is either considering YWAM, an ex-YWAMer who is possibly coming to terms with the fact that maybe Jesus didn’t require you to blindly submit everything you endured, or a current YWAMer with a nagging doubt about how things are being run that you have convinced yourself is really the devil trying to turn you away from the work of the Lord, you should research “Spiritual Abuse in YWAM” support groups on social media. Some groups have hundreds of members and stories of abuse going back to the 1970s!!!! Once you see that there are hundreds of stories of unbiblical manipulation by authority figures in YWAM from bases all over the world, some of them from the early days of YWAM decades ago, you might realize that the problem is not you, but an un-Christlike treatment of missionaries.

For my opinions on why YWAM as an organization should be held accountable, instead of blaming a few individuals, see:

https://ryanespringer.blogspot.com/2019/11/bad-individuals-and-dangerous-policies.html

Bad individuals and dangerous policies

Those who report abuse in the YWAM (Youth With A Mission) organization are often told that the blame lies in a few individuals, not the system of YWAM as a whole. This is my response to that statement.

At first, I thought that we had encountered a few “bad individuals” at a few “bad bases”. Over time I met more people with similar stories from bases all over the world. A couple of stories of abuse can be rationally regarded as a “few bad apples”. Once there starts to be a growing amount of reports, people should take notice. We have a constant stream of new reports in our "Spiritual Abuse in YWAM" facebook group on a daily basis from bases all over the world. Refusing to look into such a steady stream of abuse reports is actually one of the hallmarks of having a cult mindset like a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon who cannot question their own organization. This made me start to consider what sort of situations were created by typical ywam policies.

Ywam encourages complete submission of students to staff. It also encourages staff to submit to their own leadership. This sounds ok and normal at face value, but this principle is taken to extreme levels when combined with confession of sins, private one-on-one meetings, and the assumption that every person in authority hears God better than those underneath them.

A further dynamic is added when reports of problems with leadership or staff are dismissed as “disrupting unity” or “giving the devil a foothold”. This removes accountability from those who are wielding uncomfortable amounts of power. It is also typical to dismiss accusations with the response “do not touch the Lord’s anointed”.

Ywam encourages confession of sins, which also is a biblical principle. What is not biblical is forcing people to confess by threatening to fail them from the school that they have just paid thousands of dollars for. These confessions are often of a sexual nature and done in front of a group of their peers, sometimes even including the sins of the parents. Forced confessions of this nature being done to teenagers is just plain wrong. This is some of the most personal information someone can share. Forcing the confession robs the person of control over their own life. It creates a standard of submission on the level of slavery. True confession should be caused by the Holy Spirit, not some religious organization staff member. This is standard ywam practice that needs to be changed.

Ywam also teaches the principle of “give up your rights”. On face value, this sounds great too. We should surrender everything to Jesus, right? The problem with this teaching is that in YWAM Jesus is replaced by YWAM and YWAM staff. The practical implication of this "give up your rights" teaching is that students and those under any leadership have been taught to submit to their leaders commands and teachings WITH NO LIMITATIONS ON THESE COMMANDS AT ALL!  The students have "given up their rights", remember?

I have heard multiple accounts of YWAM students being taught to obey their leadership even if their leader were to ask them to do something wrong.  Obeying unrighteous or unethical commands is supposed to be justified because the leadership has been established by God and the students only have the duty of obeying commands.  Supposedly God will reward the student for their obedience.

I had to learn from an ex-military person that even soldiers are expected to disobey orders that are unethical and wrong.  YWAM places a stricter standard of obedience on a bunch of teenagers than the United States military does for soldiers making life and death decisions!

This is not biblical at all. We are to deny our sin natures, not our own God-given and Holy Spirit-led common sense. We are NOT to give up our rights to “test all things” 1 Thes 5:21. We are NOT to give up our rights to “search the scriptures daily to see if things are true” Acts 17:11. We are NOT to give up our rights to even test those who call themselves apostles (Rev 2:2). In regards to these rights, how should we test those who claim leadership in a para-church organization?

Will everyone take advantage of such a set-up? No, definitely not. There are many good men and women of God who will work very hard to keep their integrity even with this amount of power.

However, many people become YWAM staff who are very young and inexperienced with life. They have done maybe one DTS school and could still be only nineteen or twenty years old. The lack of accountability for such youth is a recipe for trouble.

At the other end of the spectrum there are legitimate narcissists who look for communities to operate in. I recently took “youth protection training” for Boy Scouts of America, which is a several hour long training created by law enforcement and child protection services. One of the points they hammer home is that abusers intentionally search for churches and other organizations where they can build a spotless record and establish themselves as trusted leaders. Abusers deliberately investigate if there are policies in place that would prevent their abusive behaviors. Even if preventative policies are in place, the abuser will check to see if they are just theoretical or if they are followed in practice. In this respect, YWAM policies provide a paradise for abusers to set up shop. They can do a couple of schools, build a great reputation and then often not have to worry about ever being held accountable.

I have definitely encountered at least one narcissist at one of the bases I served at, and this person was dug in like a tick to the point where they could constantly slander everyone else in leadership with no repercussions, require those serving under them to work a regular schedule of over 12 hrs of work a day, six days a week, and meet with young single people of the opposite sex for “one on one” counseling where this person discussed their unsatisfying married sex life. The people this person counseled constantly complained about the topics being discussed, but no action was taken, because the staffer had built a reputation of trust.

The european council eventually did become involved in dealing with one situation. However, very little action was taken. In regards to Loren Cunningham, the founder of YWAM, I know one person who has met with Loren in person to discuss some of these issues. Loren expressed concern about abuse in the bases, but no action was ever taken.

On the contrary, because of YWAM’s distributed nature, anything bad that happens at a base can be blamed on a few individuals or one bad base. Anyone higher up the chain of command can claim innocence and take zero responsibility for the situation. The policies are never to blame, because they are effectively regarded to be as pure and unquestionable as the ten commandments.

The final point I would like to mention is that an attitude is promoted to avoid ever speaking anything negative about the organization. It is as though YWAM is a precious brand name that cannot be allowed to be tarnished. Those who have negative experiences, for instance a student with staff member who tries to take advantage of their authority to boss them around to do their laundry or tries to learn every detail of their past sexual history for their own perverse reasons, are encouraged to just suck-it-up and keep silent. The main concern is not that a precious believer in the Lord was manipulated, but that the almighty holy name of YWAM should not receive a black mark. People seem more concerned with blasphemy against YWAM then with protecting the weak like Jesus commands.

Not being able to criticize an organization or its policy creates a bubble where the organization is basically turned into an idol. If YWAM is regarded as more important than a denomination, or if YWAM is considered to be equivalent to the kingdom of God, then we are getting into a cult mindset.

To sum up, some of the policy issues with YWAM are:

1. Too much power placed in authority figures
2. Lack of accountability for authority figures
3. Teaching an attitude of complete submission and trust to authority figures
4. Extreme devotion to the organization to the point of not being able to reasonably discuss any potential issues or problems
5. Teaching people to never speak negatively about the organization or else it will “promote disunity” or “give the devil a foothold”

At this point, I actually think that it’s unchristian to blame the individuals instead of the system of policies that makes abuse a dangerous possibility. Why wouldn't a love-filled Christian prefer to place blame on a system of rules instead of a precious soul for whom Christ died? Is the reputation of a missions organization so important that it must be viewed as perfect?

The sad truth is that these policies are a set-up for abuse of power. It is a constant temptation for those with positions of authority to go too far, because they are regarded as hearing the Lord too well and they have very little accountability. This is unsafe and the fruit of these policies are becoming more and more apparent as those who were on fire for Jesus are now in counseling for depression, filled with shame at their own perceived inadequacies taught to them by YWAM, or completely fallen away from the gospel because they cannot serve a God who has been portrayed to them as desiring them to be humiliated and treated like a slave on a constant basis.

For more details about my own experiences with YWAM, see:

https://ryanespringer.blogspot.com/2019/11/culty-is-as-culty-does.html

Here is a great blog from someone who served 12 years in YWAM.  This blog is what led me to the "Spiritual Abuse in YWAM" facebook group:

https://longehawaii.blogspot.com/2007/03/cult-of-ywam-honolulu.html

This is the story of a woman who was sexually abused in YWAM.  The response of many of the leaders to the situation was completely wrong:

https://medium.com/@rebeccalujanloveless/ywamtoo-my-sexual-abuse-story-f891884af23c

If you read the comments on her twitter stream, you will see more people with similar stories:

https://twitter.com/rlujanloveless/status/1073361471008985089?fbclid=IwAR0aK6Q4jTuN0PndR5nWEde4D0YXX_zvKqZ-b4Bqy8naBnZ6z_6RXYD2nl0

Creation vs Evolution

Almost all of my life I had believed in evolution without questioning it. At this point I have run across many things that would have seriously made me question it, if I would have known about them earlier. So, in a way, this is something that I would have written to myself.  I apologize in advance for not going terribly deep with any of these facts, what follows is kind of a "Cliff Notes" for interesting Creation facts.

First of all, did you know that they have found “flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana.” inside of Tyrannosaurus Rex bones?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0306AAAS.asp

It was published in the secular journal “Science”.

Are you aware that there are fossils that pass through multiple “geologic” layers of rock? Also, some of them are trees that are found upside-down.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=445

There have been fossils found of creatures giving birth. Fossils are usually caused by rapid burial.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch3-how-fast.asp
 
The eruption of Mt. St. Helens created a miniature grand canyon, at 1/40th the scale of the Grand Canyon:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=261

In regards to astronomy, I believe this is the field where most people have no clue that any of the facts could support young earth creation. Mostly, this is due to the issue of starlight. If light can travel no faster than the speed of light, and we are seeing light from objects that are millions of light-years away, how can those objects be only 6,000 years old?

There is more than one creationist theory to explain this occurence, but one of the most popular involves the theory of relativity, which says that gravity affects time. Basically, if the earth is near the center of the universe, and the universe was stretched out rapidly, then an observer at the edge of the universe would experience millions of years of time, while an observer on earth would only experience a very short amount of time.

Here is short summary of one of the creationist solutions:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=446

Also, you probably haven’t heard about it, but the Big Bang has it’s own light time-travel problem:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp

The human / ape fossil record actually contradicts evolution. Some of the oldest fossils are anatomically modern humans. However, they aren’t listed as such, because that would contradict evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i2/fossils.asp

Probably the two biggest issues in regards to geology are radiometric dating methods, and the flood of Noah.

To start off with radiometric dating, here is an example of a volanic rock flow from 50 years ago yielding radiometric dates of millions of years:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

There was a fossil piece of wood dated at 33,000 yrs old inside of sandstone dated 225 million years old:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/fossilwood.asp

Radiometric dating is thrown away if a fossil that is “too recent” is found in it. Here is an example of rock radiometrically dated at 2.6 million years until a fossil that was supposedly too recent was found. Therefore they just ignored the date and knocked 800,000 years off of the radiometric reading:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/pigs.asp

Genetic mutations destroy information, they do not add it:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine

Antibiotic resistance to bacteria is already present before the antibiotic is encountered, and usually corresponds to the mutated destruction of a useful part of the bacteria. The already resistant bacteria flourish when they encounter the antibiotic, but this is not evolution. In fact it is the loss of information, it is the opposite of evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

The rules of hebrew grammar make it impossible to interpret the “day”s in genesis one as anything but 24-hour days, so says the hebrew scholars of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Toronto, and London:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/day.asp

The day of Genesis 2 does not contradict the days of Genesis 1:

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

Many more links about the book of Genesis:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/genesis

Behemoth in the book of Job is a dinosaur:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp

I could go on and on and on. In every area of science, information that could be interpreted as supporting a recent creation is basically ignored, and sometimes completely unscientific theories are proposed, just to avoid having to think about a young earth.

This situation is described in Romans 1:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God’s power is shown by creation. However, men “hold the truth in unrighteousness”. The greek for the word “hold” in this verse means to “hold down”. Men suppress the truth about what God has showed to them about Him and about creation.

In summary, I believe that there is at least as much evidence for a universe and earth that is about 6000 years old, as there is for billions of years of time and evolution. As a christian, if the odds are even close to 50-50, why would you choose a belief that directly contradicts the word of God, and undermines the foundation of pretty much every single christian doctrine?

“Thy word is true from the beginning” – Psalm 119:160

Good resources:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=search&f_typeID=2

Both of these organizations publish materials from Ph.D.s in hard sciences who believe in young earth creation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topics-alphabetical

http://creation.com/qa#faqs

(c) Copyright Ryan Springer 2013

The Bible is Trustworthy

I have previously made an argument for the Received Text of the bible. Now I would like to write a few thoughts about how I believe we should view the bible.

( Before going into any scripture references, I want to state that I believe that the final authority of the word of God for a specific passage is always to be found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of the bible. The authority of a translation of the bible is as strong as it is a true and valid translation of the words of God. )

WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

First off, Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”.

The phrase “is given by inspiration of God” is one word in the original Greek language. It means “God-breathed.” I always imagine God breathing out and the breath itself turns into the bible.

If we accept 2 Timothy 3:16 as true, then we know that all scripture is from God.

In Proverbs 30:5-6, it is written:

“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.”

If we accept these two verses, we now know that all scripture is from God, and the purity extends to every single word. The acceptance of these verses, and maybe a couple of other ones is enough to defend the authenticity of the rest of the bible.

PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE

However, now the objection that we have lost some of the bible could appear. One might say “It started out perfect, but that perfection is not available to me!”

In Luke 16:17, Jesus says:

“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fail”

The greek word that is translated “tittle” in the KJV means “little horn”. It refers to either a single letter, or possibly a small part of a single letter. As far as to what “the law” can include, I want to point out here that in John 10:34, Jesus says:

“Is it not written in your law, ‘I said “Ye are gods ?”‘”

Here Jesus is quoting Psalm 82 and refering to it as a thing that is “written in your law.”

It is written in Isaiah 40:8 that:

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth:
but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

Also, Jesus says in Matthew 24:35

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Like Father, like Son. Jesus makes the same promise for his words as was made in Isaiah 40:31. The word of our God will stand forever. Jesus’s words will never pass away. Also, Jesus states in John 10:35b that “the scripture cannot be broken.” I love this statement. If someone really believes these words, then they believe that God has preserved his written word.

WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

I also want to write a couple of brief words about how God expects us to view the bible.

When Jesus was tempted by the devil, in Matthew 4:4 we find:
“But he answered and said, It is written,
‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’”

God states that we need every single word in the bible. We cannot pick and choose the parts we like and do not like. All of it is necessary for life.

When Jesus was walking on the road to Emmaus, he grew frustrated with those took too long to put their faith in the scripture.

“Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” - Luke 24:25

Jesus called them fools!

In Psalm 119:160a it is written that “Thy word is true from the beginning.”

I do not want to talk about creation and evolution in this particular writing. I hope to write about those subjects soon. I think that it is enough for now for me to say that the bible claims that it “is true from the beginning.” The bible does not start to become true after the book of Genesis. Genesis is as true as the book of Matthew.

In Isaiah it says:

“…but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” - Isaiah 66:2b

God has regard for those who tremble at his word. Who trembles at what a man writes? Who quakes in fear at something that can be explained away as the work of an editor? If you believe the word of God, then it should sometimes give you a reason to have a little godly fear and trembling. If this never happens to you, you may want to pause and pray a little about how much faith you are placing in God’s word.

In Mark 8:38, Jesus says:

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation;
of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed,
when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Jesus will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of his words. This is very clear.

In summary, I would like to say that God is the author of every word in the bible. The bible contains no mistakes, and it speaks with authority on every subject that it mentions. These are lofty claims indeed. My God is powerful enough to pull this off, and I believe that He has.

“Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD;
and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” - Jeremiah 23:29

(c) Copyright Ryan Springer 2013

Which Bible?

Texts of the bible:

The old testament of the bible was written in the languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. The new testament of the bible was written in Greek. We have copies of the bible in these original languages. These copies can be divided into groups based on differences they contain in certain verses.

On the whole, there are two groups of old testament documents. The differences between the two seem to be fairly minor, and pale in comparison to the differences between the groups of new testament documents.

The most useful division that I have run across for new testament documents is to break them down into three groups: the “Majority” text, the “Minority” text, and the “Received” text.

The “Majority” text, so named by Hodges and Farstad (1982) and Pierpont and Robinson (1991), is an oddly named group, because it contains of less than a majority of the total documents. It seems to be some sort of a hybrid between the other two groups, with some of the more controversial readings avoided. It looks like a somewhat arbitrary collection, and I am not sure how much adoption this particular group possessed in antiquity.

I will focus more “Minority” and “Received” texts, because I think that they are much more relevant.

The “Minority” text is just that. It is a very small amount of the total documents in antiquity. Up to around the turn of the 1900s, and maybe until about the middle of the 1900s, it was not in common usage. It represents a radical departure from the earlier Received text, and it took the passing of at least a couple of generations after significant attention was paid to it, before it became widely adopted.

It did, however, become widely adopted. So widely adopted that almost every single bible available in the English language is now based on it. I don’t think that I will be overstepping my bounds to estimate that is it taught in the majority of seminaries, bible colleges, and other institutions of Christian higher learning. Almost every commentary, every devotional, and every sermon you will run across will be using it. So, for that reason, if nothing else, I feel led to talk about it.

The two most important documents for the Minority text are the “Vatican” manuscript and the “Sinai” manuscript. The former is usually called Vaticanus and the latter Sinaiticus. They are both dated to around 350 A.D. Lets take a small look at each.

The Vatican manuscript was found the library of the Vatican.

The Sinai manuscript was found in the monastery of St. Catherine. It has been edited several times. It contains a note from a scribe after the book of Esther that it was based on manuscripts from Origin ( See: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/sinaiticus.pdf ).

I will now spend a brief period of time talking about the Received Text. The Received text is the main bible text used during the reformation.

What is the importance? Why does it even matter if our bibles are translated from the Minority text or the Received text?

I have often run across statements that the differences between the two groups do not affect anything doctrinaly important. The whole thing becomes a lot more interesting when we start to compare some of the differences.

The minority text does not contain the longer ending of Mark. I have read attempts to try and justify Mark not including the encounters of Jesus when he has risen from the dead. 

The minority text does not have the comment from Jesus that certain devils only come out by prayer AND “fasting”.

The minority text omits certain references to the blood of Jesus.

On the other hand the Received text contains the verse “God was manifested in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16

It also contains “For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7

I would make a bet that you have already seen several commentaries ridiculing that last verse. The popular statement is that it did not exist until somewhere around the 1400s.

At this point I would like to mention a couple of things that have made a big difference for me in this discussion. The early church father Irenaeus, who wrote in 177 A.D. in his work “Against Heresies”, quoted the longer ending of Mark. In fact he wrote that “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; ‘", which is a direct quote of Mark 16:19. This is the second to the last verse of the long ending of mark, thus it takes for granted that the verses between 9 and 18 are also present.

It is also interesting to note that both the Vatican and the Sinai manuscripts end the book of Mark with the words “and they were afraid.” I am not kidding. Does this sound like the way that the Lord wants to finish the gospel of Mark?

As I view it, the church is presented with about 3 options. First, Irenaeus didn’t actually write those words, and we have a corrupt copy of his writings. Second, Irenaeus was deceived, and he was quoting something not written by God when he quoted the longer ending mark. Third, Irenaeus was quoting the actual words written by Mark when quoted the longer ending. ( A fourth possibility is that Irenaeus forged the words himself. )

How do these options stack up? In regards to the second, Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp was a disciple of John the apostle. If Irenaeus was quoting a corrupt document as being authentic, then I believe that we ourselves, as being over 1700 years further from the original greek written by Mark, in general probably have a less chance of getting things right than he does. I think that either the first or the third option carries more weight.

If we contemplate the third, it leaves us in the position that the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts are both bad examples of the original text of the bible. It also tells us that, in this instance, the Received Text contains the true reading.

It is my experience that there seems to be a lot riding on the acceptance of the Minority Text. Without it, the deity of Christ is spelled out more clearly than many want to see. Without it, the trinity becomes a very solid doctrine. Without it, fasting becomes considerably more important to ministry. The longer ending of Mark mentions several things that will “follow” “those who believe on” Jesus. Not those who are apostles, not elders, not clergy, but simply those who believe on Jesus. These things include casting out devils in the name of Jesus, laying hands on the sick and seeing them recover, and speaking in new languages. Without the longer ending of Mark, no one has to deal with these things.

Now I want to mention another little known fact. Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop in North Africa around 250 A.D. says in his work “De catholicae ecclesiae unitate” that: “The Lord said, ‘I and the Father are one’, and likewise it written of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit ‘And these three are one.’"

Once again, we can doubt we possess Cyprian’s words. We can believe he forged the bible verses, or was using a copy of bible corrupted by someone else. The last option is to contemplate that Cyprian, a full 100 years before the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts ever existed, was quoting the words written by God himself about the trinity.

What difference does this verse make? How many believers have struggled with what to think about Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit? How many cults have sprung into existence because Christians could not adequately prove that Jesus was very God of very God. How many Jewish people could be reached by the truth that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit together are Jehovah, who is one. How many bible verses suddenly make sense with this perspective? How many truths about our Lord are revealed?

At the very least, I am totally surprised by the overall reaction of Christian scholarship to these issues. There does not seem to be any critical evaluation of what is popularly taught in academic circles. There does not seem to be any sort of discussion of these issues. In fact, I find more ridicule than honest reason in most of the sources I have read, and yes, I have seen the same thing on both sides of this issue.

A relatively small amount of research will uncover objections to the Minority Text simply based on quotations of early church fathers. How can Irenaeus and Cyprian quote verses before the 350 A.D. that supposedly did not exist until afterwards? Why is it that “these three are one” is paraded around as if it was invented in the 1400s when it is quoted before the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts were written? Why are these issues hidden from the church? Who has decided that the average Christian should not even examine evidence like this?

I urge everyone who reads this to pray about these issues. If the changes between the Minority Text and the Received Text do not change any doctrine, then why do people feel so strongly about this issue? If the changes between the two texts do have an influence on what you believe, then I believe that you should at least spend some amount of time to ask the Lord what He wants you know about these issues.

The only two major translations of the bible in English that follow the received text are the old King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) bibles.

If you are interested, here are a couple of links that I find useful on this topic.  The first is a discussion of why would anyone change the bible in the first few centuries AD:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180629204306/http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html

Also, here are two that I find useful because it has nice collected tables of the bible version differences.  I don't necessarily endorse whatever doctrine is on this website. 

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html


Also, I am not a "King James Version only" person.  I do not believe that the KJV is absolutely perfect.  I can show you places where I disagree with how it was translated.  I believe that the Greek bible is perfect, and a bible version is good as long as it is an accurate translation of the Greek.

The NJKV, however, usually contains footnotes explaining changes that the minority text makes. These footnotes are usually slanted in such a way to try to undermine the readings in the Received Text in favor of the minority text. So if you want to believe the received text in a modern bible, ignore the footnotes.

© Copyright 2013 Ryan Springer