Chapter Nine
“My Words Shall Not Pass Away”
Part Three
Another fascinating finding from the Scriptures is a study of the word “commandments” and how the apostles themselves
thought of their own writings and those of the other apostles and disciples which wrote the New Testament through the
power of the Holy Ghost. The first example is found in II Peter chapter three:
“That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment
of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:”
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according
to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction.” II Peter 3:2&15-16:
Those that wrestle against God’s Holy Word by use of the original Greek grammar often refer to the “canonization” of the
Scriptures as a process of councils by fleshly man that approved certain early writings to be Scriptures hundreds of years
after they were written. Please grasp this one concept clearly that the writers of the New Testament themselves knew that it
was Scripture at the time it was written. Peter uses the term “commandments” for these writings. Interestingly, Paul
similarly uses the same term to describe his writings which he knew to be Scripture:
“What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you
are the commandments of the Lord.” I Corinthians 14:36-37
Thus, both Peter and Paul, the two chief apostles of whom the Holy Spirit blessed with the greatest testimony by
miracles and gifts, they both knew which writings were Scripture. The four gospels are written by two men that
walked directly with the Lord (Matthew and John), and by two men that walked with Paul (Mark and Luke; II Timothy
4:11, Philemon 24). It was, however, the Holy Ghost that lead all four of these men to the understanding, wisdom and
knowledge of the truth (John 14:26, John 15:26-27, John 16:13-15, I John 2:27). If then both Peter and Paul use the term
“commandment” in reference to New Testament Scriptures, what then is Paul referring to when he states to the
Colossians that Mark has delivered to them “commandments” as well? “Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you,
and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive
him;)” (Colossians 4:10) In the light of the witness of Peter and Paul that we have already discussed, these
commandments would only be referring to the commandments of our Lord, of which, the “Gospel of Mark” is the
only Scripture that can possibly be credited to Marcus. Here, Paul testifies that it is God’s Holy Scripture, God’s Holy
Word, and God’s commandments given to sinful men in the same manner as He gave the first set of Scriptures to a man
named Moses known as The Ten Commandments.
Therefore, I can offer you no physical proof which flesh can examine, yet only the spiritual admonishing of faith
in His Word alone that the “holy scriptures” Paul is referring to is the gospel itself. This is the only way we can
please Him, that is to step out in faith in the spiritual context of what we have already discussed. The final conclusion must
follow that Timothy had access to the gospel of the Lord from the time he was a child. Paul was not referring to "OT
temple writings" in this verse as Dr. Strouse wrongly asserts. Where will we place our faith, in His Word alone, or in the
works of the flesh that seek to prove these spiritual issues not by faith but again through the flesh?
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the
things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
I Corinthians 2: 12-13
Ironically, the fact that salvation is only through the New Testament gospel of Christ is exactly what Dr.
Thomas M. Strouse states in another section of his book regarding salvation by the gospel and not by the law:
“Paul affirms that all men must have the knowledge of the . . .
Therefore, we have now come full circle. Dr. Thomas M. Strouse in one chapter asserts that it is only by the
gospel of Christ through faith, and not of the OT “temple writings” that any man can be saved. But his private
interpretation of II Timothy 3:15-16 is a contradiction in that he claims that these so called “temple writings”
can save even though they are not inspired. By his own writings in the same book, his own words are contradictory.
Therefore, by comparing spiritual things to spiritual, we now have the correct interpretation as given by the King James
translators. In verse 3:15, the word “scriptures” are referring to the Scriptures that can make one wise unto
salvation, or in other words, the gospel (of which much is indeed contained in the Old Testament but completed
only through Jesus Christ in the New Testament). In verse 3:16, Paul is talking of all the Scriptures throughout
the Old and New Testaments. That is, in the context of these verses, the meaning must be as above without any need to
resort to the original Greek text by comparing spiritual with spiritual only. Please study this method of comparing the
Scriptures with corruptible earthly Greek lexicons that results in misunderstanding by Dr. Thomas M. Strouse closely.
Unfortunately, there are many more like him whether sincere or intentionally deceiving. If you are a talented student of
Greek or Hebrew, praise the Lord for this gift. Use it to your edification as God would use it for all. But remember,
whether Greek, Hebrew, English or any other language, the Bible alone will interpret itself and you must always adhere to
the rules of interpretation given by the Word of God alone by comparing spiritual things with spiritual in whatever language it
has been translated.
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the
things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” I Corinthians 2:12-13
Lastly, I wish to quote from another man named Charles L. Surrett who stands for the defense of the original
autographs against the unsupported claims of Dr. Ruckman's "double inspiration" of the King James Version.
He wrote a book called: Which Greek Text? The Debate among Fundamentalists. However, in his zeal to prove
that Dr. Ruckman's doctrine on "double inspiration" is not correct, I believe that he went too far in claiming
that God did not promise to extend "inspiration" to the translations.
In this book defending the Textus Receptus, and thus by choice of Greek manuscript the King James Bible, he
states on page 103, Chapter 10 “What About Translations?”:
“Since none of these translations existed when the original texts were written, and God did not promise to
extend inspiration to the then future translations, there can be no Biblical proof for the inspiration of
translations. All that the Bible addresses as being inspired (“God-breathed”) are the original autographs.”
However, if we are to follow his premise to a complete conclusion, we must declare that if he is correct, then the inspired
Word of God ceased to exist when the “original autographs” disappeared from the earth. What then of the Ten
Commandments? If his premise is true, then no man has the right to assert the authority of the Ten Commandments since
the original autograph was destroyed in anger by the man that should have preserved it! This does not breed spiritual
confidence in any believer, yet again especially in anybody that is not grounded strongly in the faith. It is easy to see how
this view could actually destroy someone’s faith. He goes on further on the rest of page 103 and the next page 104 to
direct a challenge not to man, but unwittingly he actually presented a challenge to God when he stated that the 1611 King
James Bible was not prophesied by Paul (Only God can give the inspiration to prophesy), otherwise Fundamentalism’s
position would be different on the inspiration of “future translations.”:
“Inspiration and new revelation ceased with the completion of the Book of Revelation in 96
AD. Without a promise from God to inspire a future translation and without His identification
of which translation that might be, one should not accept the extra-Biblical position of the
inspiration of translations. If the Apostle Paul had written that in 1611 God would give a new
English translation for the world to heed, Fundamentalism’s position would be different.”
In all fairness to Mr. Surrett, he does not attack in any manner the preservation of the Textus
Receptus as many other Greek scholars have wrongly done; his main emphasis in this part of
his discussion is to discredit the false doctrine of "double inspiration" by Dr. Ruckman. I have
communicated with Mr. Surrett after he contacted me and felt that I had misrepresented his
position and to this extent I have revised some of my comments on his work. Nevertheless, he
has offered a challenge about the inspiration of the translations that I do not believe is correct
since ALL Scripture is by definition inspired. Thus, if only the original autographs were
inspired, then we no longer have an incorruptable seed to be saved by. I believe that
preservation of the copies and some translations was also an act of God breathed inspiration.
In fact my fellow brothers in the body of Christ, if Paul could confront kings and ask them why
it would seem such a strange thing that God should raise the dead, then why would it be an
even stranger thing that the Lord would personally answer the above challenge Himself, by, as
stated, a prophesy of a selected translation such as the 1611 King James Bible found in the
Scriptures themselves.
Then the very simple question raised by Charles L. Surrett must be put to the test of truth. In
other words, is the assumption by Mr. Surrett correct that “Paul” did not write that in 1611
God would give a new English translation? I submit the following treatise in the next chapters
from “America and King James in the Revelation,” chapter ten (and chapters 11 and 12) for
proof that it was not Paul but the Lord Himself and the Apostle John as His second witness of
exactly what Mr. Charles L. Surrett admonishes us was not done: to prophesy 1500 years in
advance of the work done by King James and the translators.
I ask all to read and prayerfully consider the incredible answer to the statement above in the
next three chapters of America and King James in the Revelation.
“Be still and know that I am God: I will be
exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in
the earth.” Psalm 46:10
Return to Home Page
(www.kjv1611revealed.com)
“My Words Shall Not Pass Away”
Part Three
Another fascinating finding from the Scriptures is a study of the word “commandments” and how the apostles themselves
thought of their own writings and those of the other apostles and disciples which wrote the New Testament through the
power of the Holy Ghost. The first example is found in II Peter chapter three:
“That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment
of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:”
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according
to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction.” II Peter 3:2&15-16:
Those that wrestle against God’s Holy Word by use of the original Greek grammar often refer to the “canonization” of the
Scriptures as a process of councils by fleshly man that approved certain early writings to be Scriptures hundreds of years
after they were written. Please grasp this one concept clearly that the writers of the New Testament themselves knew that it
was Scripture at the time it was written. Peter uses the term “commandments” for these writings. Interestingly, Paul
similarly uses the same term to describe his writings which he knew to be Scripture:
“What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?
If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you
are the commandments of the Lord.” I Corinthians 14:36-37
Thus, both Peter and Paul, the two chief apostles of whom the Holy Spirit blessed with the greatest testimony by
miracles and gifts, they both knew which writings were Scripture. The four gospels are written by two men that
walked directly with the Lord (Matthew and John), and by two men that walked with Paul (Mark and Luke; II Timothy
4:11, Philemon 24). It was, however, the Holy Ghost that lead all four of these men to the understanding, wisdom and
knowledge of the truth (John 14:26, John 15:26-27, John 16:13-15, I John 2:27). If then both Peter and Paul use the term
“commandment” in reference to New Testament Scriptures, what then is Paul referring to when he states to the
Colossians that Mark has delivered to them “commandments” as well? “Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you,
and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive
him;)” (Colossians 4:10) In the light of the witness of Peter and Paul that we have already discussed, these
commandments would only be referring to the commandments of our Lord, of which, the “Gospel of Mark” is the
only Scripture that can possibly be credited to Marcus. Here, Paul testifies that it is God’s Holy Scripture, God’s Holy
Word, and God’s commandments given to sinful men in the same manner as He gave the first set of Scriptures to a man
named Moses known as The Ten Commandments.
Therefore, I can offer you no physical proof which flesh can examine, yet only the spiritual admonishing of faith
in His Word alone that the “holy scriptures” Paul is referring to is the gospel itself. This is the only way we can
please Him, that is to step out in faith in the spiritual context of what we have already discussed. The final conclusion must
follow that Timothy had access to the gospel of the Lord from the time he was a child. Paul was not referring to "OT
temple writings" in this verse as Dr. Strouse wrongly asserts. Where will we place our faith, in His Word alone, or in the
works of the flesh that seek to prove these spiritual issues not by faith but again through the flesh?
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the
things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
I Corinthians 2: 12-13
Ironically, the fact that salvation is only through the New Testament gospel of Christ is exactly what Dr.
Thomas M. Strouse states in another section of his book regarding salvation by the gospel and not by the law:
“Paul affirms that all men must have the knowledge of the . . .
Therefore, we have now come full circle. Dr. Thomas M. Strouse in one chapter asserts that it is only by the
gospel of Christ through faith, and not of the OT “temple writings” that any man can be saved. But his private
interpretation of II Timothy 3:15-16 is a contradiction in that he claims that these so called “temple writings”
can save even though they are not inspired. By his own writings in the same book, his own words are contradictory.
Therefore, by comparing spiritual things to spiritual, we now have the correct interpretation as given by the King James
translators. In verse 3:15, the word “scriptures” are referring to the Scriptures that can make one wise unto
salvation, or in other words, the gospel (of which much is indeed contained in the Old Testament but completed
only through Jesus Christ in the New Testament). In verse 3:16, Paul is talking of all the Scriptures throughout
the Old and New Testaments. That is, in the context of these verses, the meaning must be as above without any need to
resort to the original Greek text by comparing spiritual with spiritual only. Please study this method of comparing the
Scriptures with corruptible earthly Greek lexicons that results in misunderstanding by Dr. Thomas M. Strouse closely.
Unfortunately, there are many more like him whether sincere or intentionally deceiving. If you are a talented student of
Greek or Hebrew, praise the Lord for this gift. Use it to your edification as God would use it for all. But remember,
whether Greek, Hebrew, English or any other language, the Bible alone will interpret itself and you must always adhere to
the rules of interpretation given by the Word of God alone by comparing spiritual things with spiritual in whatever language it
has been translated.
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the
things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” I Corinthians 2:12-13
Lastly, I wish to quote from another man named Charles L. Surrett who stands for the defense of the original
autographs against the unsupported claims of Dr. Ruckman's "double inspiration" of the King James Version.
He wrote a book called: Which Greek Text? The Debate among Fundamentalists. However, in his zeal to prove
that Dr. Ruckman's doctrine on "double inspiration" is not correct, I believe that he went too far in claiming
that God did not promise to extend "inspiration" to the translations.
In this book defending the Textus Receptus, and thus by choice of Greek manuscript the King James Bible, he
states on page 103, Chapter 10 “What About Translations?”:
“Since none of these translations existed when the original texts were written, and God did not promise to
extend inspiration to the then future translations, there can be no Biblical proof for the inspiration of
translations. All that the Bible addresses as being inspired (“God-breathed”) are the original autographs.”
However, if we are to follow his premise to a complete conclusion, we must declare that if he is correct, then the inspired
Word of God ceased to exist when the “original autographs” disappeared from the earth. What then of the Ten
Commandments? If his premise is true, then no man has the right to assert the authority of the Ten Commandments since
the original autograph was destroyed in anger by the man that should have preserved it! This does not breed spiritual
confidence in any believer, yet again especially in anybody that is not grounded strongly in the faith. It is easy to see how
this view could actually destroy someone’s faith. He goes on further on the rest of page 103 and the next page 104 to
direct a challenge not to man, but unwittingly he actually presented a challenge to God when he stated that the 1611 King
James Bible was not prophesied by Paul (Only God can give the inspiration to prophesy), otherwise Fundamentalism’s
position would be different on the inspiration of “future translations.”:
“Inspiration and new revelation ceased with the completion of the Book of Revelation in 96
AD. Without a promise from God to inspire a future translation and without His identification
of which translation that might be, one should not accept the extra-Biblical position of the
inspiration of translations. If the Apostle Paul had written that in 1611 God would give a new
English translation for the world to heed, Fundamentalism’s position would be different.”
In all fairness to Mr. Surrett, he does not attack in any manner the preservation of the Textus
Receptus as many other Greek scholars have wrongly done; his main emphasis in this part of
his discussion is to discredit the false doctrine of "double inspiration" by Dr. Ruckman. I have
communicated with Mr. Surrett after he contacted me and felt that I had misrepresented his
position and to this extent I have revised some of my comments on his work. Nevertheless, he
has offered a challenge about the inspiration of the translations that I do not believe is correct
since ALL Scripture is by definition inspired. Thus, if only the original autographs were
inspired, then we no longer have an incorruptable seed to be saved by. I believe that
preservation of the copies and some translations was also an act of God breathed inspiration.
In fact my fellow brothers in the body of Christ, if Paul could confront kings and ask them why
it would seem such a strange thing that God should raise the dead, then why would it be an
even stranger thing that the Lord would personally answer the above challenge Himself, by, as
stated, a prophesy of a selected translation such as the 1611 King James Bible found in the
Scriptures themselves.
Then the very simple question raised by Charles L. Surrett must be put to the test of truth. In
other words, is the assumption by Mr. Surrett correct that “Paul” did not write that in 1611
God would give a new English translation? I submit the following treatise in the next chapters
from “America and King James in the Revelation,” chapter ten (and chapters 11 and 12) for
proof that it was not Paul but the Lord Himself and the Apostle John as His second witness of
exactly what Mr. Charles L. Surrett admonishes us was not done: to prophesy 1500 years in
advance of the work done by King James and the translators.
I ask all to read and prayerfully consider the incredible answer to the statement above in the
next three chapters of America and King James in the Revelation.
“Be still and know that I am God: I will be
exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in
the earth.” Psalm 46:10
Return to Home Page
(www.kjv1611revealed.com)
