Revelation 22:19 Revisited - A Walktrough of One of Many Proofs against Predestination

Just as the Pythagorean Theorem has had at least a thousand alternative proofs to it since Pythagorus, so also have there been MANY VALID DISPROOFS of Predestination that even predate Calvin, going back to St. Irenaeus who wrote Polemics against Calvin's Predecessors and proponents of Predestination, the Gnostics. I add my disproof to the alredy long list of disproofs, though there are other implicit disproofs in my original Edited-Not Translated post [i.e. That Contrary Evidence would be Edited Out of the Bible of Volition]. Here's the scripture in question, from page 567 of the EOB:

19 If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

Let us suppose Predestination. If anyone would be Predestined, it would be William Whittington, John Calvin's Brother-in-Law that published the Geneva Bible. Let us further suppose that William Whittington expunged Revelation 22:19 from his Bible (as was shown in the original Edited-Not Translated post). This causes a Parodox in that William Whittington is both Predestined (SAVED) and Condemned for Violating Revelation 22:19 (LOST). Therefore William Whittington was both SAVED and LOST.

Of course, the only resolution for this Paradox is to put William Whittington in Purgatory. Since Orthodox and Protestants don't believe in Purgatory, Reduction to an Absurdity has been reached. [This is the Deductive Logic of the Mathematician and of Sherlock Holmes, where slowly, the possiblities considered and enumerated. As the possibilities are eliminated, that which remains must be the Truth. This is the opposite form of Inductive Logic of Hermeneutics, which I have been accused of ignoring.]

As per the comment that I have heard from Calvinists that "No One Predestined would ever remove this Verse from Scripture", I call their attention to William Whittington. Of course, since William Whittington was Totally Depraved like the rest of Humanity (ie., unable to advance the cause of his own Salvation in any way), his efforts in Bible Translation were DOOMED at the onset. Of course, how could he possibly be Illumined {Thanks, Matt!} if he expunged Revelation 22:19 from the Bible?

Another similar interesting Parodox is that of the Bodily Resurrection as it applies to Astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the Planet Pluto, where his remains are being sent for his Eternal Rest. This reminds me of "When I soar to Worlds Unknown" in Rock of Ages. . . .

Edited-Not Translated, Part 3

Let us start out with the observation that the Bible is a balanced document. If there are two opposite ways of going wrong, the Bible will give the appropriate warning. The Bible would warn of opposite evils such as dehydration versus drowning in prorper context, should such context occur. A prime example of the Bible's balance is Ephesians 6. In verses 1-3, it says in the NAB:

1 Children, obey your parents (in the Lord), for this is right.

2)"Honor your father and mother." This is the first commandment with a promise,

3)"that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life on earth."

which sounds like an admonition to children. Because the Bible is balanced, it is always a good idea to read the next verse:

4) Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up with the training and instruction of the Lord.

which applies to parents. The same pattern repeats itself with Employees and Employers (actually the words "Slave" and "Master" are used) for verses 5-9. With this thought of Balance in mind, let us proceed to Deuteronomy 30:15-20, which is an example of Bible Balance, which unfortunately, the EDITED 1599 Geneva Study Bible sleights. To show that verses 15, 17, 18, and 20 have been omited, edited out, or replaced with footnotes, I will actually show from verse 14 to the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, including the blank space where verse 20 would have appeared. We note that the "fingerprints" of Theodore de Beza on this document:



Observing footnotes k & l, we note that verse 15 is absent; observing footnotes m & n, we note that verses 17 & 18 are gone; and finally, observing footnote o and the copyright information, we note that verse 30 is missing. We note the gloss of footnote o is an attempt to override the meaning of verse 30. Footnote o says "That is, love and obey God; which is not in man's power, but only God's Spirit works it in his elect.", even though verse 19 says "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore {reference to footnote}o choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live".

When I compare Scripture with Scripture in the Old Testament, there is one Cardinal Rule I follow, which does not apply to the New Testament. I consult the Septuagint Version. The Septuagint is the product of 72 Jewish Scholars whose work was to compile the Torah. The Septuagint is the Definitive Source Bible of the Old Testament. Though occasionally there is some occasional haggling about the rarely dissenting Samaritan Septuagint, the Septuagint invariablty settles the issue. All other Old Testament Versions derrive from the Septuagint, and therefore there is no need to quote them. The Septuagint says:

15 Behold, I have set before thee this day life and death, good and evil.

16 If thou wilt hearken to the commands of the Lord thy God, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to keep his ordinances, and his judgments; then ye shall live, and shall be many in number, and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all the land into which thou goest to inherit it.

17 But if thy heart change, and thou wilt not hearken, and thou shalt go astray and worship other gods, and serve them,

18 I declare to you this day, that ye shall utterly perish, and ye shall by no means live long upon the land, into which ye go over Jordan to inherit it.

19 I call both heaven and earth to witness this day against you, I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse: choose thou life, that thou and thy seed may live;

20 to love the Lord thy God, to hearken to his voice, and cleave to him; for this is thy life, and the length of thy days, that thou shouldest dwell upon the land, which the Lord sware to thy fathers, Abraam, and Isaac, and Jacob, to give to them.

Clearly, verse 15 was edited out because God was using this language to frame a choice. Footnotes k & l are irrelevant to the issue. Verse 17, which says "If thy heart change", presupposes Free Will. Verse 18 tells of the consequences of making the wrong choice, again presuming the Children of Israel had a choice. Footnotes m & n obscure verses 17 & 18 by taking their place. Verse 20 clarifies verse 19 to mean that you should choose life so that your seed may live (from verse 19, but continuing into verse 20) to love the Lord Thy God, . . . etc. Footnote o is the most eggregious, as it is an actual attempt to override Scripture with a footnote:

(o) That is, love and obey God; which is not in man's power, but only God's Spirit works it in his elect.

De Beza had to get in that superfluous and gratuitous reference to "his elect" into his footnote.

In my earlier years, Deuteronomy 30 was a beakon to me, stating that my choices mattered and that my existence was not necessarly predetermined. Looking back, I felt that the "religious" leaders with whom I grew up under were unimportant little men who overemphasized their importance, that God was in their pocket, and there wasn't anything I could do about it. Deuteronomy 30 showed me that God was NOT in their pocket, and that my choices really mattered to God, though I a tool in God's hands be. Having actually met a Bishop, a truly Important Christain Leader and not a Self-Important one, I can say that I notice the difference. By Their Works You shall Know Them.

I wish to convey special thanks to Pizza Man for inspiring this post.

How many points of TULIP do I agree with?

The 5 points of the Calvinist Agenda are as follows:

1) Total Depravity - this Doctrine was refuted by Doctrinal Pardoxes, and in part Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse. However, Total Depravity does exist, as is demonstrated in By Their Works You Shall Know Them and The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus by the Huguenauts.

2)Unconditional Election - this was refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2 .

3)Limited Attonement - also refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2.

4)Irresistable Grace- also refuted by Edited-Not Translated and Edited-Not Translated- Part 2. If you ask me, there are three abominable examples of Grace being resisted in Calvinist History: By Their Works You Shall Know Them, The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus, and Dordt and Ephesus II: A Tale of Two Robber Synods. Shame! Shame! Shame!

5)Perseverance of the Saints (aka Predestination) - this was refuted by Edited-Not Translated, Edited-Not Translated-Part 2 and in part Doctrnal Lineages and The Significance of the Desecration of the Tomb of St. Irenaeus.

It looks like I don't agree with a Single Point of the Calvinist Agenda! I have even challenged the legitimacy of Calvinism witn Doctrinal Lineages, Dordt and Ephesus: A Tale of two Robber Synods, and Chapter XXXI of the Westminster Confession: A Trojan Horse. That makes me a ZERO POINT CALVINIST !!!

Yet, I feel that the number ZERO is to large a number to count the number of points I agree with on Calvinism. For example, I believe, unlike the Calvinists, in the Necessity of Apostolic Succession. I feel that Calvinism is Agenda-Based, not Bible-Based, Theology; this being the point of the two Edited-Not Translated posts, many more of which I expect will follow.

However, it does sound strange to call myself a "Negative One" or "Negative Two" Point Calvinist. At least ZERO is a Round Number. I'll settle for ZERO POINT CALVINIST for now.

Edited-Not Translated - Part 2

The verse in question for today for which I shall compare Scripture withScriputre is I Timothy 2:3&4. From Part One of Edited, Not Translated, we have established a formulaic format. First, the jpg of the 1599 Geneva Study Bible, showing the footnote that replaces the verse deletion:

Now for the other versions. First, the Protestant Versions:

New International Version (NIV)

3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

21st Century King James Version

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Darby Translation

3 for this is good and acceptable before our Saviour God, 4 who desires that all men should be saved and come to [the] knowledge of [the] truth.

Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)

3 For this thing is good and accepted before God, our Saviour,
4 that will that all men be made safe, and that they come to the knowing of truth. [that will all men to be made safe, and to come to the knowing of truth.]

Next, the Roman Catholics:

The New Jerusalem Bible

3 To do this is right, and acceptable to God our Saviour: 4 he wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth.

And finally, the Orthodox EOB, page 444 :

There was no good way to clip just verse 3 & 4 out, so verses 1 & 2 are included for good measure.

In another blog, the issue was raised that God's Foreknowlege would predetermine the outcome of a Man's Eternal Destiny, and that there was nothing a Man gould do once God had foreseen it. The argument goes that Man cannot go against God's Wishes, as expressed by God's Foreknowlege. Yet, 1 Timothy 2:4 expresses what God's Wishes actually are, which must be dealt with as an accomplished fact. While God's Sovriegnty entails the ability to enforce his Wishes, it also entails the ability to not enforce them, letting the chips fall where they will. Paradoxically, Man's Free Will must be maintained, not in spite of God's Sovriegnty but because of it!

AN example of Foreknowledge not being Sovriegnty can be seen in the example of George Wahington. George Washington, probably the one of the best Weather Forecasters of his age because of what his Military Training entailed, knew what the Weather would be like when he crossed the Delaware on Christmas of 1776 en route to the surprise attack that became the Battle of Trenton. He did not control the Weather, but he had Foreknowlege of it and took advantage of it. He won the battle because of it. However, George Washington did not PREDESTINE anything! Foreknowlege did not make George Washinton God or embue him with any Sovriegnty or anything else, but it only contributed to his victory which could have been spoiled had the Hessians somehow knew to be on their toes for Washington's attack.

1 Timothy 2:4 is an important verse that express God's Will, settling once and for all the supposed Predestination-Foreknowlege Paradox. Like Revelation 22:19, this deletion is too significant an omission in the 1599 Geneva Study Bible because of Doctrinnal Consequences. This is tantamont to overturning established evidence, EDITING, NOT TRANSLATING the Bible.

I wish to convey my special thanks to Billy Birch whose critical inspiration for this post made this post possible.

Edited-Not Translated

In previous posts, I dealt peripherally with attempts to modify the Bible from without via the selection of scripture. Today, I will deal with the attempt to edit Scripture itself. Appropriately, I have selceted Revelation 22:19 that deals with that topic. While this verse tells the consequences of the editing of Scripture, the intent is to show how it has been done, and not to sermonize about it.

At this juncture, I must state that I have been criticized for not delving into hermeneutics, with the parsing and interpretation of the Bible's language that it entails. To make such a criticism ignores the Reduction to an Absurdity Method of Mathematics which is the prevalent mode of analysis of this blog. The analysis used is prone to counterproductive Paradoxes induced by the Self-Referentiality that hermeneutics introduces. Nevertheless, when the findings do not include paradoxes, I will use hermeneutics, as I did here to Compare Scripture with Scripture. Additionally, hermeneutics uses Inductive Reasoning, whereas I have stated before that the methodology I generally use is Deductive Reasoning.

There is no proper way to quote Revelation 22:19 in the 1599 Geneva Study Bible, but I will display it:

What is important about this particular citation of scripture is that it isn't there. It has been replaced with a footnote that says that it has been combined with verse 18. Verse 20 is included to show that this verse, in fact, has been skipped.

Following John Calvin's precept that we should compare Scripture with Scripture, I have included other versions of the Bible for the very comparison that John Calvin reccommends:

New International Version

And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Weymouth New Testament

and that if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take from him his share in the Tree of Life and in the holy city--the things described in this book.

The KJV Strong's Version

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Darby Translation

And if any one take from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

The New American Standard Bible

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

These are all fine Protestant versions of the Bible that say the same thing. Lets see what the Roman Catholics have to say:

The New Jerusalem Bible

if anyone cuts anything out of the prophecies in this book, God will cut off his share of the tree of life and of the holy city, which are described in the book.

Praise the Lord! Even the Catholics agree! The Eastern Orthodox are in the process of publishing their own Eastern Orthodox Bible in English. Just for fun, let's look at what they say. It's still in manuscript form and will be published late in 2009, so if you turn to page 567 in the pdf, you find:



It looks like even the Orthodox agree with the rest of Christondom on this point.

Let us examine why someone would want to have this verse "de-emphasized" from the Scripture. It states that if someone, even one of the Elect should willfully remove this verse from scripture, then Predestination is no longer in effect because a Willful Act overrode it. Isn't that what happened here?

This debunks Predestination. To replace it, I concur with the Doctrine of Divine Grace which is best summarized in the Protestant Hymn: Whosover Will, May Come!