BBB:The Day the Originals Corrected the Originals

   Apostate fundamentalists in America are still loathe to believe the
Holy Spirit, who inspired the original scriptures, would pull such a
dirty trick on mankind as to give them a Bible in the universal
language now instead of in a dead language (Greek) spoken by less than
two percent of the world's population. Even many "good men" (to cite
John R.) who believe the King James Bible are ridiculed out of their
belief in it as the final authority for the child of God by appealing
to the fact that God CHOSE (past tense) to write the "originals" (which
no longer exist) in two languages that no one uses anymore.
Nicolaitanes are still afraid to leave their advantageous positions of
"high ground" where they can rule over the Body of Christ.

   I thought our readers might enjoy some real history in view of the
fact that all the scholars say Mark was first written, and then Matthew
wrote in Aramaic, and then Luke wrote in Greek because he was a
Gentile. Since Luke and Matthew both have advanced revelations in them
that Mark doesn't have, and since they don't agree with themselves in
wording, or even incidents, it must have really been a "ball" to hear
two or three educated Christians at that time discussing what the
scriptures were and what they were not. Nearly all modern apostates
simply ASSUME they have the right canon, and so they must, because
there isn't one verse in any Book that will tell you which books belong
and which ones don't. (The nearest thing to it is the division of
Isaiah at Chapter 39, which hints at sixty-six books (Isa. 66) with an
Old Testament of thirty-nine books and John the Baptist (Isa. 40)
showing up at Book number forty. If the Massoretic system of dividing
the Parashas (and other Hebrew methods of division) was not in effect
before 90 A.D. and matched this division, that wouldn't have worked
either.

   "Hey, man, I've got the original Greek text!"

   "Let's see it. Why that isn't an original, that's a copy of Luke."

   "How do you know it's just a copy?"

   "Well, I knew the Doctor and that isn't his handwriting."

   "Got you there. I just had an expert check it. He says it is the
good physician himself."

   "Let's see. Hey man. This couldn't be 'scripture.' Look at the junk
in here about a `Prodigal Son' and 'the Rich Man and Lazarus.' That
isn't in the Gospels."

   "Oh yeah? How do you know it's not?"

   "Why, anyone knows it's not. Anyone who has read Matthew or Mark
knows perfectly well Jesus never told stories like that."

   "Prove it!"

   "Okay. Right here. Here you go! Here's Matthew just like he penned
his original autograph!"

   "How do you know it was like his original autograph? You seen his
original autograph?"

   "Well no, but this copy is `reliable'."

   "Dr. Smell Fungus said it was."

   "Well what did Dr. Dryas Dust say?"

   "They agreed. All godly scholars agree. It is an 'historic position'
that no major doctrine of faith is affected in these here copies."

   "Yeah? I gotta copy of Matthew that has "Thine is the kingdom and
the power and the glory for ever and ever AMEN" in it (6:13). Now you
KNOW that is a corrupt copy! That ending on the prayer is not in the
original!"

   "Oh yeah!? How do you know it's not?"

   "Cause I got Luke's account of it in the original right here. See
(Luke 11:4)."

   "Well okay, I guess a lot of the copies added to the word of God.
That damned the writers according to Revelation 22. But how do you know
Luke didn't subtract from Matthew and that damned him?"

   "Because Luke is more authoritative. He wrote in Greek."

   "There, you see! My copy of Matthew is Aramaic, the language that
Jesus spoke. I reckon it's more authoritative than your old `original
Greek'!"

   "But the Holy Spirit told them to write in Greek."

   "Chapter and verse?"

   At this point a third seminary student shows up with a copy of Mark.

   "Listen, I heard you guys arguing and you don't know what you are
talking about. Mark had the first Gospel and all the others can be
judged by him because his was the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH."

   "Yeah? Well what are you going to do when his wording doesn't match
Luke and Matthew, like it doesn't in Mark 15:26, and Mark 16:16, and
Mark 15:22, and Mark 14:62, and...."

   "Well, obviously my version is superior to Luke's version. He wrote
later."

   "Yeah? Let me tell you something! Look at the advanced revelations I
got in Luke that you don't have in Mark or Matthew; lookya here! The
lost coin, the good Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich man and
Lazarus, the two on the way to Emmaeus, the thief that got saved! Man,
you guys haven't got the Gospel. All you got is an abbreviated
biography."

   "How dare you blaspheme the ORIGINAL! Mark was the original. And
your Gospels are only correct where they faithfully translated or
copied the original. An Aramaic translation that doesn't match Mark is
corrupt, absolutely corrupt!"

   "Oh yeah? Well where does Mark say he is inspired?"

   "What's that?"

   "Why Luke professed inspiration, look at this (Luke 1:3), and Mark
never professed that one time in sixteen chapters. How could his
writing be INSPIRED when he didn't even claim inspiration!? What are
you, a `RUCKMANITE'?"

   "Don't go calling names, brother. That is forbidden in all the
scriptures."

   "It is? Why my copies say evil beasts, slow bellies, liars, man
slayers, reprobates, hypocrites, serpents, dogs, vipers...."

   "Those aren't the most accurate copies. They are not true to the
original Greek text!"

   "What text are you talking about? He's got one in Aramaic and it
doesn't match Mark. I've got one in Luke and it doesn't match Mark; NOW
ONE OF US IS WRONG. All three of them could not be inspired! And we
know Mark isn't inspired because he didn't even claim to be inspired."

   "Thank you, Mario, but our princess is in another castle!"

   Once a goofball, always a goofball.

   The more education the less intelligence.
