Others May, You Cannot!

by George Watson, 1845-1924

"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." Matthew 16:24-25

If God has called you to be truly like Jesus, He will draw you into a life of crucifixion and humility. He will put on you such demands of obedience, that you will not be allowed to follow other Christians. In many ways, He seems to let other believers do things which He will not let you do.

Others who seem to be very religious and useful, may push themselves up to be admired, and scheme to carry out their plans, but you cannot. If you attempt it, you will meet with such failure and rebuke from the Lord as to make you sorely penitent.

Others can brag about themselves, their work, their successes, but the Holy Spirit will not allow you to do any such thing. If you begin to do so, He will lead you into some deep mortification that will make you despise yourself and all your good works.

Others will be allowed to succeed in making great sums of money, or in having a legacy left to them, or in having luxuries, but God may supply you only on a day-to-day basis, because He wants you to have something far better than gold—a helpless dependence on Him and His unseen treasury.

The Lord may let others be honored and put forward, while keeping you hidden in obscurity, because He wants to produce some choice, fragrant fruit in you, which can only be produced in the shade.

God may let others be great, but He will keep you small. He will let others do a work for Him and get the credit, but He will make you work and toil without others knowing how much you are doing. Then, to make your work still more precious, He will let others get the credit for the work which you have done. This to teach you the message of the Cross and humility.

The Holy Spirit will put a strict watch on you, and with a jealous love rebuke you for careless words and feelings, or for wasting your time, which other Christians never seem distressed over.

So make up your mind that God is an infinite Sovereign and has a right to do as He pleases with His own and that He may not explain to you a thousand things which may puzzle your reason in His dealings with you.

If you absolutely give yourself to be His slave, He will wrap you up in a jealous love and let other Christian people say and do many things which you cannot.

However, know this great secret of the Kingdom: When you are so completely possessed with the living God that you are, in your secret heart, pleased and delighted over this peculiar, personal, private, jealous guardianship and management of the Holy Spirit over your life, then you will have found the vestibule of Heaven, the high calling of God.

Discrimination

Funny. Homosexuals and supporters of homosexuality will say things like this, or picket with signs saying things like this, yet their narrow, tunnel-visioned, agenda-pursuing, illogical minds fail to see the hypocrisy in themselves.

What is the homosexual's thoughts with regard to murderers? What is the homosexual's thoughts with regard to rapists? What is the homosexual's thoughts with regard to pedophiles? What is the homosexual's thoughts with regard to zoophiliacs? Oh, that is right, they discriminate against them.

Society has lost the meaning of "discrimination" and broadened it in order to overlook and excuse blatant wrong-doing, immorality, and sin. Homosexuality is unnatural and improper. Period! Whether homosexuals are in the minority or not is irrelevant to the issue. Rapists are in the minority. Pedophiles are in the minority. Zoophiliacs are in the minority. There is a huge difference between a minority of ethnicity or colour and a minority of immorality or sin.

A less than 2% world population is bullying the other 98% of the world population into what they can and cannot think, say, or believe. Homosexuals and supporters of homosexuality are intolerant and guilty of true hate speech, forcing their opinions upon everyone else. They accuse Christians of being discriminatory, yet look at what they are doing to Christians and non-Christians who disagree with their unnatural, corrupt, and perverted lifestyle.

Taking a stand against immorality and sin is not discrimination! Homosexuals and supporters of homosexuality are guilty of discrimination and intolerance by attempting to silence Christians and non-Christians who disagree with them—by whatever means necessary. Homosexuals and supporters of homosexuality think that by changing the laws their consciences will somehow be silenced and homosexuality will somehow be accepted and acceptable. However, when they stand before the Law-Giver on judgment day, they will stand condemned because they know intrinsically that homosexuality is a sin against Him Who created them male and female.

Homosexuality cannot survive and cannot thrive left to itself. They cannot reproduce among themselves and create progeny. Their acts only result in disease. Logic and common sense and every evidence of science and nature makes the case that homosexuality is unnatural, improper, unacceptable, corrupt, and perverse. It is a perversion of both human and sexual natures. No matter how much homosexuals and their supporters argue for homosexuality, they cannot escape the reality of these facts!

Sexuality and Gender

The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society (Number 50, Fall 2016)
Sexuality and Gender: Findings From the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences

Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D.
Paul R. McHugh, M.D.

Download PDF here.

Planned Parenthood Harvesting Baby Body Parts

Article One: Planned Parenthood's Macabre Baby Body Parts Business
Article Two: Texas Grand Jury Indicts Whistleblowers Instead of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood's Macabre Baby Body Parts Business

by Rita Diller - NOVEMBER 01, 2015

Planned Parenthood is always on script when it knows the media is watching. The script paints a picture of an organization that cares—no matter what. It bills itself as a champion and savior of women, a friend to adolescents, and an irreplaceable, trusted health resource.

But what if someone caught Planned Parenthood officials on video showing their true colors—speaking to those they believe to be in their camp, and blowing the Planned Parenthood facade wide open. That’s precisely what David Daleiden, the founder of The Center for Medical Progress accomplished through CMP’s 30-month investigative study of Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts business.

________________

CMP’s Human Capital video series provides a rare glimpse into the closely guarded Planned Parenthood baby body parts business. The videos feature inside conversations with high-level PP employees—conversations about procuring body parts and the compensation the abortion giant wants to receive in exchange. The viewer sees shocking images of a PP pathology lab where pieces of babies just ripped from their mothers’ wombs sit in clear pie plates. They are illuminated from underneath. Here technicians eagerly search for body parts that will be sent to researchers, sometimes in piecemeal fashion—glands and organs to one location, skin to another.

Cutting a baby boy’s face open to harvest his brain

As the videos roll, a picture emerges of a cold-blooded, callous organization so focused on increasing its economic bottom line that its abortionists plan their workday around procuring saleable specimens. PP officials acknowledge willingness to prolong painful abortions and alter abortion procedures in order to obtain more intact fetal cadavers for harvesting the body pieces that are on the day’s list of income opportunities.

We see the real PP—the company that, for economic gain, invited procurement technicians inside its facility to cut an aborted baby boy’s face open with scissors to harvest his brain—the same intact baby boy whose heart was being manipulated to beat minutes earlier by tapping it with a medical instrument.

PP executive wants a Lamborghini

The video contents are shocking from start to finish, with jaw-dropping statements coming from the highest levels of PP. Dr. Mary Gatter, during negotiations with undercover investigators about what she wants to receive for body parts procured from aborted babies, laughs and says, “I want a Lamborghini.” Gatter is president of the Medical Directors’ Council of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

While discussing the compensation PP would want to receive for fetal parts, Gatter suggests a “less crunchy” technique for aborting first trimester babies in order to obtain more intact fetal parts.

Admissions by PPFA Director of Medical Services

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services for PPFA, describes how some abortionists will turn the baby from a head first position to a breech position before beginning the abortion to cause further dilation as the abortion progresses. This enables the baby’s head to be delivered intact, making it possible to harvest skull contents. This is the same type of fetal manipulation that is used in illegal artial birth abortions.

“You never have enough dilation at the beginning of a case unless you have real huge amount of dilation, to deliver an intact calvarium [head],” Nucatola explains. “So if you do it starting at the breech presentation, there is dilation that goes on and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end,” she says.

It’s a ‘reasonable’ way to make money for PP

Talking about the income provided from procurement of baby body parts, Nucatola says, “I think at the end of the day, [Planned Parenthood] affiliates—they are still a nonprofit—they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, in a way that, you know, seems reasonable, they are happy to do that.” Only in the evil, warped world of PP would harvesting the eyes and gonads of babies seem like a “reasonable” way to increase income.

Nucatola describes how she plans her workday around baby body part procurement by looking at the day’s list of requests before beginning work. “I knew exactly what was needed . . . so I knew which were the cases that were probably more likely to yield what we needed and I made my decisions according to that.”

It’s a matter of line items

Dissecting intact babies and sending their parts to different locations is just a matter of line items for Melissa Farrell, Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. “If we alter our process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers,” she says while hidden cameras roll, “then we can make it part of the budget—that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this . . . It’s all just a matter of line items.”

Fresh eyes and gonads!

Dr. Carolyn Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA, talks about the freshness of specific body parts that have been in demand. “We’ve just been working with people who want particular tissues, like, you know, they want cardiac, or they want eyes, or they want neural,” she says. “Certainly, everything we provide—Oh, gonads! Oh my God, gonads. Everything we provide is fresh.”

She and other PP officials expressed great concern about what would happen if the public became aware of the body parts business. “Obviously, we would have the potential for a huge PR issue in doing this,” she says to an investigator she believes is a potential buyer.

‘This could destroy us.’

Deborah VanDerhei is the National Director for PPFA’s Consortium of Abortion Providers. She also weighs in with concern about the fallout that would result if the public knew about the money PP receives for baby body parts. “I have been talking to the executive director of the National Abortion Federation,” she says. “We’re trying to figure this out as an industry, about how we’re going to manage remuneration, because the headlines would be a disaster.”

“We have independent colleagues who generate a fair amount of income doing this,” VanDerhei continues.

VanDerhei makes it clear that the harvesting and exchange of body parts will not be discussed in writing.  “It’s an issue that you might imagine we’re not really that comfortable talking about on email,” she says.

In addition to headlines, the fact that PP is likely breaking the law should be a huge concern. The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony, punishable by fines and up to ten years in prison.

Dr. Vanessa Cullins, PPFA Vice President of External Medical Affairs, seems very aware of the potential legal problems. “This is important,” she tells a person she thinks is a potential buyer. “This could destroy your organization and us, if we don’t time those conversations correctly.”

PP’s long-term body parts business

Dr. Katherine Sheehan, the former Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest, reveals that PP has been involved in the baby body parts business for over ten years, working with a procurement company known as Advanced Bioscience Resources, and that the government is involved as well. “We’ve been using [ABR] for over 10 years, really a long time, you know, just kind of renegotiated the contract,” Sheehan says. “They’re doing the big government-level collections and things like that.”

“Service fees” and body parts picking lists

ABR’s “service fee schedule” in the video footage shows a fee of $550 per specimen for first trimester fetal cadaverous specimen procurement.

The video footage also reveals a daily procurement list, known as a task page. It contains a picking list of body parts, with the gestational age of the baby who must die to provide those parts, and shipping instructions. The macabre list includes a request for liver, thymus, and skin—all from the same “donor.” That donor, it says, needs to have reached 16-20 weeks gestation. The body parts are to be packed on wet ice and shipped by FedEx priority overnight delivery. The baby’s liver and thymus are to be shipped to UMASS and the skin to Harvard.

What are researchers doing with fetal tissue?

A well-documented fact sheet on the CMP website shows that the National Institutes of Health reports spending a minimum of $76 million on human fetal tissue—specific rants and nearly $1.4 billion in stem cell research grants in 2014. Some of the recent, grisly studies conducted via government grant money include transplants of fetal brain cells into lab mice, experiments with beating fetal hearts, and a 2013 study that used normal 24-week fetal eyes “harvested within minutes of death.”

Why are we paying PP to commit such atrocities?

That’s what a September 29 hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee attempted to clarify. PPFA president Cecile Richards did not deny under questioning that 86 percent of PP’s non-government revenue is derived from abortion.

PP’s abortion business stacked up 327,653 dead baby bodies in 2013, according to its annual report. It gulped up $528.4 million in taxpayer income, showing a year-end profit of $127.1 million—a 118 percent increase over the previous year. In the meantime, PP dramatically decreased services like breast exams and cancer screenings.

Now we see that, by adding baby body parts procurement to the end of the equation, and by altering abortion procedures to obtain more saleable body parts from each little victim, PP stands to increase its profit margin exponentially.

Time to defund PP

The release of the CMP videos have set off an avalanche of resistance to continued government funding of PP and opened the eyes of thousands to the depravity of the organization.  We must keep the PP atrocities at the forefront of the discussion in person, in print, and on social media. We must contact our elected representatives frequently, letting them know that PP does not deserve one penny of taxpayer money; we must also insist that a full-scale congressional investigation be launched and that criminal charges be filed against PP executives. We must shine the light on PP’s baby body parts business at every turn, including when we pray and witness at PP facilities. And pray we must, without ceasing, asking our Blessed Mother to deliver a decisive victory over PP and its horrific objectification, exploitation, and killing of little children.

[Back to Top]

---

Texas Grand Jury Indicts Whistleblowers
Instead of Planned Parenthood

by Rita Diller - MAY 10, 2016

Even ardent Planned Parenthood supporters are crying foul over the indictment of investigative journalists David Daleiden and his associate, Sandra Merritt. Daleiden and Merritt were indicted by a Houston, Texas, grand jury after they exposed a grisly baby body parts business in progress at Planned Parenthood facilities.¹

No charges were leveled against Planned Parenthood for negotiating, on camera, the sale of freshly harvested gonads, eyes, skin, brains, femur—”everything” available on a baby, as one Houston Planned Parenthood official stated.² Astonishingly, the pro-life investigators were charged with felony counts of tampering with a governmental record (using a fake ID). Daleiden also faces a misdemeanor offense related to buying human tissue.³

The charge against Daleiden begs the most obvious question—the same question that was posed to media members by his attorney: “How could David Daleiden buy baby body parts for profit without Planned Parenthood being willing to sell him baby body parts for profit?”⁴

Planned Parenthood: “A-la-carte” payment for body parts is best

Planned Parenthood claims the undercover videos are edited to mislead. However, the footage clearly shows Melissa Farrell, the director of research at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, enumerating past payments received from other organizations for baby body parts. She states explicitly on camera that an “a-la-carte” method of payment—where the purchaser pays for only the body parts it wants—would be best: “I just don’t want it to turn into a situation where it’s not financially beneficial for you,” Planned Parenthood’s Farrell says to Daleiden. As she discusses altering the abortion procedure to harvest “intact fetal cadavers,” Farrell refers to the sale of the body parts from a single baby to several different buyers as “just a matter of line items.”⁵

The full unedited versions of the undercover videos are available on the Center for Medical Progress website (centerformedicalprogress.org).

Planned Parenthood board member is a prosecutor

In light of all the damning evidence, why was Planned Parenthood not held accountable for violating the laws that prohibit selling human organs and tissue?

Here’s the multifaceted answer. The Associated Press reports that one of the Harris County prosecutors is a Planned Parenthood board member.⁶ And though Planned Parenthood officials claim the grand jury vindicated the abortion giant of any wrongdoing, Planned Parenthood attorney Josh Schaffer said a prosecutor told him “the grand jury never even voted on possible criminal charges against the nation's largest abortion provider.” That means that the grand jury never voted for or against pursuing any charges on Planned Parenthood.⁷

Instead, behind the Harris County district attorney’s repeated statement, “We have to go where the evidence leads us,” the DA’s office led grand jury members to indict the investigators who caught Planned Parenthood red-handed. In doing so, it attempts to criminalize tactics undercover journalists have used for decades to expose illegal acts.⁸

Getting even with whistleblowers

In addition to having a Planned Parenthood board member on staff in the Harris County DA’s office, pro-life organization Operation Rescue says that the Houston district attorney’s office had an axe to grind with pro-life whistleblowers and that the district attorney’s office “wanted to get even with whistleblowers who have reported evidence against abortion providers of serious crimes, including murder.”⁹

The prosecutor who headed the grand jury investigation against Daleiden is reportedly the same prosecutor involved in the 2013 grand jury investigation of abortionist Douglas Karpen, whose illegal late-term abortion business was exposed by Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue president Troy Newman is a board member of the Center for Medical Progress, the organization behind the 2015 undercover videos exposing Houston Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts business.

Operation Rescue reports that the 2013 complaint provided evidence that Karpen had “murdered babies born alive during shoddy abortions by twisting their heads nearly off their bodies.” The Karpen case prompted the passage of HB2, a clinic safety bill that has contributed to the dramatic drop in the number of abortion centers across Texas.¹⁰ Planned Parenthood continues to fight that bill with a vengeance today.

A chilling effect on First Amendment rights

Journalists, law professors, and other experts—even those who vehemently support Planned Parenthood—lost no time in expressing grave concern that the charges against Daleiden would have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights encompassing freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

“We are pro-choice, and we support the important work of Planned Parenthood, but we find the prosecution of these citizen journalists…deeply disturbing” Sherry Colb and Michael Dorf, law professors from Cornell University state in an opinion piece for CNN. “[I]t appears the charges arise entirely out of their efforts to deceive Planned Parenthood officials in order to gain access,” Colb and Dorf continue.

They point to the fact that criminal prosecution of journalists for investigating such situations will only help cover up facts that need to be revealed. “Whatever the precise facts of this case prove to be, the prosecution has broader implications, and not just for abortion and anti-abortion speech. Undercover exposés play a vital role in informing the American public of important facts that would otherwise remain hidden.”¹¹

Journalism professor Mark Feldstein expressed similar concerns. “Even though I support Planned Parenthood and do not share the politics of those going undercover, I think it’s unusual to prosecute when there’s a lack of intent to commit a crime, even when they’re not journalists,” Feldstein said.¹² Feldstein teaches at the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.

Run-away grand jury

“We believe that this is a runaway grand jury that has acted contrary to the law,” said Houston attorney Jared Woodfill. “Instead of indicting the wrongdoers here, the organization trafficking in baby body parts, they’ve gone after the whistle-blower.”¹³

Woodfill, a member of the Daleiden defense team, is calling for a new grand jury to investigate Planned Parenthood.

“He will be vindicated”

Daleiden’s attorneys have repeatedly expressed their conviction that they will prevail if and when the case goes to trial. They scoffed at a plea bargain offered in February in exchange for a guilty plea, and stated instead that what they really want is an apology. They will file motions to dismiss the case. “We believe the indictments are factually and legally insufficient,” Daleiden’s attorney Peter Breen said.

Referring to his client as a modern-day hero, Woodfill said, “He has exposed the wrongdoing that has been occurring at abortion clinics all across this country. And the fact that he's here today is a miscarriage of justice.”

“He will be vindicated,” Woodfill said.¹⁴

[Back to Top]

---

¹Diller, Rita. “Planned Parenthood’s macabre baby body parts business.” Celebrate Life Magazine. Nov. 1, 2015. www.clmagazine.org/article/planned-parenthoods-macabre-baby-body-parts-business/
^2,5Center for Medical Progress. “Planned Parenthood Houston Admits Accounting Gimmicks Hide Baby Parts Sales, Invoices Charge $8,000.” YouTube. Feb. 2, 2016. www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U9mZyRCisM
³Ludden, Jennifer. “Anti-Abortion Activists Indicted on Felony Charges in Planned Parenthood Case.” NPR. Jan. 27, 2016. www.npr.org/2016/01/26/464469813/anti-abortion-activists-indicted-on-felony-charges-in-planned-parenthood-case
⁴Thomas More Society. Thomas More Society Response to Grand Jury’s Indictment of David Daleiden. n.d. www.thomasmoresociety.org/thomas-more-society-response-to-grand-jurys-indictment-of-david-daleiden/
^6,7,8Weber, Paul J. “Houston prosecutor has angered anti-abortion groups before.” Associated Press. Jan. 27, 2016. www.bigstory.ap.org/article/0f9ee593bc8d4d4e904c33bb08f0f9dc/houston-prosecutor-has-angered-anti-abortion-groups
^9,10Operation Rescue. “Bombshell: Houston Grand Jury Never Voted on Planned Parenthood Charges.” Operation Rescue. Jan. 27, 2016. www.operationrescue.org/archives/bombshell-houston-grand-jury-never-voted-on-planned-parenthood-charges/
¹¹Dorf, Sherry F. Colb and Michael C. CNN Opinion. Jan. 29, 2016. www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/opinions/planned-parenthood-colb-dorf/
¹²Richardson, Valerie. “Even Planned Parenthood supporters troubled by prosecution of pro-life investigators.” Washington Times. Feb. 2, 2016. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/16/david-daleiden-sandra-merritt-criminal-charges-dis/?page=all
¹³Fernandez, Manny. “Lawyers Assail ‘Runaway Grand Jury’ in Indictments of Abortion Opponents.” New York Times. Jan. 27, 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/lawyers-assail-runaway-grand-jury-in-indictments-of-abortion-opponents.html?_r=0
¹⁴Johnson, Ben. “Planned Parenthood investigator Daleiden refuses plea deal: ‘What we really want is an apology.’” Life Site News. Feb. 4, 2016. www.lifesitenews.com/news/daleiden-refuses-plea-deal-what-we-really-want-is-an-apology

Lost Books of the Bible?

There are professing Christians out there who think that there are lost books of the Bible. Many of the people who push the idea that there are lost books of the Bible are either New Age or belong to some cult or another. Here is just a small sampling of some books these people claim belong in the Bible:

Gnostic Gospels

• Gospel of Thomas
• Gospel of Peter
• Gospel of Mary Magdalene
• Gospel of Judas

Pseudepigraphal Books

•     Epistle of Barnabas
•     First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
•     Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
•     The Letter of the Smyrnaeans or the Martyrdom of Polycarp
•     The Shepherd of Hermas
•     The Book of Enoch
•     Gospel of Judas (130-170 AD)
•     Gospel of Thomas (140-180 AD)
•     The Psalms of Solomon
•     The Odes of Solomon
•     The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
•     Second Baruch
•     Third Baruch
•     The Books of Adam and Eve
•     The Acts of Phillip

It is understandable why those involved in New Age and members of cults would think these books belong in the Bible. Often times they are seeking to justify various false teachings they hope to believe. When professing Christians attempt to argue that these books were removed from the Bible and should be included in it, it is an argument made entirely out of ignorance. First, through ignorance of never having read, paid attention to, or studied the 66 canonized books of the Holy Bible. Second, through ignorance of never having read, paid attention to, or studied any of the so-called "Lost Books." If ignorance is bliss, these people are living in paradise.

Take the Gospel of Thomas, for example. Not only is it a Gnostic Gospel, but it is also Pseudepigraphal, meaning "false," because it is falsely attributed to the Apostle Thomas. Verse 14 says, "Jesus said to them, 'If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits. When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it's what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.'" Does that honestly sound like it belongs in the Bible? Does it honestly sound like something our Lord and Saviour would say? "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourself. If you pray, you will be condemned. If you give to charity, you will harm your spirit." Jesus fasted. Jesus prayed. Jesus was very charitable. Verse 114 says, "Simon Peter said to them, 'Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.' Jesus said, 'Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.'" Does that honestly sound like it belongs in the Bible? Does it honestly sound like something our Lord and Saviour would say? "Females don't deserve eternal life. Women have to become men in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven." Really?!? These two verses are just some of the examples that hugely contradict the teachings of the Bible, especially that of the New Testament.

These books are not included in the Bible for a number of reasons. These books did not claim to be the Word of God; they lacked apostolic or prophetic authorship; and they were never referenced by Jesus. It would help if professing Christians did not blindly believe everything that was told them by someone in a trusted position, but that they would read, pay attention to, and study the Bible carefully. These so-called "Lost Books" are self-refuting when someone actually knows the Word of God.

The NIV (New International Version)

If your favourite Bible was the KJV (King James Version), and you needed a new Bible, or were looking for a different format of that Bible, how would you feel if, when you purchased your KJV, you found out that it contained the text of the NKJV (New King James Version)?

If your favourite Bible was the RV (Revised Version) or the RSV (Revised Standard Version), and you needed a new Bible, or were looking for a different format of that Bible, how would you feel if, when you purchased your RV or RSV, you found out that it contained the text of the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version)?

You would feel deceived. Pure and simple.

Well, for those of you who have preferred and enjoyed the NIV (New International Version), this is precisely what has been done to you. If you were in need of a new copy of the NIV Bible, or you just wanted a different format of the NIV Bible (larger text; single column; study notes; or whatever), the Bible identified as the "NIV" today is no NIV at all!

The 2011 text of the "NIV" is nothing more than a repackaging of the 1996 NIVi (New International Version Inclusive Language Edition) and the 2002/2005 text of the TNIV (Today's New International Version), which never became popular due to its gender-neuter language and the vast amounts of heresy found in various passages.

The publishers of the NIV have deceived you. They have deliberately tried to slip the text of the NIVi/TNIV in under your nose unnoticed as the "NIV." Any NIV you attempt to purchase today is the 2011 text. Not the 1984 text. You are purchasing a completely different Bible. It is deception!

If you preferred and enjoyed the NIV due to its ease of readability, if you are looking for a new Bible to replace your worn NIV, or if you simply want a different format, might I suggest you pick up a copy of the ESV (English Standard Version)? It has the same ease of readability that the NIV had, but is more accurate in translation than the NIV ever was.

Genesis 6:1-4

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." There were tyrants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4)

Where did the fabulous (something of fables) interpretation of angels co-mingling with women and producing extraordinary offspring come from? Is it another of the grand imaginations of Dispensationalism? Probably not, but they do seem to give the most impetus to it.

The first two verses are pretty straightforward. We may accept them as they stand. לקח אשׁה (to take a wife) is a standing expression through the entire Old Testament for the marriage relationship established by God at creation, and it is never applied to πορνεια or the simple act of physical connection. Any idea of polygamy is also excluded. It merely indicates discriminating selection of beautiful wives, choice from among those who were eligible. The statement of these two verses is sufficient enough in itself to exclude any references to angels. Christ Jesus stated clearly that angels cannot marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; cf. Luke 20:34).

The main thing to clarify and get out of the way is the content of verse 3. Some Christians believe and teach that this verse is saying that the age of man will be capped at 120 years, that he will not age beyond that. Given the context of the chapter, this notion is ridiculous. It is correctly understood as God giving a respite of 120 years to those presently living on the Earth. God's sentence was made known to Noah in his 480th year, to be preached by him as "preacher of righeousness" (2 Pet. 2:5). "Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth" (Gen. 7:6).

So, the first three verses are clear enough to us. There exist no problems with our understanding of these three verses. Where the confusion exists is regarding verse 4, quite frequently ripped from its immediate context and applied with fantastical (something of fantasies) interpretations. So this is where we will focus our examination.

There were tyrants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (v. 4)

In the Septuagint, נפלים is rendered as γιγαντες, which is likely where our idea of "giants" is derived. However, how do we know that ancient English translations used "giants" in the manner our modern minds like to conjure up first? (Our modern minds have the same failure when it comes to the words "unicorn" and "dragon," too.)  The term "mighty men . . . of renown" may explain the word "giants," or it may explain the children born to the sons of God. "Mighty," gibbowr, means "powerful, mighty, strong; by implication: warrior, champion, valiant man, hero." "Renown," shem, means "a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication: honor, authority, character, fame, reputation, renown." There are three ways in which we can approach this verse:

1. Giants: Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines "giant" as: "n. 1. A man of extraordinary bulk and stature. 2. A person of extraordinary strength or powers, bodily or intellectual. The judge is a giant in his profession." If "mighty men . . . of renown" explains the word "giants," then the second definition seems appropriate, further describing the character and reputation of these men.
    
2. Tyrants: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines the Hebrew word nephilim as "fellers: a bully or tyrant." It comes from the Hebrew word naphal, "to fall, to cast down, to fell, to slay, to smite." (See Joshua 11:7.) If "mighty men . . . of renown" explains the children born to the sons of God, it likely points to outstanding good men. They were possibly champions of impeccable character and reputation who stood against the tyrants that were in the Earth in those days. Keil & Delitzsch, in their Commentary on the Old Testament, write: "'The same were mighty men:' this might point back to the Nephilim; but it is a more natural supposition, that it refers to the children born to the sons of God. 'These,' i.e., the sons sprung from those marriages, 'are the heroes, those renowned heroes of old.'"
    
3. Tyrants: The term "mighty men . . . of renown" may explain the word "tyrants," further describing the character and reputation of these men. Martin Luther called them "tyrants," commenting, "Nephilim non dictos a magnitudine corporum, sicut Rabbini putant, sed a tyrannide et oppressione quod vi grassati sint, nulla habita ratione legum aut honestatis, sed simpliciter indulgentes suis voluptatibus et cupiditatibus." That is, "The Nephilim are not named from the size of their bodies, as the Rabbis say, but from tyranny and oppression by violent force, without consideration for laws or honour, but simply indulging in their pleasures and desires." Matthew Poole, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, writes: "Giants; men so called, partly from their high stature, but principally for their great strength and force, whereby they oppressed and tyrannized over others: for this is mentioned as another sin, and cause of the flood; and therefore they seem to be here noted, not for the height of their stature, which is no crime, but for their violence, which also is expressed beneath, ver 11, 13. ... men of renown, i.e. famous in their generations; when indeed they should have been infamous for the abuse of their stature and strength to tyranny and cruelty."

This verse states clearly that "The [nephilim] were on the Earth in those days, and also after that." So the imaginative notion that the nephilim were the miraculous result of these marriages is outrageous and far fetched. Matthew Poole comments, "After that time there arose a new generation or succession of that sort of men." The verse is likely saying, "In those days, there were tyrants on the Earth, and also after that when the Sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them." Quite possibly the children may have been influenced by the violent, oppressive, wicked men before them and thus rejected the virtue and religion of their ancestors.

There are two substantial problems with the two major views of this verse where "giants" is understood to mean individuals "of extraordinary bulk and stature."

1. The Fallen Angels View: Jesus made it clear that angels cannot marry (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25; cf. Luke 20:34). Enough said. If that is not sufficient, then answer these: Do angels, by nature, possess a material corporeality adequate to the contraction of a human marriage? Or, by rebellion against their Creator, can they acquire it? Are there some creatures in heaven and on earth which, through sinful degeneracy, or by sinking into an unnatural state, can become possessed of the power, which they have not by nature, of generating and propagating their species? Another point of consideration; if angels are the villains, then why is God's anger directed against humans?
2. The Sethite View: Scripture says, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14). A believer (the Sons of God) marrying an unbeliever (the daughters of men) will not result in offspring that is physiologically different from their parents. This is the kind of belief that gives rise to the heresy that children of inter-marriages or "unequally yoked" marriages are demonic, in contradiction to Scripture: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

Given the context, what seems to be the more likely interpretation of verse 4? Clearly not the two views above if "men of extraordinary bulk and stature" is understood. Every other place that "giants" appears in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word רפא (rapha) is used. Nephilim only appears in two verses in the Old Testament: Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. Concerning the passage in Numbers, a footnote in Keil & Delitzsch's Commentary on the Old Testament reads, "the term Nephilim cannot signify giants, since the spies not only mention them especially along with the inhabitants of the land, who are described as people of great statue, but single out only a portion of the Nephilim as 'sons of Anak'."

The union of the Sons of God and the daughters of men is not what provoked God. God's annoyance is not with their nuptial arrangement. The Bible tells believers not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14), but God does not condemn such marriages (1 Cor. 7:12-14). Children are considered holy if even one parent is a believer. Some people point out that God's displeasure comes chronologically before the Nephilim, and therefore He is provoked with their illicit nuptial unions. This concept has its problems as the Law regarding unequally yoked marriages had not yet been instituted. What provoked God was the violence and oppression impressed upon their fellow man by these tyrants. This is verified by the contents of verses 11 and 13: "Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. ... Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.'" God was not destroying the Earth because of their marriage partners. He would have said as much to Noah otherwise.

Based on the information we have just looked at, here are two verses that help put things in perspective:

"These four were born to the giant (rapha, רפא) in Gath, and they fell (naphal, נפל—from where Nephilim, נפלים comes from) by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants" (2 Sam. 21:22).
"These were descended from the giants (rapha, רפא) in Gath, and they fell (naphal, נפל—from where Nephilim, נפלים comes from) by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants" (1 Chron. 20:8).

When you eliminate the illogical and nonsensical, whatever remains is likely closer to the truth than the fantastical and fabulous imaginations you had prior. Examine the context, interpret Scripture with Scripture, and consult the whole counsel of the Word of God. Be responsible students of God's Word, having great reverence and respect for it.

What's Wrong With Gender-Inclusive Translations?

Gender-neuter or gender-inclusive language has its root within modern feminism. It is a style of writing adhering to certain rules first proposed by feminist language reformers in universities during the 1970s, which have been accepted as normative in many schools since approximately 1980. These rules prohibit common usages which are deemed to be "sexist." Instead of words like fireman, policeman, chairman, spokesman, they recommend fireperson, policeperson, chairperson, spokesperson. Let us be clear that political "correctness" is really political stupidity, going overboard with their ridiculous nonsense.

So what is the problem with gender-neuter/gender-inclusive language? One word. Heresy! Gender-inclusive translations remove or feminize anything that could possibly be interpreted as having a masculine connotation. However, all feminine forms remain in tact. Having apparently skipped English class all through their schooling, in their ignorance these people fail to realize that man, depending on the context, includes women. Hence the fact humanity is called mankind.

They argue that the Greek word anthropos (ανθρωπος) does not and cannot mean man and that it should be translated as people, person, or human(s) (among others). The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) is a gender-neuter/gender-inclusive translation, but it is also filled with great heresy because of this.

Practically every language uses masculine forms when speaking of mixed gender. Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc., etc., etc. Even English. In Spanish, a group of men is referred to by using Los, while a group of women is referred to by using Las. When the group is a mixture of men and women, they are referred to by using Los. Much the way mankind includes women.

The gender-neuter/gender-inclusive nonsense does not stop there. Greek language has grammatical gender. These translations change the word son, which is grammatically masculine, into the gender-inclusive child. All because of their foolishness regarding perceived "gender bias." By doing this, their rendering of the text is destructive. The Greek word child is grammatically neuter, taking adjectives with neuter endings. When a word is clearly grammatically masculine, why are these people removing or feminizing it? There is no need for it, and there is certainly no excuse for it!

An example of feminizing the text is changing "Christ the king" to "the reign of Christ." Somehow king is "offensive." King and reign are not synonymous! Reign is a country, king is a person. One refers to the person, Christ Jesus, while the other refers to His kingdom. If modern feminists are "offended" by so-called "sexist" words such as kingdom, why have they not done something about their own designation? In Hebrew, the word for man is ish, while the word for woman is ishah. In English, you have woman and women. Since woman is of man, taken from the rib of Adam (Gen. 2), it makes sense that the two should be related and that, as in most (if not all) languages, the masculine should be applied to a group of mixed gender.

The Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible often use generic masculine nouns (adam and anthropos, both meaning “man”) and generic masculine pronouns in a gender-inclusive sense, in reference to persons of unspecified gender. In the Epistles, believers in general are addressed as adelphoi, “brethren.” Such usages are not merely figments of “sexist” English translations; they are a normal feature of the original languages, just as they are normal in English and many other languages. In most cases the inclusive intent of the writer is obvious from the context, and when the intent is not inclusive, this is also obvious enough from the context. The interpreter must not proceed mechanically with the idea that every occurrence of adam and anthropos is to be understood in a gender-inclusive sense, because the Bible for the most part records the names and actions of men, uses male examples, assumes a male audience, and in general focuses on men and their concerns while leaving women in the background. This feature of the text is obviously related to the cultural situation and expectations of the original authors and recipients, and so any movement to disguise it in translation runs up against the academic qualms already being expressed by Bruce Metzger in 1976: “How far is it feasible to eradicate from an ancient text those features that belong to the patriarchal culture in which its narratives had their origin?”

Context in the English Bible, as well as every other language Bible, determines whether just men are in focus or a combination of men and women. In their foolishness to translate the text post-modernly, these fools ignored the context and gave birth to heresy, such as found in Hebrews 2 of the NRSV.

There are two parties to any written communication: the reader and the writer. Translation is the process of putting the words of the writer into a form that the reader can understand. There’s no point to translation if the reader doesn’t understand, so the translator has to pay careful attention to the meanings, connotations, and usages of words in the target language. There’s also no point to translation if it does not accurately convey the meaning of the writer, so the translator has to pay just as much attention to the meanings, connotations, and usages of words in the source language. Inclusive language translations put too much stress on what the reader does not want to hear, and too little stress on what the writer wants to say. Sometimes the inclusive-language translator is completely off-topic, making the passage about the reader when it is not, such as in the mistreatment of Hebrews 2.

A translation must strive to remain true to the target language while at the same time it must strive to remain true to the source language. It is impossible to translate from one language to another with 100% accuracy. For example, in Spanish, among friends, they will often say "Te quiero," which means "I love you." The literal meaning, however, is "I want you." "Te amo" is literally "I love you," but is used of couples. The English word love fails to grasp the depth and meaning of the four Greek words for love, especially agape, which indicates and conveys a selfless, self-sacrificing, unconditional love.

Gender-neuter/gender-inclusive translations even take issue with the word brother. John Piper wisely remarks:

Most inclusive language versions translate “brothers” at the beginning of the epistles, “brothers and sisters” and explain it like this: “It is clear that these epistles were addressed to all the believers—male and female. Thus, we have usually translated this Greek word [brothers] “brothers and sisters” or “Christian friends” in order to represent the historical situation more accurately” (from the preface to the New Living Translation). The problem with this is that it does not ask why the writers used “brothers” when they could easily have written “brothers and sisters,” since that is clear and simple Greek which was used other times (1 Corinthians 7:15; James 2:15). Something of the writer’s intention is lost in presuming to change his wording so dramatically.

Piper continues:

Another example is the translation of the Hebrew word adam which is both the word for “human” and the proper name for the first man, Adam. This is probably not without significance. Therefore it is helpful to translate adam in a way that reveals this masculine orientation of the original writer in giving the first man (not woman) and the human race the same name, Adam. So we read in Genesis 5:1-2 (NIV [1984]), “This is the written account of Adam’s line. When God created man [Adam], he made him (masculine pronoun) in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘man’ [Adam].” The significance of the man’s role in bearing the name of the race is obscured when inclusive language translates as follows: “This is the history of the descendants of Adam. When God created people, he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and he blessed them and called them ‘human’” (NLT). The word translated “people” and “human” is, in both cases, adam, as it was used in verse 1, Adam. Something deep and important is being obscured here in the cause of gender inclusiveness.

There are many other issues that could be addressed that corrupt the meaning of the text in these gender-neuter/gender-inclusive translations. For example, their rendering household as family instead. A household did not merely consist of kin. A house was often a place of residence and a place of business. The first floor contained the business while the upper floor was where they slept. A household could consist of other relatives, servants, employees, or even strangers. Take Abraham for example, and the command to circumcise everyone in his household. This was not limited solely to his family, those directly related to him, as the context informs us. The ignorance of rendering it as family instead of the more correct and precise household is without excuse. It destroys the concept and limits the reality. When you refer to my place of residence as my household, it includes anyone under my roof. Government censuses still use this language with this intelligent understanding behind it: "How many people are in your household?"

Some of these gender-neuter/gender-inclusive translations even go so far as to change "God our Father" to "God our Parent." While not being physically masculine, because "God is Spirit" (John 4:24), nevertheless, whether these people like it or not, God is masculine and He is our Father. He is not feminine nor is He our "Mother." People need to stop feminizing the Holy Bible and start approaching it with the utmost reverence and respect. Anyone who tampers with the Word of God and leads the least of His children astray will have to answer to Him and will likely spend an eternity in Hell separated from Him.

Most inclusive-language translations are over-enthusiastic, failing to make important distinctions, generalizing statements that are specific, and obscuring ancient legal institutions. If translators create meaning instead of just conveying it, they are being irresponsible.

I will never recommend a gender-neuter/gender-inclusive translation because it is reckless and irresponsible (both my doing so and the translation itself). I will also not recommend paraphrases because they are not Bibles. They are really poor commentaries at best. If it does not strive to be true to both the target language and the source language, I will not recommend it.

ACCURATE Gender-specific Bible versions	INACCURATE Gender-neuter Bible versions
Wycliffe Bible (1382) Tyndale NT (1526) Matthew's Bible (1537) Great Bible (1539) Geneva Bible (1560) Bishop's Bible (1568) Douay-Rheims (1609) [Roman Catholic] KJV/AV (1611) RV (1885) ASV (1901) RSV (1946, 1952, 1971) NASB (1963, 1995) JB (1968) [Roman Catholic] NEB (1970) NIV (1973, 1984) GNB (1976) NKJV (1982) NIrV revised (1998) ESV (2001) HCSB (2004)	NJB (1985) [Roman Catholic] ICB (1986) NAB (1988) [Roman Catholic] NCV (1987, 1991) NRSV (1989) REB (1989) [partially gender-neuter] GNB revised (1992) [presently GNT] CEV (1995) GW [God's Word] (1995) NIrV (1995) NIVI (1995, 1996) NLT (1996) NLT revised (1996) TNIV (2002, 2005) NIV (2011) [repackaged NIVi/TNIV]
PARAPHRASED (INACCURATE)
TLB (1971) TM/MSG [The Message] (1995)

Facts Concerning the Apocrypha

Most Christians know absolutely nothing about the Apocrypha other than what has been told to them by a trusted pastor or teacher. Many of these pastors and teachers also know nothing about the Apocrypha other than what was told to them. The most prevalent opinion regarding the Apocrypha is based on false assumptions and conclusions drawn upon those false assumptions. Here are the facts regarding the Apocrypha:

1. Practically 99% of all Bibles printed prior to the late 1800s contained the Apocrypha—in addition to the Old Testament and the New Testament.
2. Protestants have historically embraced 14 of the apocryphal books while Catholics have historically embraced only 12 of them (as Catholics continue to do to this day).
3. The Apocrypha has been part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years. Every major English-language Bible in history up until the late 1800s contained the Apocrypha. The Wycliffe Bible contained the Apocrypha. Coverdale's Bible contained the Apocrypha. The Matthew-Tyndale Bible contained the Apocrypha. The Great Bible contained the Apocrypha. The Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha. The Bishop's Bible contained the Apocrypha. The King James Version contained the Apocrypha, right up until almost 1900 A.D. It was a welcomed and accepted part of the Bible by all the Protestant Reformers of the 1500s and 1600s, the American Colonists of the 1700s, and during most of the 1800s. Every Christian church embraced an 80-book Bible—not a 66-book Bible.
4. Most Protestants have never considered the Apocrypha to be the inspired Word of God, but rather supplementary historical books worthy of being in the Bible. A concordance is bound into most modern Bibles, yet it is not "inspired," but nobody is offended by its presence because it has a purpose.
5. There is nothing "Roman Catholic" about the books of the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha were written hundreds of years before Christ, and, by extension, hundreds of years before the Catholic church, the Protestant church, or any kind of Christian church. The Bible of the Protestant Reformation, the Geneva Bible (which was so anti-Catholic that it proclaimed the Pope to be an Antichrist in its commentary notes), contained the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha are ancient Old-Testament-Era Jewish literature. They are not Catholic. They are not Protestant. They are not Anglican. They are not Christian.
6. King James threatened anyone who printed his Bible without the Apocrypha with a heavy fine and one year in jail.
7. The Apocrypha were removed from Protestant and Anglican Bibles in the late 1800s due to the influence of textual critics, Westcott and Hort.

Those are the facts regarding the Apocrypha. Nothing more, nothing less. They are verifiable. Many Christians believe the Apocrypha to be Roman Catholic, but that belief is false. The only difference between Catholics and Protestants with regard to the Apocrypha is that during their debate with Martin Luther, in deliberate spite of what he said, they decided to canonize their 12 books of the Apocrypha, attempting to make it equal with the rest of Scripture. Some people's objection to the Apocrypha being included as part of the Bible is based on things that are not biblically acceptable, like praying for the dead. However, the Bible also contains things that are not biblically acceptable, such as incest (Lot's daughters and their father), adultery (David and Bathsheba), and murder (David and Uriah). There is a difference between talking about something (descriptive narrative) and endorsing something (prescriptive narrative). The Bible is merely revealing to us what sinful humanity is like, without attempting to endorse it.

Some people argue that the Apocrypha is quoted in the New Testament, but this is false. For example, they say that Matthew 13:43 ("Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun...") is quoted from Wisdom 3:7 ("And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble."). This is known as "Collapsing Context," claiming the two verses are related because they use a similar word: "shine." They say Luke 2:37 ("a widow . . . She never left the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers") is found in Judith 8:4-6 ("a widow . . . at home . . . She fasted all the days of her widowhood"). Once again, this is "Collapsing Context." Luke is speaking of the prophetess, Anna, who lived hundreds of years after Judith. The fact is, many of the supposed references to the Apocrypha are so vague that the similarity is more than likely coincidental. Catholic apologists will often say that one is "similar to" the other. No doubt he will find many "similar to's" if he compares the Bible to the Sunday newspaper!

Why did godly men of the past choose to include the apocryphal books in the Bible? All of them confessed that the Apocrypha was not inspired holy Scripture, nor was it part of the canon of Scripture. Apart from some of the books being historical (while others are outright silly), why did these godly men include the Apocrypha as part of the Bible? Should it be part of our Bibles today? Some people argue that the Apocrypha should never have been removed, that nobody had the God-given authority to remove it, arguing that no satisfying justification has ever been given for its removal. Well, if some Bibles contain a concordance and other Bibles do not, is it a big deal? As far as I am concerned, no! If some Bibles contain the Apocrypha and others do not, is it a big deal? Again, as far as I am concerned, no!

Yes, the Apocrypha can provide the Christian with some helpful information concerning the 400 silent years, but they are not inspired, infallible, or inerrant, nor are they a part of the canon of Scripture. I would never try to develop any doctrines from them. By removing the Apocrypha, what does it hurt? Does it obscure some doctrine? Does it mar some biblical truth? It would be quite a different thing if someone suddenly wanted to remove Genesis, Isaiah, Malachi, John, Romans, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and 1 Peter from the Bible. Or any of the other canonized 66 books. Removing the Apocrypha has no barring whatsoever on the rest of Scripture. I do, however, think that every modern translation should offer a version that includes the Apocrypha for those who want it as part of their Bible.

Is your opinion regarding the Apocrypha based solely on what you have heard, what trusted pastors or teachers have told you to believe? Or is it based on the historical facts surrounding it? It is a fact that the Bible had 80 books up until just over one century ago! Observe:

Matthew's Bible, 1537	Geneva Bible, 1560	Authorized Bible, 1611

If you do not like the Apocrypha, or do not wish it to be part of your Bible, do not base your opinion of it on false assumptions and conclusions drawn upon those false assumptions. Base your opinion on solid facts.

Porneia (πορνεια) vs. Moicheia (μοιχεια)

There is a great difference between fornication (porneia [πορνεια]) and adultery (moicheia [μοιχεια]) and a fornicator (pornos [πορνος]) and an adulterer (moichos [μοιχος]). Unfortunately, many false teachers lie and claim that Jesus provided an "exception clause" for divorce with regard to adultery (marital infidelity). If this were so, why then does Jesus (and Matthew's record of it) use the word porneia in this "exception clause" while every other reference to adultery He uses the word moicheia? Because of this glaring problem, these false teachers lie further and claim that the word porneia includes adultery. If this were so, why are there so many passages that use porneia (πορνεια) and moicheia (μοιχεια) side-by-side (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Gal. 5:19) as well as pornos (πορνος) and moichos (μοιχος) side-by-side (1 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 13:4)? If adultery were included in the word porneia, it would be redundant to add the word moicheia.

With regard to the supposed “exception clause” found in the book of Matthew, further help in discerning what Matthew was saying can be gleaned from the original Greek when we look at the words that he used. This is what John Piper had to say from his study on the subject:

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, why does Matthew use the Greek word πορνεια (porneia, “sexual immorality”) instead of the word μοιχεια (moicheia) which means adultery? Sexual immorality in marriage would naturally be adultery. But the word Matthew uses to express Jesus’ meaning is one that usually means fornication or sexual immorality without reference to marital unfaithfulness. Almost all commentators seem to make the assumption again that porneia refers to adultery in this context. The question nagged at me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery (moicheia), if that is in fact what he meant.
Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in Matthew 15:19 where it is used alongside moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as, in some sense, different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that in Matthew’s record of Jesus’ teaching he is thinking of porneia in its more usual sense of fornication or incest or prostitution that does not denote marital unfaithfulness, that is, adultery?
The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I noticed the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume that his mother Mary had committed fornication and that Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew’s record of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20.

The word for divorce (απολυσαι) is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. but most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her assumed porneia, fornication. In other words, this “divorce” was permitted according to Matthew.
Only Matthew has told that story of the crisis Joseph faced in whether to marry his betrothed even though she, as far as he knew at first, had committed fornication (πορνεια). In handling this crisis he called Joseph “just” in the plan to “divorce” her. That means that Matthew, as a follower of Jesus, would not consider this kind of “divorce” wrong. It would not have prevented Joseph (or Mary) from marrying another.
Since only Matthew had told this story and raised this question, he was the only Gospel writer who would feel any need to make clear that Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce followed by remarriage did not include a situation like Joseph and Mary’s. That is what I think he does with the exception clauses. He records Jesus saying, “Whoever divorces his wife—not including, of course, the case of fornication [πορνεια] between betrothed couples—and marries another, commits adultery.”
A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:9 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage, not betrothal. The point is pressed that “except for fornication” is irrelevant to the context of marriage. My answer is that this irrelevancy is precisely the point of the exception clause. Whether it sounds irrelevant in the context depends on how you hear it. I don’t think it sounds pointless if you hear it the way I just suggested or if Matthew 5:32 goes like this: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife—excluding, of course, the case of fornication [πορνεια] during betrothal—makes her commit adultery.” In this way Jesus makes clear that the action his earthly father almost took—to “divorce” Mary because of πορνεια—would not have been unjust. It would have been right. That is the kind of situation the exception clause is meant to exclude.
This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages:

• It does not forces Matthew’s Gospel to disagree with the seemingly plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke.
• It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia.
• It squares with Matthew’s own use of porneia (for fornication) in distinction from moicheia (for adultery) in Matthew 15:19.
• It fits Matthew’s wider context concerning Joseph’s contemplated “divorce” from Mary (Matt. 1:19).

John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, pp.313-316.

John Piper is correct. If Jesus (and Matthew’s record of it) meant adultery, then the word for adultery—moicheia—would have been used, just as it appears after the so-called “exception” (5:32; 19:9). But it is not. The word used is porneia, which refers to sexual immorality without reference to marital unfaithfulness. The fact that these words are not synonyms of each other and are not interchangeable is seen within the multiple passages that use them side-by-side: Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Galatians 5:19. This fact can also be seen in the use of pornos and moichos side-by-side: 1 Corinthians 6:9; Hebrews 13:4. If porneia includes adultery, then why not simply use that word alone? To use moicheia alongside it is redundant if porneia refers to all sexual sins including adultery.

So let's get our terms accurate:

Adultery = Illicit sexual acts committed by married persons. (Post-marital)

Fornication = Illicit sexual acts committed by unmarried persons. (Pre-marital)

It is imperative to know that the Bible does not combine all sexually immoral behaviours, such as homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, prostitution, harlotry, etc., into the word "fornication." This is a false claim by many Bible teachers. Look up the 7 occurrences of porneuo, the 10 occurrences of pornos, the 12 occurrences of pornee, and the 25 occurrences of porneia in the New Testament and let the Bible define the meaning of these words. Likewise, look up the 4 occurrences of moicheia, the 4 occurrences of moichos, the 6 occurrences of moichaomai, and the 13 occurrences of moichuo in the New Testament and let the Bible define the meaning of these words. Therefore:

Adultery is only applicable to married persons.

Fornication is only applicable to unmarried or single persons.

The use of "sexual immorality" in modern translations of the Bible as opposed to "fornications" in ancient translations of the Bible is deliberately misleading. "Sexual immorality" obscures the meaning and intent of the passage while "fornications" makes it clear and precise. We need to remember that the Gospel According to Matthew was written to and for the Jews. Therefore, we need to understand their customs and practices in order to interpret it correctly. We cannot eisegetically impose our customs and practices upon the text and make it say what we want it to say.

The fact is, divorce is never okay. "For I hate divorce,' says the Lord, the God of Israel" (Mal. 2:16). This is further underscored by Paul when conveying God's words: "To the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not divorce her husband (but if she does divorce, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11). The words of Jesus solidify it: "From the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, man cannot separate" (Mark 10:6-9). Marriage is a sacred covenant union instituted by God, entered into with binding vows, and intended for lifelong permanence. The only dissolution to the marriage tie is death (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).

Any attempts at making other passages contradict the above is entirely disobedience and rebellion. For example, Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 that these words come from God Himself. Therefore, Paul's personal words that follow in verses 12-16, 27-28 cannot and will not contradict God's own words. Any false teacher who tries to teach otherwise should be noted and avoided.