Will the judgment of false teachers/false prophets be very severe?

[Nehemiah6]

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)

According to the New Testament (NT), the short answer is “YES”. Since everyone has a Bible, there can be no reason to present false doctrines to others. Which means that (a) false teachers are not really saved and (b) they choose to pervert Scripture for their own reasons.

Peter especially, but also Jude, John and Paul, present the severe judgment of false teachers. And it is nothing short of eternal damnation. Which means that every person who claims to present Bible truth must be very careful not to misrepresent what is in Scripture, nor to mislead people with a false interpretation.

Today there are many false gospels, so Christians should at least know what is the true Gospel. And it is plainly laid out in the NT. So when we encounter a false gospel, we need to simply reject it, and walk away from the false teacher.

But there are also many attacks on Bible truth and Gospel truth. Particularly by people who claim to be “Christian” ministers of the Word. Two of the key doctrines which are constantly under attack are (1) the deity of Christ and (2) the Holy Trinity. Somehow people fail to grasp that unless Jesus of Nazareth was fully God and fully sinless Man at one and the same time, He could not possibly have paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world, and then risen again. And His resurrection is just as important as His death and burial.

Muslims and unconverted Jews both reject those two key doctrines. But what of so-called “Christian” ministers who sow the seeds of doubt among Christians? Those are the ones who will come under severe judgment.

But what of those who reject the doctrine of the divine preservation of the Scriptures, and the fact that throughout history, genuine Christians have believed and accepted the fact that God has preserved His inspired Word through the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts, and that this Word is now to be found only in the King James Bible (and other Reformation bibles, such as the Geneva Bible)?

The movement to promote modern bible versions without giving thought to how they originated and how they deviate seriously from the Masoretic and Received texts has totally undermined the belief that God wrote only one Bible. No doubt there are minor things which could be improved in the KJB, but anyone who claims that the “archaic” wording of the original KJB of 1611 is a barrier to understanding what is in the Bible, simply ignores the fact that the King James 2000 Bible has already addressed this issue. And for those of us who use the KJB consistently, it is a “non-issue”. There are many legitimate Bible study tools which can clear up any questions quite easily.

So those who need to know more about this should read and study the epistles of Peter, Paul, John and Jude. John does not hesitate to say that those who reject “the doctrine of Christ” are in fact “antichrists”.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Let's take a glaring example of how the modern versions have simply gone along with Westcott & Hort and failed to study the facts, thus misleading the reader The passage in question is Mark 16:9-20.

The NIV plainly states [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] Meaning that these verses do not belong in Scripture. The NASB simply brackets them without comment, but the impact is the same. "Just ignore these verses. or simply omit them". Not one of these translations sought out the truth, But back in 1894, F.H.A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century, had already established -- IN GREAT DETAIL -- that these verse were genuine, So had Dean John William Burgon, wo actually wrote a monograph on them! Then why were they ignored to the detriment of the Bible?

In A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II, 1894, by F.H. A. Scrivener, we find these very scholarly words on pages 338-339 by the author regarding Mark 16:9-20. The authenticity of this passage was questioned by Westcott & Hort, and is also questioned by all the modern versions. But there is absolutely no basis for questioning its authenticity.

11. Mark xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to defend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph, 'The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established' (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him.

We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide infra), annexed as an alternative reading...

Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (Aleph B) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20 altogether. Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe's part that something is left out, inasmuch as after… ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only blank one in the whole volume), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8… Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices and two of the Ethiopic, k of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican.

The Old Latin Codex k puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the subscription usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. (No such peculiarity attaches to Cod. Aleph)…

 

[Hakawaka]

Let's take a glaring example of how the modern versions have simply gone along with Westcott & Hort and failed to study the facts, thus misleading the reader The passage in question is Mark 16:9-20.

The NIV plainly states [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.] Meaning that these verses do not belong in Scripture. The NASB simply brackets them without comment, but the impact is the same. "Just ignore these verses. or simply omit them". Not one of these translations sought out the truth, But back in 1894, F.H.A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century, had already established -- IN GREAT DETAIL -- that these verse were genuine, So had Dean John William Burgon, wo actually wrote a monograph on them! Then why were they ignored to the detriment of the Bible?

In A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II, 1894, by F.H. A. Scrivener, we find these very scholarly words on pages 338-339 by the author regarding Mark 16:9-20. The authenticity of this passage was questioned by Westcott & Hort, and is also questioned by all the modern versions. But there is absolutely no basis for questioning its authenticity.

11. Mark xvi. 9-20. In Vol. I. Chap. I, we engaged to defend the authenticity of this long and important passage, and that without the slightest misgiving (p. 7). Dean Burgon's brilliant monograph, 'The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark vindicated against recent objectors and established' (Oxford and London, 1871), has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him.

We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate and very able counter-plea of Dr. Hort (Notes, pp. 28-51). This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Cod. L (vide infra), annexed as an alternative reading...

Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (Aleph B) stand alone in omitting vers. 9-20 altogether. Cod. B, however, betrays consciousness on the scribe's part that something is left out, inasmuch as after… ver. 8, a whole column is left perfectly blank (the only blank one in the whole volume), as well as the rest of the column containing ver. 8… Besides these, the twelve verses are omitted in none but some old Armenian codices and two of the Ethiopic, k of the Old Latin, and an Arabic Lectionary [ix] No. 13, examined by Scholz in the Vatican.

The Old Latin Codex k puts in their room a corrupt and careless version of the subscription usual in Cod. B at the end of every other book of Scripture. (No such peculiarity attaches to Cod. Aleph)…

All these so called missing verses can be found in the writings of the ante-nicene church fathers. Textual criticism made an oopsie?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Textual criticism made an oopsie?

Textual criticism in the hands of unbelieving "scholars" became a weapon against the true Bible.

But at least all evangelists, pastors, and teachers -- people responsible for handling the Word of God with care -- had a duty and responsibility to examine everything before using the modern versions.

Unfortunately, just about everyone swallowed the lies of W&H and supported the critics. Now almost all churches have abandoned the KJB (as have the seminaries and Bible schools). Do you think God does not see this as a serious matter? Many doctrinal changes were introduced.

Those who want the truth should read the books written by John William Burgon and F.H.A. Scrivener. Many are available at Amazon.

The Revision Revised: A Refutation of Westcott and Hort's False Greek Text and Theory Paperback – Feb. 4 2008
by Dean John William Burgon (Author)
The importance of this book cannot be underestimated. There is no one book that exposes Westcott and Hort's false Greek Text and false Greek theory behind that text any more thoroughly and convincingly than The Revision Revised.

Dean Burgon defends the traditional text of the New Testament. He shows clearly the defects in both manuscript "B" (Vaticanus) and manuscript "Aleph" (Sinaiticus). It is very important to see the arguments contained in this historic volume because virtually the same Greek text of Westcott and Hort (1881) FORMS THE BASIS OF ALMOST ALL OF THE MODERN VERSIONS AND PERVERSIONS. See the Appendix, pages 2-3.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

The way I understand it is the more a person knows and understands and also shares the more they are then accountable for.

sort of like a teacher would be expected to know an answer to a question on the test but a student might get some wrong

“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”
‭‭James‬ ‭3:1‬ ‭NIV‬‬

““The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.

But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded;

and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭12:47-48‬ ‭