Is John's gospel the same as Paul's?

This is an article in response to a group that is commonly referred to as hyper-Dispensationalist. Many of which would refer to their teach as the "gospel of Paul".  This group argues that the apostle Paul was give a special dispensation to give the gospel to the Gentiles.  This much is biblically based (read Galatians 2 and Ephesians 3).
So that Jesus and the apostles were not concerned about doctrines like justification by grace through Fsith alone.  Instead they were focused on "the Gospel of the kingdom" as they delivered the gospel to the circumcised.
However hyper Dispensationalist take an extra step in this.  They claim that there are in fact 2 gospels. As a result the writings of the apostles have no direct message to the believer today. In an extension to this further the writings of John were meant for the Jews only.


It is significant that John wrote this after the fall of Jerusalem. It is also significant that John was writing either amongst gentile converts in Ephesus or to thesis rounding cities from the island of Malta, in both cases these people were evangelized by Paul.


Yes, John the baptist preaches a baptism of repentance. But the apostle John doesn't mention it.

That is from the Synoptics for a reason.

In regards to John 3:16.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.



First of all John and Paul wrote Greek not English and several translations translate the word "shall"

Secondly, assuming that "should" is the proper translation it makes no difference for two reasons.

A. In John 3:17 John is telling Gentiles that "the world through him might be saved" meaning that the gospel John is preaching is available to them.

B. John 3:18 says "He that beleiveth is not condemned.." this is present tense. So Gentiles reading the gospel of John had a sure foundation for their salvation that no one could tear asunder.

John 4:23 has Jesus prophecy "But the hour cometh AND NOW IS, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:"

John is not writing for the departed Israel, this not a lamentation this is the good news.

And church history records how John would minister to the Gentiles. One of his disciples was the martyr polycarp. And He had a disciple named Irenaeus whose association to John gave him the ability to make the open and shut case that John was the authentic gospel of John.

Paul stated that his gospel was that which was seen of the apostles
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.



The gospel is not divided

Some thoughts on acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38 King James Version (KJV
acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 Earlier this week on a facebook group I was debating the superiority and inspiration on the text receptus. Another facebook user challenged me about this specific text "I assume you believe as well that Acts 8:37 was taken out of many bibles based on a conspiracy, yes?"

Here is my response.

Acts 8:37 is part of the textus Receptus Greek, greek manuscript E08 and the western Latin tradition. 9not to mention the early english translations (tyndal, wycliff. matthew, geneva. AV etc.) and any TR based translation.
We don't have it in the alexandrine text. Nor do we have it in 10% of the Byzantine text which we call a "majority".  (or Majority text by von Sodon)


  So obviously what must have happened is that Jerome, unbeknownst to his employer pope damasus was a raving baptist!  He was insecure about lack of biblical grounds for believers baptism and He wanted his priest to be thoroughly equipped in the roman catholic doctrine of believer's baptism!  They even made just 1 greek manuscript supporting acts 8:37 to cover their tracks.
  This was a very important conspiracy because they missed the previous conspiracy at Constantinople to conflate the text. Probably because Westcott and Hort were the first ones to hear of such a conflation.
   Now since we do not have the originals, if we deny that God is Sovereign and did not preserve the text perfectly in at least one copy.  Then we have no authority to claim what the canon consist of.  Nor What original manuscripts consist of.
  Besides the lack of authority the evolving text advocates to deny whether scriptures are inspired.  They also have to claim knowledge about manuscripts which they have not personally studied, which includes:

A. The majority of the Byzantine texts.

B. future manuscripts which are waiting to be discovered.

C. Manuscripts which have worn away out of decay

D. Manuscripts which were put to flames in times of persecution.


  We also have to assume that men of the past were incapable of accesses information back then. When they may have possessed information which we don't have.
Eventually when looking at manuscripts we have to put a prejudice over which group is more likely to be right.
   So if it is between the alexandrine church infiltrated with Gnosticism and adhering to neo-Platonism or whether it was the school of Antioch which had a good Christian tradition alongside a strong Jewish scribal influence, where the full deity and complete humanity were strongly held up.  I will side with antioch.
If this issue is between the Byzantine's and the textus receptus then I will side with the textus receptus. They would had to have motive to go against the Byzantine textus receptus. The Byzantine empire would be corrupted by Eastern Orthodoxy. Yet the protestants held to the gospel of grace.

John Calvin's assistant Theodore beza is reported to have gotten information from the ancient Waldenses. That they had received their text from antiochan missionaries in the 2nd century. This preserved their text better.  The church is the pillar and ground of truth 1timothy (3:15) and I find the Waldenses to be a true church while the Catholics and alexandrines are not.

"Darwin is dead" looking at the origin of species

(quotes from "The Origin of Species derived from the "Oxford World's Classics" Oxford University Press 1996 edition)

  In recent debates with evolutionists, there has been a strategy employed using a presuppositional style with "bait and switch" tactics.   They will claim on the one hand; that the debate surrounding evolution is only concerned with darwinian biological evolution.  Thereby deflecting failing arguments for naturalism and propping up more support for their presuposition "evolution equals science" defense.

 For instance one Youtube one user makes the claim of the following "misconceptions of evolution"
channel: mynameisjonas45
1. evolution deals with the origin of life [meaning evolution is on after life began]
2. evolution is just a theory [meaning evolution is a fact}
3. humans came from monkeys [meaning humans came from apes}
4. evolution has never been observed [meaning micro evolution exist and there is an argument for microscopic plant life.]
5. evolution violates the second law of thermo-dynamics (arguing that thermo-dynamics does not apply to biology]

  Now the goal for the article is not jump into the endless scientific creation debate.  the goal for the article is to ask whether Darwinism is not a shifting position.  If it does change positions then it has no right to claim sole authority over the sciences any longer.  Evolution has no right to ever have highjacked scientific academia if it can not be one consistantly true fact.

It's not about evolution
  So then evolution would only be concerned about darwinian evolution and not strictly rely upon one worldview like naturalism then, eh?
  After contemplating this I decided to search through Darwin's Origin of Species to see what he thought.  To my surprise I have found something shocking. Darwin doesn't employ the word "evolution" to describe His theory!  Now I may not have perfectly exhausted this book. But for a fact the word "evolution" is not employed in the index, the glossary, the table of contents nor the introduction. (or any page that I have examined.)
  Instead Darwin focuses on the concept of natural selection as the principle idea of his theory.  So where does the concept of evolution come into play?  It is brought up earlier among naturalist and is not used exhaustively of biology.  In fact it had a huge following in the realms of political science!
  As we will see in this paper,  evolution is just as much a religious concept as a scientific one.  Evolutionary science is based in the naturalistic worldview/religion. And it has no right to be so dominate over the minds of american scholars.
James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

It's all natural
"When on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants on the continent."
"I much regret that want  of space prevents me from having the satisfaction of acknowledging the generous assistance which I recieved from very many naturalists, some of them personally unknown to me."  pg. 4
  Naturalism is essential to evolution there is a reason that Darwin was encased among naturalistic thinkers.  Because his theory of natural selection was designed to give a philosophiocal naturalist understanding to the universe.  If one or many gods breaks the laws of naturalism they can not be admitted into evolutionary understanding.  Modern evolutionists are losing the case for athiesm and so they want to retain power and authority through pakaging evolution for christians and other religions etc.  But while naturalism is not limited to atheists, it is intended to be practically atheist in terms of any sense of application.
  But if the laws of naturalistic philosophy are broken. for instance a miracle takes place.  Their is no longer a need to assume evolution and the entire worldview falls apart.
  But the naturalistic world view has deep problems.  When considering the cosmological argument and the big bang theory.  The only way for the "Big bang" to have happened is for the laws of science to have been created by it.  The problem is that the laws of science are equivalent to our concept of nature.  So it would require the supernatural which naturalism declares to be non-existent. If there is an effect there has to be a cause.  Logic would declare.  But naturalism doesn't have a consistant answer.  Which breaks the philosophical worldview and then destroys the motive of evolution leaving itself to be irrational.


Political Implications
"We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some physical change, for instance a climate."
On page 68 Darwin has an interesting illustration of natural selection using a kingdom
  Now one could argue this was merely a demonstration of the theory of natural selection.  But if true what would stop Darwinism from becoming a political movement?  Thus leading to the genocidal movements of nazism communism and facism.
  After all we must also then politically reconcile passages dealing with extinction!
"There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair.  Even slow breeding man has doubled in 25 years and at this rate, in a few thousand years there will literally not be standing room for his progeny." pg.54  This quickly leads us to the ideas of population control.  Which takes us to the sadistic ideas of genocide, concentration camps, forced sterilization, abortion on demand, euthenasia etc. etc.
james 4:From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.


The religious factor
"These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species-that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers." Intro. pg1
  When we here of mystery we are to look into the realm of religion.
"This is the doctrine of Malthus applied to the whole animal and vegatable kingdoms.  As many more individuals of each species are born that can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected." pg.6
 Survival of the fittest is now the meaning of life. Yet again a religious category.
Now one problem on this subject is that evolution and the darwian worldview is not one religion.  But it is in fact many religions.
Such as the religion of secular humanism.
"Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view as old as human civilization itself." preface to humanist manifestos I and II 1979 prometheus books
 Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


The proof of Darwinism
psalm 14:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


"In considering the origin of species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographic distribution, geological succession  and other such facts might come to the conclusion that each species might not have been independently created, but had descended," pg.4   So here Darwin sets out a cumulative case for evolution.  And this is only applied to biological evolution.
his case is thus:
A. biological mutual affinity)
"Most importantly, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry
 (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation). Think about
the original Porsche and the Volkswagen ‘Beetle’ cars. They both have
air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear,
independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many
other similarities (‘homologies’).
  Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities?
Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological
(shape, form) or biochemical, it is not an argument for evolution over
creation. If humans were entirely different from all other living things,
or indeed every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal
the Creator to us? No, we could think that there must be many creators
rather than one. The unity of the creation is testimony to the One True
God who made it all (Romans 1:20).
  Also, if humans were entirely different from all other living things,
then how could we live? We have to eat other organisms to gain nutrients
and energy to live. How could we digest them and how could we use the
amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different to the ones we have in our
bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for us to have food." Creation Answers Book chapter 7
pg. 111. www.creation.com
B. embryological relations)
"Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology,8 recently reviewed in Science9 and New Scientist.
  Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’.8 He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’.8
  He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel’.8
  The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.
    Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).11 In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:
  ‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’ 11"Fraud rediscovered:
It has long been known that one of the most effective popularizers of evolution fudged some drawings, but only now has the breathtaking extent of his deceit been revealed.
by Russell Grigg www.creation.com
"If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." *Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation (1878), Vol. 1, p. 348.
This statement unifies Evolution with Abiogenesis Thus one of the cheif proponents of evolution in history has Admitted that the failure of abiogenesis is the concession to special creation!

C. geographic distribution)   This was a good argument for natural selection or micro evolution.  in the since that there are changes in "kinds" or differing breeds of animals.  Yet there are boundaries to these changes and no proof of macro evolution.
D. geological succession)
"Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
  The key phrase here is: fountains of the “great” deep were broken up. Now for as much water needed to flood the earth, there would be a lot of sediments coming up with the water. It would look very similar to the black smoker in the Picture above that is spewing black sediments. Except during the flood it would be erupting like a huge volcanoes. Sea creatures caught up in this would be buried according to where they lived in the seas because the burial would be so quick, the sea creature would have zero chance to escape. So if you notice, the Geologic Column has bottom dwellers first which is the correct order it would be for the flood. Then you have the mid-dwellers. And then the top dwellers. The exact order of how such a huge flood would bury the sea creatures.
  Then after all the sea creatures are buried, then comes the land animals. Which is correct order of what we see in the Geologic Column if the flood created it. It is ironic that even though science claims the column only supports evolution, that it also goes in the correct order of how things would have been buried in the flood." ikester 7579 www.yecheadquarters.org

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

The challenge to darwinism
"nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co adaptation which most justly excites our admiration." pg.4
  This is the problem, they have not in 150 years found a real transitional link.  Which has been the motivation for the intelligent design movement.
  Also we must remember, that darwinism also rest upon empiricism.  If Darwinism is the by-product of science alone; then it can never be permanently affirmed or held to with sincere dogmatics.  Because with empiricism there is always a fact that could change our view of the situation.
Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Lamarkianism: the skeleton evolving in Darwin's closet!
Ezekiel 18:1 The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

  Darwins based most of his ideas on the teachings of Charles Lyell.  The geologist responsible for the teachings of Uniformitarianism. 
"and it is the third volumeof the journal of that society.  Sir C. Lyell and Dr. Hooker, who both knew of my work-the latter having read my sketch of 1844-honoured me by thinking it advisable to publish" intro pg1
Charles lyell had ran his theories based upon lamarkianism.  The early form of evolutionary thought.  Only Lyell had the foresite to realize that a naturalistic worldview would require great multitudes of time.  At this point Lyell is going to plot out a lamarkian understanding of biology to affirm affirm an understanding of age amongs the fossils and then guestimate the age of the strata in order to affirm darwinian evolution.  Now to be fair Lyell was very skeptical of Lamark's theory. However the point to be made is that this was the ideology Lyell was operating from prior to Darwin.
"His work, Principles of Geology, had a profound effect upon Darwin. He read the first two volumes during the course of his service as naturalist aboard  H.M.S. "Beagle" (see below). By the time Darwin began his work upon the species question, the depth of geological time to the order of millions of years was quite well accepted."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 Darwinism
  Basically they assume that an older species will adapt an inheretance then be buried in the same area.  But neo-darwinism teaches that we do not inherit "acquired characteristics".  Darwin argues for variation with Geographical distribution.  So How would we know the age of a strata if the fossils are not guaranteed in the order of the column? We don't even have evidence of a uniform order of the column anyway!  Besides new evolutionists are arguing against evolution necessarily being about advancement anyhow.
2 peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

  While darwin was focused on biology the rest of his worldview was naturalistic but still with lamarkian assumptions.  So as a result, later darwinist developed the neo-darwinian theory of evolution.
"In His Origin of Species, Darwin accepted the principle of the inheretance of acquired characteristics as one of the factors contributing to evolution." Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism

While the west went along with this ideological shift. lamarkianism was far from dead.  Karl Marx was entertained by the Lamarkian perspective and as a result the Soviet Union Became a lamarkian establishment in their institutions.
"In the Soviet Union for example, where the inheretance of acquired characteristics is accepted and where it has an official standing, it is presented as a part of the Darwinian theory and is referred to generally as "creative Soviet Darwinism" as distinct from the "reactionary darwinism" of capitalistic countries."Encyclopedia Britannica 1969 lamarkism

  What we see is that Darwinism can not be a fact, because it is not one position and it has no authority to declare itself as objectively true.  It does have worldview tendencies and there are religions that have been based upon it.  But these ideas are on their own. Even though on their own they are failing.  Darwin's evidence was refuted long ago.  Sure Evolutionists are evolving.  But their species is only mutating and unless there is cheating (tyrannical military coersion) they will be headed towards extinction.  But like darwin himself the original "Origin of species" theory  is dead.  And God has killed him!
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

song: When you Behold!

Behold! 
God is my salvation Behold
jesus is my Rock!
For the LORD Jehovah is my strength and my song
Jesus gave me love and the strength to carry on!
He also has become my salvation

Behold!

God is my salvation Behold
jesus is my Rock!
Therefore with joy shall ye draw waters out
of the wells of salvation till the old man falls out

Behold!

God is my salvation Behold
jesus is my Rock!

call upon his name
there's no one left to blame
when you behold
when you behold

when you behold

when you behold

On facebook debating the canopy theory

On facebook I got the opportunity to share my arguments for the crystalline canopy theory.  creation scientist and apologist Jonathon Sarfati.  Sarfati is a critic of the various canopy theories.  Although he is a tremendous apologist and his ministry has been helpful to me in the past. So I had my work cut out for me. especially not being a scientist myself.  Here is the thread also a member of the FB group "Jesus is the lamb" participated.


.Jonathan David Sarfati My paper http://creation.com/flood-models-biblical-realism analyses lots of flood models and finds the canopy wanting both biblically and scientifically.


Saturday at 5:24pm · Like..

Jonathan David Sarfati The trouble with Hovind is that he's a one-man band. Organizations like CMI have many scientists, who provide checks and balances, in line with the biblical "safety in a multitude of counsellors". http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind
Saturday at 5:25pm · Like..

Jonathan David Sarfati His lack of scientific training shows. How does one go from metallic hydrogen at *megabars* of pressure to an ice canopy in the extreme *vacuum* of space? Also, arguing about the magnetic properties of metallic hydrogen to statements about ice is like saying that because sodium is highly reactive and conductive, salt is also highly reactive and conductive.

Saturday at 5:39pm · Like..

Matt SIngleton I don't quote from kent hovind in this article. It is simply the fact that he came up with the theory as far as I know.

Did Kent Hovind go back in time to make the first century Jewish historian Josephus talk about an ice canopy?

The testimony of the ancients to a solid firmament is a powerful argument for new agers and an ice canopy would undo the attack especially in light of the smithsonian stories of titanaboa

Even if the ice wasn't pure water.

God could have made the canopy.

(just like the flood)

The crystal would be hydrogen and on top of the canopy would be H2O.
Saturday at 7:04pm via mobile · Like..

Matt SIngleton Hovind is not going to be teaching at any secular university. But Darwin had less scientific training and people are allowed to discuss his theory.
Saturday at 7:06pm via mobile · Like..

Matt SIngleton Dr. Sarfati, I knew you would disagree with my viewpoint. And I don't enjoy debate your opinion since I value it.

By my concern is for the truth. So I decided to post this and whatever disagreements you have, I want to hear so that I may become a better proponent for Christ
Saturday at 7:09pm via mobile · Like..

Jonathan David Sarfati The vacuum of space can't be equalled in the best laboratory vacuum pumps. Metallic hydrogen needs extremely high pressures, the opposite of a vacuum. Ice would also sublime readily, especially the side exposed to the sun. It seems that Josephus was influenced by the LXX translation of raqia as stereoma, influenced by the Greek cosmological ideas.
Yesterday at 1:45am · Like..

Linda Chartier Harris I'm not a scientist, but Dr. Sarfati's comment contains some good points here. But what about a vapor canopy? Do we think a lot of water might have enveloped the earth's atmosphere before the flood in vapor form, and that after the flood that extra layer of water was depleted?
Yesterday at 7:17am · Like..

Matt SIngleton The problem with the vapor and water canopy theories is that it would cause a great deal of air preassure, which would make it impossible to sustain life. Morris argued for water clouds to compensate the dilemma.
Yesterday at 7:23am via mobile · Like..

Matt SIngleton The ice canopy argues that the much more intense magnetic field suspended the ice in place alleviating the air pressure.
Yesterday at 7:25am via mobile · Like..

Matt SIngleton As far as Josephus, I am not going to say that is an impossible conclusion. But this was a Jew explaining Jewish tradition.
Yesterday at 7:27am via mobile · Like..

Matt SIngleton However, the titaniboa story is still very significant.

Naturalist have tried to postulate dinosaurs as warm blooded and I think this is where the whole bird evolution came into play.

But giant snakes and turtles and alligators are still snakes and turtles and alligators. They were cold blooded. And if they were cold blooded then the dinosaurs can be cold blooded like the other reptiles. Which implies that the earth was hotter.
Yesterday at 7:34am via mobile · Like..

Jonathan David Sarfati I don't see that Titanoboa is anywhere as much of a problem as Meganeura, but my flood article explains that. A problem with vapor canopies is that water is the most effective greenhouse gas by a long way.

There is not the slightest evidence that the earth's magnetic field could sustain an ice canopy, since the field is weak and ice is very weakly diamagnetic. And as I've said, an ice canopy would not last long exposed to sunlight and a vacuum. Metallic hydrogen is a red herring.


I also see no evidence that Josephus or Gill believed that the alleged crystalline firmament collapsed to provide flood water.
20 hours ago · Like..

Matt SIngleton Hovind's theory does not postulate that the ice canopy was the source for all the flood waters. He argues that it would have only been 4-6 inches of worldwide rain.

But there would have also been been some ice from the meteorite. Afterwords, then all that water would have been through tectonic shifting as your ministry and answers in Genesis proposed.

But the meteorite shattering to crystalline canopy would have been a mechanism to damage the magnetic field causing the tectonic catastrophe.

19 hours ago via mobile ·

Like..Matt SIngleton But there are other factors to consider.

The moon is slowly drifting away.

Thousands of years ago it would be closer with a greater magnetic pull.

Couldn't this have changed the situation?
A canopy could have protected the earth from tidal waves and the lunar gravity may have been able to sustain a canopy and stop it from collapsing in space.
19 hours ago via mobile ·

Like..Linda Chartier Harris At any rate, don't we think that most of the flood water came from a subterranean source? And that it would have shot out of the cracks in the crust with so much force it would also have seemed like rain when it fell back to the surface?
18 hours ago ·

Like..Jonathan David Sarfati Shattering of ice would not affect the earth's magnetic field. It is an electrical insulator and weakly diamagnetic. How would a canopy prevent tides? I don't know of any gravitational insulator. Also, as my article explains, the initiating cause of the Flood must be in the ocean, not the sky. This is consistent with what Linda says above.
17 hours ago ·

 Like..Matt SIngleton Linda, yes we agree that most of the water would come from a subterranean source.

But there are other issues like the fact that our current world doesn't have the capacity to house a world filled with giant animals.

And more importantly

While the science debate is interesting.

The truth is rooted first in revelation, and only then can we evaluate the evidence.

Science is always changing because there always factors that we either for get or never knew in the first place.

I didn't become a young earth creationist and then decided to make a case for the bible to be young earth. I went the other way around.

Therefore if the biblical case is convincing then , I am sure that eventually evidence will be found supporting it.

Dr. Sarfati if you admit that pagan cultures were correct in sighting the fact of a worldwide flood and the existence of dragons, why would the sources not be able to be correct about a canopy?

16 hours ago via mobile ·

Like..Matt SIngleton I cited russel Humphrey's tying the magnetic reversals to the flood.

So if there was an ice canopy, it shattering would be connected at least in some way. But the meteorite, which impacted the gulf of mexico and shattered the canopy would in my

Mind have started the chain reaction leading to reversals and plate tectonic shifts.

16 hours ago via mobile · Like..Jonathan David Sarfati The pagan cultures never connected the breakup of a crystalling stereoma to the Flood, and thought it was still there. Yes, Humphreys tied field reversals to the Flood, but not with a hypothetical ice canopy that miraculously survived the vacuum of space for 1,656 years.

14 hours ago · Like..Matt SIngleton I am making a commutative case.

Neither Humphreys not he pagan's are to agree with my conclusions, only the points in which they are cited.

Surely you have used evolutionist evidence at some point to reenforce your opinion.

12 hours ago via mobile · Like..Jonathan David Sarfati But this crystalline canopy fails on so many scientific grounds, and there is no biblical support for such a thing being the cause of the flood. There are much better models.

11 hours ago · Like..Matt SIngleton The theory as it postulated does not claim that the canopy was the source of all or even most the water. But it is in the bible.

Look at job 37:18

11 hours ago via mobile · Like..Jonathan David Sarfati Job was after the Flood, so this alleged canopy must be there, not collapsed. It also doesn't affect the problems that the magnetic theory has.

11 hours ago · Like..Matt SIngleton God "spread out the sky" during creation. God is chastising Job as with the rest of the discourse showing Job that he is the Sovereign ruler of all creation and that it is ludicrous to question His judgement since man is limited in his understanding, while God is limitless.

4 hours ago via mobile · Like..Linda Chartier Harris Actually Matt, God is not the one speaking in Job 37. The speaker there is Elihu, as introduced in the discourse in Job 36:1, and continuing to Job 37:24. God picks up the discourse at Job 38:1.

4 hours ago · Like..Matt SIngleton Sorry for that error Linda. However we should remember that it was Elihu who had the only counsel which was never corrected. Elihu is speaking the truth as he confesses....36 Elihu also proceeded, and said,



2 Suffer me a little, and I will shew thee that I have yet to speak on God's behalf.



3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker.



4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that is perfect in knowledge is with thee.

14 minutes ago · Like..

Let's put the canopy back up: a defense of the canopy theory

   In recent times the idea of a canopy over the earth in ancient times has been dismissed even by scientist who accept the genesis account of creation.  I was educated under a progressive old earth model and was uncomfortable with reconciling this view with scripture.  Not much later, I discovered the ministry of answers in Genesis and became a pupil of their writings.  I would then study the writings of Henry Morris Who held to a canopy theory and became more symopothetic. Since then I have come back to this issue.  Scientifically a vapor canopy has become a bit of a physics problem and most creationist left it there. Especially since plate tectonics experts like John Baumgardner have provided succesful flood geology models.  Then I started studying the teachings of Kent Hovind.  His "Hovind Theory" has impressed me and so I have done my own research as to the plausibility of this.  Although I am not sure if I would argue a pre-flood ice age. Only that there were huge ice meteor deposits prior to the Great Flood and probably still a post flood ice age.


What does the scripture say?
(note that I used John Gill the Geneva Bible since these men lived prior to the evolutionary theory.)

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
  "f) As the sea and rivers, from those waters that are in the clouds, which are upheld by Gods power, least they should overwhelm the world." "(g) That is, the region of the air, and all that is above us."1560 Geneva Bible: notes
 John Gill's Exposition of the Bible Genesis 1:6 "Genesis 1:6And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters On which the Spirit of God was sitting and moving, ( Genesis 1:2 ) part of which were formed into clouds, and drawn up into heaven by the force of the body of fire and light already produced; and the other part left on the earth, not yet gathered into one place, as afterwards: between these God ordered a "firmament to be", or an "expanse" F22; something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent, or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards called; see ( Psalms 104:2 ) ( Isaiah 40:22 ) ( 42:5 ) and by it is meant the air, as it is rendered by the Targum on ( Psalms 19:1 ) we call it the "firmament" from the F23 word which the Greek interpreter uses, because it is firm, lasting, and durable: and it has the name of an expanse from its wide extent, it reaching from the earth to the third heaven; the lower and thicker parts of it form the atmosphere in which we breathe; the higher and thinner parts of it, the air in which fowls fly, and the ether or sky in which the sun, moon, and stars are placed; for all these are said to be in the firmament or expanse, ( Genesis 1:17 Genesis 1:20 ) . These are the stories in the heavens the Scriptures speak of, ( Amos 9:6 ) and the air is divided by philosophers into higher, middle, and lower regions: and so the Targum of Jonathan places this firmament or expanse between the extremities of the heaven, and the waters of the ocean. The word in the Syriac language has the sense of binding and compressing F24; and so it is used in the Syriac version of ( Luke 6:38 ) and may denote the power of the air when formed in compressing the chaos, and dividing and separating the parts of it; and which it now has in compressing the earth, and the several parts that are in it, and by its compression preserves them and retains them in their proper places F25 and let it divide the waters from the waters; the waters under it from those above it, as it is explained in the next verse; of which more there. Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament heaven Including the starry and airy heavens: it has its name from its height in the Arabic language, it being above the earth, and reaching to the third heaven; though others take the word "shamaim" to be a compound of two words, "sham" and "maim", that is, there are waters, namely, in the clouds of heaven:"
  Now naturally Gill wants to assume that creation would be identical with his current reality so we see his references seemingly solid in natural while he attempts to explain this as clouds.  This was my original understanding as well.


Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
   Nottice that the waters are coming upon the earth as in coming down.


Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
   Let's remember that the rain came down 40 days and nights.  Not that they kept raining the whole time the earth was flooded.

Genesis 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
Genesis 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
   One could argue that the rain was most intense in the 7 days.

Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
  Nottice how all flesh died "that moved upon the earth" sea life and plant life is uncertain.

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
    A crystaline canopy is perfectly illustrated as a window.

Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
Note the waters did not return to the air.  Which is why there is so much of the continental plates that are currently under water.

8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. "(l) The order of nature destroyed by the flood, is restored by Gods promise."1560 Geneva Bible: notes Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, "(g) As though the great sea was but as a little baby in the hands of God to turn to and fro." 1560 Geneva Bible: notes 10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, 23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? 2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: (4) He sets against them the creation of heaven and earth by the word of God, which these men are willingly ignorant of. (b) Which appeared, when the waters were gathered together into one place. (5) Secondly he sets against them the universal flood, which was the destruction of the whole world. (c) For the waters returning into their former place, this world, that is to say, this beauty of the earth which we see, and all living creatures which live upon the earth, perished. 1560 Geneva Bible: notes Is it plausible?

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

¹⁸ Thou hast made an expanse with Him For the clouds -- strong as a hard mirror!" youngs literal translation.

It is obvious that there is a canopy implied here.

Historical Record and Interpretation

"After this, on the second day, He placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and determined that it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline firmament around it." (Josephus book 1, chapter 1. Written by Paul L. Maier)

What is unique about this statement is that Josephus was not a bible commentator.  Nor was he a 20thcentury fundamentalist creation scientist. Josephus is a first century Jew writing the history of the Jews!  He wrote this as a historical document with no knowledge of the creation evolution debate.  The early creationist were imagining a canopy of liquid water or vapor. Only recently have a small minority of the small minority of creation scientist entertained this idea. But he is not the only one...

"For the Spirit being one, and holding the place of light,(2) was between the water and the heaven, in order that the darkness might not in any way communicate with the heaven, which was nearer God, before God said, 'Let there be light.' The heaven, therefore, being like a dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod." Theophilus to Autolycus(or antioch) Book 2, Chapter 13 (theophilus was a 2nd century christian)

"The learned of Israel say, "The sphere stands firm, and the planets revolve"; the learned of the nations say, "The sphere moves, and the planets stand firm." The learned of Israel say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night above the firmament"; the learned of the nations say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night beneath the earth."Pesahim 94b from the Talmud


   Is this so scientifically impossible?  First of all science and empiricism is limited and flawed.  there are challenges to the model.  But there is scientific evidence which can back this model up.

The canopy could be upheld by the increased magnetic field
 a. reversals in the earths magnetic field can be traced to the flood
"A Creationist Theory for Reversals and Fluctuations
  The validity of the data required a new theory to explain them. In 1986 I suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth's core could produce rapid reversals of the field during and after the Genesis flood.[9] The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth's surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards.
  This "dynamic-decay" theory is a more general version of the free-decay theory, since it takes account of motions in the core fluid. Dynamic decay explains the main features of the data, especially several features evolutionists find puzzling. In 1988, startling new evidence was found for the most essential prediction of my theory--very rapid reversals;[10] and in 1990, I showed a specific physical mechanism for such reversals.[11]"
Dr. Russel Humphrey's the Earths magnetic field is young
b. the magnetic field would bring a protective environment
  "The sun is having hot flashes again. NASA reported that on June 7 a "dramatic solar flare" was flung out into space.1 Such flares release particles that can collide with earth's atmosphere and cause the phenomenon known as "northern lights." What protects life on earth from this very harmful stream of radiation?

   A flare sometimes results when superheated material in the sun gets twisted up by rotating physical and magnetic forces. And if solar activity is particularly violent, the flare can get pinched off and thrown outward in a "coronal mass ejection," or CME.2 Photons, electrons and protons are ejected into space, often in the direction of earth.
   NASA released clear images of the massive solar flare, and EarthSky reported, "The CME should deliver a glancing blow to Earth's magnetic field during the late hours of June 8 or June 9, 2011. High-latitude sky watchers should be alert for auroras—the beautiful northern lights—when the CME arrives."1 The lights are produced when solar material encounters earth's magnetic field.
  Some of the radiation released by solar flares is at the X-ray end of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is not healthy. But the magnetic field protects life on earth from this serious danger. If the field were not there, living creatures could not survive."Northern Lights Display Earth's Designed Protection

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
    So if the magnetic field currently provides protection and it was much more intense in the past.  We could imagine an environment free from the harmful effects of radiation.

c. hydrogen(the main component of water can be frozen and have metallic quallities.
  "This is the hydrogen scientists know best--the forms they have measured, modeled, and analyzed for decades. But there are other manifestations of hydrogen that, until recently, have eluded investigation. Place this simple element in extremes of temperature and pressure, and it will display a range of personalities that are surprising and profound.
   One of these other personalities, which is being investigated by NCSA physicist and Alliance Executive Committee member David Ceperley, is metallic hydrogen. Squeeze hydrogen at pressures 2 to 10 million times greater than normally found on Earth and this colorless, odorless, tasteless gas transforms into a metal. Conditions like this exist inside Jovian planets like Jupiter, where cold clouds of hydrogen gas turn to liquid metallic hydrogen under the pressure exerted by this gaseous giant. Extremes of temperature and pressure can exist on Earth--when hydrogen is ignited within some rocket engines, or during thermonuculear fusion.
  Researchers have known about the metallic state of hydrogen for more than 60 years--ever since quantum mechanics predicted the rules governing electrons. But they lacked the ability to make quantitative predictions of this state--the kind of knowledge that sheds light on the distribution of mass in Jovian-like objects and may lead to more efficient ways to achieve thermonuclear fusion. It is knowledge that determines hydrogen's equation of state, which Ceperley believes he is now "tantalizingly close" to providing."
The National Center for Super Computing Applications (NCSA)
  The would set the stage for an ice canopy upheld by electro magnetic energy.


Cold blooded dinosaurs would need an earth that had more heat in the environment.
   Titanaboa
"The size of the snake immediately raised questions about how it got to be that big, and what it needed to survive. The Cerrejón team concluded in 2009 that Titanoboa had to have lived in a climate with a mean ambient temperature between 86 and 93 degrees Fahrenheit, substantially higher than the hottest average for today’s tropical forests, which is 82 degrees."

"Titanoboa was a coldblooded animal whose body temperature depended on that of its habitat. Reptiles can grow bigger in warmer climates, where they can absorb enough energy to maintain a necessary metabolic rate. That’s why insects, reptiles and amphibians tend to be larger in the tropics than in the temperate zone. In this view, extraordinary heat is what made the snake a titan. The same principle would explain why ancient turtles and lungfish of Cerrejón were, like Titanoboa, much larger than their modern relatives.
The relationship between coldblooded body mass and ambient temperature was the subject of a 2005 study by researchers at the Nuclear Physics Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia. By examining species sizes at a variety of different ambient temperatures, Anastassia Makarieva and colleagues calculated how fossils could be used to estimate temperatures in the distant past."
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Titanoboa-the-40-Foot-Long-Snake-Was-Found.html#ixzz2B52GpyOm Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Titanoboa-the-40-Foot-Long-Snake-Was-Found.html#ixzz2B4zC2L4G
  For a while, it has been argued that dinosaurs being reptiles are cold-blooded and that cold blooded giant animals would need a much warmer climate in order to survive.  Evolutionist/uniformitarians then started to fight this by stating that Dinosaurs may have been warm blooded or that there size would better preserve heat etc.    Since we do not have any live dinosaurs in captivity we can only guess.  But here we have Giant fossils of a Boa as well in the same site giant fossils of turtles and crocodiles.  Since we have turtles and crocodiles today, we know that they are cold blooded.  So we have environments of cold blooded animals, alongside dinosaurs (which are likely cold blooded as well) which demand that the earth be of a warmer climate in the past.
  The crystalline canopy would provide such warmth.



Secular scientists have believed a prehistoric asteroid hit the for sometime.
Asteroid Killed Off the Dinosaurs, Says International Scientific Panel

ScienceDaily (Mar. 4, 2010) — The Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction, which wiped out the dinosaurs and more than half of species on Earth, was caused by an asteroid colliding with Earth and not massive volcanic activity, according to a comprehensive review of all the available evidence, published in the journal Science.

  A panel of 41 international experts, including UK researchers from Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge, University College London and the Open University, reviewed 20 years' worth of research to determine the cause of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) extinction, which happened around 65 million years ago. The extinction wiped out more than half of all species on the planet, including the dinosaurs, bird-like pterosaurs and large marine reptiles, clearing the way for mammals to become the dominant species on Earth.   The new review of the evidence shows that the extinction was caused by a massive asteroid slamming into Earth at Chicxulub (pronounced chick-shoo-loob) in Mexico. The asteroid, which was around 15 kilometres wide, is believed to have hit Earth with a force one billion times more powerful than the atomic bomb at Hiroshima. It would have blasted material at high velocity into the atmosphere, triggering a chain of events that caused a global winter, wiping out much of life on Earth in a matter of days.
  Scientists have previously argued about whether the extinction was caused by the asteroid or by volcanic activity in the Deccan Traps in India, where there were a series of super volcanic eruptions that lasted approximately 1.5 million years. These eruptions spewed 1,100,000 km3 of basalt lava across the Deccan Traps, which would have been enough to fill the Black Sea twice, and were thought to have caused a cooling of the atmosphere and acid rain on a global scale.
  In the new study, scientists analysed the work of palaeontologists, geochemists, climate modellers, geophysicists and sedimentologists who have been collecting evidence about the KT extinction over the last 20 years. Geological records show that the event that triggered the extinction destroyed marine and land ecosystems rapidly, according to the researchers, who conclude that the Chicxulub asteroid impact is the only plausible explanation for this.
  Despite evidence for relatively active volcanism in Deccan Traps at the time, marine and land ecosystems showed only minor changes within the 500,000 years before the time of the KT extinction. Furthermore, computer models and observational data suggest that the release of gases such as sulphur into the atmosphere after each volcanic eruption in the Deccan Traps would have had a short lived effect on the planet. These would not cause enough damage to create a rapid mass extinction of land and marine species.
  Dr Joanna Morgan, co-author of the review from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, said: "We now have great confidence that an asteroid was the cause of the KT extinction. This triggered large-scale fires, earthquakes measuring more than 10 on the Richter scale, and continental landslides, which created tsunamis. However, the final nail in the coffin for the dinosaurs happened when blasted material was ejected at high velocity into the atmosphere. This shrouded the planet in darkness and caused a global winter, killing off many species that couldn't adapt to this hellish environment."
  Dr Gareth Collins, Natural Environment Research Council Fellow and another co-author from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, added: "The asteroid was about the size of the Isle of Wight and hit Earth 20 times faster than a speeding bullet. The explosion of hot rock and gas would have looked like a huge ball of fire on the horizon, grilling any living creature in the immediate vicinity that couldn't find shelter. Ironically, while this hellish day signalled the end of the 160 million year reign of the dinosaurs, it turned out to be a great day for mammals, who had lived in the shadow of the dinosaurs prior to this event. The KT extinction was a pivotal moment in Earth's history, which ultimately paved the way for humans to become the dominant species on Earth."
  In the review, the panel sifted through past studies to analyse the evidence that linked the asteroid impact and volcanic activity with the KT extinction. One key piece of evidence was the abundance of iridium in geological samples around the world from the time of the extinction. Iridium is very rare in Earth's crust and very common in asteroids. Immediately after the iridium layer, there is a dramatic decline in fossil abundance and species, indicating that the KT extinction followed very soon after the asteroid hit.
  Another direct link between the asteroid impact and the extinction is evidence of 'shocked' quartz in geological records. Quartz is shocked when hit very quickly by a massive force and these minerals are only found at nuclear explosion sites and at meteorite impacts sites. The team say that an abundance of shocked quartz in rock layers all around the world at the KT boundary lends further weight to their conclusions that a massive meteorite impact happened at the time of the mass extinction.
  The panel was able to discount previous studies that suggested that the Chicxulub impact occurred 300,000 years prior to the KT extinction. The researchers say that these studies had misinterpreted geological data that was gathered close to the Chicxulub impact site. This is because the rocks close to the impact zone underwent complex geological processes after the initial asteroid collision, which made it difficult to interpret the data correctly.

Things explained in the canopy theory large sized animals legions of frozen mammoths
"Such confounding enigmas, not only about the mammoth and the mammoth steppe fauna, but also about the ice age itself, have naturally produced many hypotheses. Early scientists produced a lot of confused writing. For example, Sir Henry Howorth,^7,12 who gathered copious observations from Siberian explorers that are considered fairly accurate, believed the mammoths met their demise in a continental-scale flood, but that this flood was not Noah’s Flood"


"The existence of carcasses with identifiable stomach remains and well-preserved bones and tusks has suggested a ‘quick-freeze’ to many. This has been reinforced by the research of the Birds Eye Frozen Foods Company, which calculated a sudden fall to below -100°C based on heat conduction.103" Michael Ooard The extinction of the woolly mammoth: was it a quick freeze?


 Michael Oard actually opposes the quick freeze theory due to the fact that many carcasses have decayed besides the frozen ones.  However in the Hovind theory, the iceage would have taken place prior to the flood.  due to impact from frozen asteroids upon the ice canopy.  The waters of the flood would have eroded many of the carcases before refreezing which would allow for the not as frozen carcases.
"Could the animals have lived in Siberia today during the relatively warm summer, perhaps migrating there from the south? The temperature likely would have been pleasant for them, but the environment deadly. Siberia today is in the permafrost zone where up to a metre of the surface melts in the summer. Water pools on the surface forming massive bogs and muskegs, making summer travel difficult, if not impossible, for man and beast.44,45 Tolmachoff 46 states that a few inches of this sticky mud makes the substrate practically impassable for a man, and that a foot or more would probably trap a mammoth.
Siberia may be lush with vegetation in the summer, but it is the wrong type. Although there are patches of grass, bog and muskeg vegetation predominates, and these are low in nutrition for grazers.47 The taiga forest vegetation south of the current tundra is also poorly digestible for grazers.48 Comparing living elephants to mammoths, the daily requirement for a woolly mammoth would have been about 200 to 300 kg of succulent vegetation49 and 130–190 litres of water! Vereshchagin50 flatly declares: ‘Neither mammoth nor bison could exist in the sort of tundra that exists there [in Siberia] today.’"
  So if Siberia were a warmer climate, then perhaps the ice was added to the environement when a group of frozen meteorites hit the earth shattering the ice canopy.
  
  So if there was a crystaline canopy,  a meteor shattered it.  The stellar ice particles would have been pulled by the powerful magnetic field to the north and south poles.  The impact would have started the earth to wabble as it rotated, thus causing seasons. The lack of metalic frozen hydrogen would have distorted the earths magnetic field triggoring the break down of the earth's tectonic plates.  This would have caused the continental plates to sink and the flood to cover the earth.  the New environment would have made things rough for man and animals.  men would not live so long.  The large animals would get smaller etc. etc


How do we understand the debate of canopy verses non-canopy creation scientist?
 It is my viewpoint that a canopy understanding of creation is a more biblical interpretation.  Also that a crystaline Canopy theory (as I have seen from Kent Hovind)  is the best current creation science model.

While I hold that the canopy theory is more biblical.  I do not find non-canopy young earth creationist to be false teachers, nor unbiblical.  It is a detail in the genesis account that does not have any strong doctrinal consequences.
  In terms of science, this is indeed a proof that creation science is indeed a science.  because science experiments and test theories and hypothesis.  We have now several flood geology models. (water clouds, water vapor, crystalline, plate tectonics, and arabic local flood) this shows that science is enchance by biblical christianity and not hindered.

Was Jesus an angel?

   Some such as those in the Jehovah's Witness community have come to the conclusion that christ was not the Lord God; but instead that He is none other than Michael the archangel.  Is this the case?


The Angel of the LORD
   Many ascribe the work of Christ in the Old Testament to the Angel of the Lord.  Could the angel of the Lord be michale the archangel?

Genesis16:11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
13 And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
  The Angel of the LORD is equivalent to God here in this passage. Since Michael is not God there is a distinction between the two.


to which of the angels?
Hebrews
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

  Here it is the clear teaching of scripture that jesus is not only superior to the angels, but is in fact worshipped by them.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
  Jesus is not just a messanger, He is the LORD!
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
2 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;


The LORD rebuke you!
Jude
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Here Michael recognises the Lord.  yet Jesus is in fact the Lord.


The spirit of Prophecy
Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
    Angels will not allow themselves to be worshipped, because jesus is LORD!

What the translators believed (authorized version) "KJV" Preface with notes

Epistle and Dedicatorie To the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith , &c. The translators of The Bible,wish Grace, Mercie, and Peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 [Notice that the Opening remarks give ascent to the Lord ship of Christ and the sovereignty of God. All the translators claimed faith in christ as Lord publically. The same can not be said for many of today's committees]
  Great and manifold were the blessings (most dread Soveraigne) which Almighty GOD, the Father of all Mercies, bestowed upon us the people of ENGLAND, when first he sent your Majesties Royall person to rule and raigne over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our ZION, that upon the setting of that bright Occidentall Starre Queene ELIZABETH of most happy memory, some thicke and palpable cloudes of darkenesse would so have overshadowed this land, that men should have bene in doubt which way they were to walke, and that it should hardly be knowen, who was to direct the unsetled State: the appearance of your MAJESTIE, as of the Sunne in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected, exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the government established in your HIGHNESSE, and your hopefull Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with Peace and tranquillitie, at home and abroad.
[We see here a case for God's Providence in having a King Who was tolerant of Christianity]
  But amongst all our Joyes, there was no one that more filled our hearts, then the blessed continuance of the Preaching of GODS sacred word amongst us, which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth, because the fruit thereof extendeth it selfe, not onely to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that Eternall happinesse which is above in Heaven.
 [This was a momentous occaision because the translators new this to be for the purpose of spreading God's Word abroad as it did. In fact there is not a book on earth more published than the authorized version of scripture. It even helped society in a secular way of helping literacy rates.]      Then, not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous predecessour of your HIGHNESSE did leave it; Nay, to goe forward with the confidence and resolution of a man in maintaining the trueth of CHRIST, and propagating it farre and neere, is that which hath so bound and firmely knit the hearts of all your MAJESTIES loyall and Religious people unto you, that your very Name is precious among them, their eye doeth behold you with comfort, and they blesse you in their hearts, as that sanctified person, who under GOD, is the immediate authour of their true happinesse. And this their contentment doeth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe that the zeale of your Majestie towards the house of GOD, doth not slacke or goe backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting it selfe abroad in the furthest parts of Christendome, by writing in defence of the Trueth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of Sinne, as will not be healed) and every day at home, by Religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of GOD, by hearing the word preached, by cherishing the teachers therof, by caring for the Church as a most tender and loving nourcing Father.
[The name King James is better known than any king in the history of England as a result of this book. We must also remember how England could have so easily succombed to being a catholic nation. nottice how england would grow to be the largest empire in the world as a result of this act?]  
  There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your MAJESTIE: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, then the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this Worke, which now with all humilitie we present unto your MAJESTIE. For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAJESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.
[Take nottice that these translators were chomping at the bit to compile such a work. This was not simply King James trying to force a Bible on People. this was a chance to provide people with the very Word of God in English. An authority which would be greater than the authority of any man. An authority which the common english man would now possess.]
{nottice again "That out of the original sacred tongues" These men believed that they had come upon the original manuscripts and that is why they needed a new translation. They also were not limited to a "handfull of manuscripts" either. They were comparing these manuscripts with 15 ancient bible translations so that they could properly evaluated the manuscripts.]
And now at last, by the Mercy of GOD, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hope that the Church of England shall reape good fruit thereby; we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAJESTIE, not onely as to our King and Soveraigne, but as to the principall moover and Author of the Worke. Humbly craving of your most Sacred Majestie, that since things of this quality have ever bene subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and Patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as your Highnesse is, whose allowance and acceptance of our Labours, shall more honour us and incourage us, then all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne us, because we are poore Instruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen unto the people, whom they desire still to keepe in ignorance and darknesse: or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by selfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvile; we may rest secure, supported within by the trueth and innocencie of a good conscience, having walked the wayes of simplicitie and integritie, as before the Lord; And sustained without, by the powerfull Protection of your Majesties grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endevours, against bitter censures, and uncharitable imputations.
[This was an act of worship. Yet by doing so they had mad themselves damnable heretics in the eyes of the roman catholic church. during this period the jesuits had attempted to assasinate King James at hampton court with a secret tunnel placing dynamite under james thrown. luckily the authorities caught them.]
The LORD of Heaven and earth blesse your Majestie with many and happy dayes, that as his Heavenly hand hath enriched your Highnesse with many singular, and extraordinary Graces; so you may be the wonder of the world in this later age, for happinesse and true felicitie, to the honour of that Great GOD, and the good of his Church, through JESUS CHRIST our Lord and onely Saviour.
 [Do you nottice that these men seemed to believe they were making history?]

The Translators To The Reader
  Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteeme, but yet findeth but cold intertainment in the world. It is welcommed with suspicion in stead of love, and with emulation in stead of thankes: and if there be any hole left for cavill to enter, (and cavill, if it doe not finde a hole, will make one) it is sure to bee misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience. For, was there ever any thing projected, that savoured any way of newnesse or renewing, but the same endured many a storme of gaine-saying, or opposition?
[These men like many biblescholars did not expect any fame for their work. For producing the most publish book in the word they were paid little.  Which is not the story for many modern translations.]
  A man would thinke that Civilitie, holesome Lawes, learning and eloquence, Synods, and Church-maintenance, (that we speake of no more things of this kinde) should be as safe as a Sanctuary, and ll out of shot, as they say, that no man would lift up the heele, no, nor dogge moove his tongue against the motioners of them. For by the first, we are distinguished from bruit-beasts led with sensualitie: By the second, we are bridled and restrained from outragious behaviour, and from doing of injuries, whether by fraud or by violence: By the third, we are enabled to informe and reforme others, by the light and feeling that we have attained unto our selves: Briefly, by the fourth being brought together to a parle face to face, we sooner compose our differences then by writings, which are endlesse: And lastly, that the Church be sufficiently provided for, is so agreeable to good reason and conscience, that those mothers are holden to be lesse cruell, that kill their children assoone as they are borne, then those noursing fathers and mothers (wheresoever they be) that withdraw from them who hang upon their breasts (and upon whose breasts againe themselves do hang to receive the Spirituall and sincere milke of the word) livelyhood and support fit for their estates. Thus it is apparent, that these things which we speake of, are of most necessary use, and therefore, that none, either without absurditie can speake against them, or without note of wickednesse can spurne against them.
[To me this is a stark difference from the absentee church father Billy Graham generation. Whereas we have a generation of one stop instant evangelism these men labored to provide young christians with the Word of God specifically for the purpose of discipleship]
  Yet for all that, the learned know that certaine worthy men have bene brought to untimely death for none other fault, but for seeking to reduce their Countrey-men to good order and discipline: and that in some Common-weales it was made a capitall crime, once to motion the making of a new Law for the abrogating of an old, though the same were most pernicious: And that certaine, which would be counted pillars of the State, and paternes of Vertue and Prudence, could not be brought for a long time to give way to good Letters and refined speech, but bare themselves as averse from them, as from rocks or boxes of poison: And fourthly, that hee was no babe, but a great clearke, that gave foorth (and in writing to remaine to posteritie) in passion peradventure, but yet he gave foorth, that hee had not seene any profit to come by any Synode, or meeting of the Clergie, but rather the contrary: And lastly, against Church-maintenance and allowance, in such sort, as the Embassadors and messengers of the great King of Kings should be furnished, it is not unknowen what a fiction or fable (so it is esteemed, and for no better by the reporter himselfe, though superstitious) was devised; Namely, that at such time as the professours and teachers of Christianitie in the Church of Rome, then a true Church, were liberally endowed, a voyce forsooth was heard from heaven, saying; Now is poison poured down into the Church, &c.
[These men Recognized the danger they were in and the suffering their spiritual brothers and sisters endured.  Rome was no longer a true christian church. King James who gave them authority to publish this translation was even attacked with a plot by the jesuits to assasinate him ny bombing the throne with dynamite.] 
Thus not only as oft as we speake, as one saith, but also as oft as we do any thing of note or consequence, we subject our selves to every ones censure, and happy is he that is least tossed upon tongues
[languages]
; for utterly to escape the snatch of them it is impossible. If any man conceit, that this is the lot and portion of the meaner sort onely, and that Princes are priviledged by their high estate, he is deceived. As the sword devoureth aswell one as the other, as it is in Samuel; nay as the great Commander charged his souldiers in a certaine battell, to strike at no part of the enemie, but at the face; And as the King of Syria commanded his chiefe Captaines to fight neither with small nor great, save onely against the King of Israel: so it is too true, that Envie striketh most spitefully at the fairest, and at the chiefest. David was a worthy Prince, and no man to be compared to him for his first deedes, and yet for as worthy an acte as ever he did (even for bringing backe the Arke of God in solemnitie) he was scorned and scoffed at by his owne wife. Solomon was greater then David, though not in vertue, yet in power: and by his power and wisdome he built a Temple to the LORD, such a one was the glory of the land of Israel, and the wonder of the whole world. But was that his magnificence liked of by all? We doubt of it.
[This is a  good virtue to be had.  You will never be loved by everyone.]

  Otherwise, why doe they lay it in his sonnes dish, and call unto him for ll easing of the burden, Make, say they, the grievous servitude of thy father, and his sore yoke, lighter. Belike he had charged them with some levies, and troubled them with some cariages; Hereupon they raise up a tragedie, and wish in their heart the Temple had never bene built. So hard a thing it is to please all, even when we please God best, and doe seeke to approve our selves to every ones conscience. If wee will descend to later times, wee shall finde many the like examples of such kind, or rather unkind acceptance. The first Romane Emperour did never doe a more pleasing deed to the learned, nor more profitable to posteritie, for conserving the record of times in true supputation; then when he corrected the Calender, and ordered the yeere according to the course of the Sunne: and yet this was imputed to him for noveltie, and arrogancie, and procured to him great obloquie. So the first Christened Emperour (at the leastwise that openly professed the faith himselfe, and allowed others to doe the like) for strengthening the Empire at his great charges, and providing for the Church, as he did, got for his labour the name Pupillus, as who would say, a wastefull Prince, that had neede of a Guardian, or overseer.
[The first christian emperor is constantine.]
So the best Christened Emperour, for the love that he bare unto peace, thereby to enrich both himselfe and his subjects, and because he did not seeke warre but find it, was judged to be no man at armes, (though in deed he excelled in feates of chivalrie, and shewed so much when he was provoked) and condemned for giving himselfe to his ease, and to his pleasure. To be short, the most learned Emperour of former times, (at the least, the greatest politician) what thanks had he for cutting off the superfluities of the lawes, and digesting them into some order and method? This, that he hath been blotted by some to bee an Epitomist, that is, one that extinguished worthy whole volumes, to bring his abridgements into request. This is the measure that hath been rendred to excellent Princes in former times, even, Cum benè facerent, malè audire, For their good deedes to be evill spoken of. Neither is there any likelihood, that envie and malignitie died, and were buried with the ancient. No, no, the reproofe of Moses taketh hold of most ages; You are risen up in your fathers stead, an increase of sinfull men.
[Here we see the practicality of Total depravity.  The Churches are subject to Sin and decay, How can they be the final Authority?]
  What is that that hath been done? that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the Sunne, saith the wiseman: and S. Steven, As your fathers did, so doe you. This, and more to this purpose, His Majestie that now reigneth (and long, and long may he reigne, and his offspring for ever, Himselfe and children, and childrens children alwayes) knew full well, according to the singular wisdome given unto him by God, and the rare learning and experience that he hath attained unto; namely that whosoever attempteth any thing for the publike (specially if it pertaine to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himselfe upon a stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himselfe headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharpe tongue. For he that medleth with mens Religion in any part, medleth with their custome, nay, with their freehold; and though they finde no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to heare of altering. Notwithstanding his Royall heart was not daunted or discouraged for this or that colour, but stood resolute, as a statue immoveable, and an anvile not easie to be beaten into plates, as one sayth; he knew who had chosen him to be a Souldier, or rather a Captaine, and being assured that the course which he intended made much for the glory of God, & the building up of his Church, he would not suffer it to be broken off for whatsoever speaches or practises. It doth certainely belong unto Kings, yea, it doth specially belong unto them, to have care of Religion, yea, to know it aright, yea, to professe it zealously, yea to promote it to the uttermost of their power.
[The KJV would become one of Rome's banned books and James risked His life for this great work.]
 This is their glory before all nations which meane well, and this will bring unto them a farre most excellent weight of glory in the day of the Lord Jesus. For the Scripture saith not in vaine, Them that honor me, I will honor, neither was it a vaine word that Eusebius delivered long agoe, that pietie towards God was the weapon, and the onely weapon that both preserved Constantines person, and avenged him of his enemies. [England became the most powerful empire in the World for the next 2 centuries. Coincidence?]
  But now what pietie without trueth? what trueth (what saving trueth) without the word of God? what word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. Joh. 5.39. Esa. 8.20. They are commended that searched & studied them. Act. 17.11. and 8.28, 29. They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to beleeve them. Mat. 22.29. Luk. 24.25. They can make us wise unto salvation. 2. Tim. 3.15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reforme us, if in heavines, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if colde, inflame us. Tolle, lege; Tolle, lege, Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures, (for unto them was the direction) it was said unto S. Augustine by a supernaturall voyce. Whatsoevar is in the Scriptures, beleeve me, saith the same S. Augustine, is high and divine; there is verily trueth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing and renewing of mens mindes, and truely so tempered, that every one may draw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if hee come to draw with a devout and pious minde, as true Religion requireth.
[The scriptures are not just seen as a story book or religious book.  But indeed the answer to societies social ills.]
 Thus S. Augustine. And S. Jerome: Ana scripturas, & amabit te sapientia &c. Love the Scriptures, and wisedome will love thee. And S. Cyrill against Julian; Even boyes that are bred up in the Scriptures, become most religious, &c. But what mention wee three or foure uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be beleeved or practised, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or foure sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy of the name of a Father, from Christs time downeward, hath likewise written not onely of the riches, but also of the perfection of the Scripture?
[This is a key issue.  The translators knew thescripture to be perfect.]
  I adore the fulnesse of the Scripture, saith Tertullian against Hermogenes. And againe, to Apelles an Heretike of the like stampe, he saith; I doe not admit that which thou bringest in (or concludest) of thine owne (head or store, de tuo) without Scripture. So Saint Justin Martyr before him; Wee must know by all meanes, saith hee, that it is not lawfull (or possible) to learne (any thing) of God or of right pietie, save onely out of the Prophets, who teach us by divine inspiration. So Saint Basill after Tertullian, It is a manifest falling away from the Faith, and a fault of presumption, either to reject any of those things that are written, or to bring in (upon the head of them, ) any of those things that are not written. Wee omit to cite to the same effect, S. Cyrill B. of Jerusalem in his 4. Cataches. Saint Jerome against Heludius, Saint Augustine in his 3. booke against the letters of Petilian, and in very many other places of his workes. Also we forebeare to descend to latter Fathers, because wee will not wearie the reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to bee so full and so perfect, how can wee excuse our selves of negligence, if we doe not studie them, of curiositie, if we be not content with them? Men talke much of , how many sweete and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philosphers stone, that it turneth copper into gold; of Cornu-copia, that it had all things necessary for foode in it; of Panaces the herbe, that it was good for all diseases; of Catholicon the drugge, that is in stead of all purges; of Vulcans armour, that is was an armour of proofe against all thrusts, and all blowes, &c. Well, that which they falsly or vainely attributed to these things for bodily good, wee may justly and with full measure ascribe unto the Scripture, for spirituall. It is not onely an armour, but also a whole armorie of weapons, both offensive, and defensive; whereby we may save our selves and put the enemie to flight. It is not an herbe, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring foorth fruit every moneth, and the fruit thereof is for meate, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oyle, which were for memorie only, or for a meales meate or two, but as it were a showre of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oyle vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a Panary of holesome foode, against fenowed traditions; a Physions-shop (Saint Basill calleth it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect of profitable lawes, against rebellious spirits; a treasurie of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountaine of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvaile? The originall thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men such as were sanctified from the wombe, and endewed with a principall portion of Gods spirit; the matter, veritie, pietie, puritie, uprightnesse; the forme, Gods word, Gods testimonie, Gods oracles, the word of trueth, the word of salvation, &c. the effects, light of understanding, stablenesse of persuasion, repentance from dead workes, newnesse of life, holinesse, peace, joy in the holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the studie thereof, fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortall, undefiled, and that never shall fade away:
[The translators are well aware of the Heavenly origins of scripture.  they are also well convicted of the fact that assurance of salvation is through the Gospel Romans 1:16, 1Peter 1:23-25]
Happie is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrise happie that meditateth in it day and night. But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shalbe a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancientest, not Greeke the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, that all of us in those tongues which wee doe not understand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew, (even S. Jerome himselfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperour of Constantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storme at it: so the Jewes long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion,
[Here is there well thought out case for translation in the vulgar tongue or "common language".  You may also nottice that their goal was to bring out the full meaning of the greek and hebrew text]
  Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed. While God would be knowen onely in Jacob, and have his Name great in Israel, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideons fleece onely, and all the earth besides was drie; then for one and the same people, which spake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrewe, one and the same originall in Hebrew was sufficient.
[a side note is that the translators imply that a translation needs one in the same original in Hebrew, as opposed to a dynamic translation of an imperfect text.]
But when the fulnesse of time drew neere, that the Sunne of righteousnesse, the Sonne of God should come into the world, whom God ordeined to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew onely, but also of the Greeke, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then loe, it pleased the Lord to stirre up the spirit of a Greeke Prince (Greeke for descent and language) even of Ptolome Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Booke of God out of Hebrew into Greeke. This is the translation of the Seventie Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jewes by vocall. For the Grecians being desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer bookes of worth to lye moulding in Kings Libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copie them out, and so they were dispersed and made common. Againe, the Greeke tongue was wellknowen and made familiar to most inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had made, as also by the Colonies, which thither they had sent. For the same causes also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Affrike too. Therefore the word of God being set foorth in Greeke, becommeth hereby like a candle set upon a candlesticke, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded foorth in the market place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to containe the Scriptures, both for the first Preachers of the Gospel to appeale unto for witnesse, and for the learners also of those times to make search and triall by.
[ This is an excellant arguement as to why God inspired the New Testament in the Greek]
It is certaine, that the Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had bene so sufficient for this worke as the Apostles or Apostolike men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translation to serve their owne turne, and therefore bearing witnesse to themselves, their witnesse not to be regarded. This may be supposed to bee some cause, why the Translation of the Seventie was allowed to passe for currant. Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Jewes. For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new Translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fift and a sixt edition the Authours wherof were not knowen. These with the Seventie made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seventie went away with the credit, and therefore not onely was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and excellencie thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth) but also was used by the Greeke fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries.
[Here we see that the Translators had examine the septuagint and found that it was a faulty translation as evidenced by Origen's hexapla.  So the translators were already aware of the alexandrine ability to produce faulty manuscripts.  Yet also the translators argue against the multiplicity of versions for one language as we see today with the modern translations.] 

Yea, Epiphanius above named doeth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperour enjoyning the Jewes his subjects to use specially the Translation of the Seventie, rendreth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to bee men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greeke Translations of the old Testament. There were also within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, translations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countreys of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latine, being made Provinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S. Augustine.) Againe they were not out of the Hebrew fountaine (wee speake of the Latine Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greeke streame, therefore the Greeke being not altogether cleare, the Latine derived from it must needs be muddie. This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversie, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountaines themselves; which hee performed with that evidence of great learning, judgement, industrie and faithfulnes, that he hath for ever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of speciall remembrance and thankefulnesse. Now though the Church were thus furnished with Greeke and Latine Translations, even before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in the Empire: (for the learned know that even in S. Jeroms time, the Consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnicks, and about the same time the greatest part of the Senate also) yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which themselves understood, Greeke and Latine, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) but also for the behoofe and edifying of the unlearned which hungred and thirsted after Righteousnesse, and had soules to be saved as well as they, they provided Translations into the vulgar for their Countreymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, heare CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Minister onely, but also by the written word translated. If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will serve the turne. First S. Jerome saith, Multarum gentiu linguis Scriptura antè translata, docet falsa esse quæ addita sunt, &c.i. The Scripture being translated before in the languages of many Nations, doth shew that those things that were added (by Lucian or Hesychius) are false. So S. Jerome in that place. The same Jerome elsewhere affirmeth that he, the time was, had set forth the translation of the Seventy, suæ linguæ hominibus.i. for his countreymen of Dalmatia. Which words not only Erasmus doth understand to purport, that S. Jerome translated the Scripture into the Dalmatian tongue, but also Sixtus Senensis, and Alphonsus à Castro (that we speake of no more) men not to be excepted against by them of Rome, doe ingenuously confesse as much. So, S. Chrysostome that lived in S. Hieromes time, giveth evidence with him: The doctrine of S. John (saith he) did not in such sort (as the Philosophers did) vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians. Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people, translated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned to be (true) Philosophers, he meaneth Christians. To this may be added Theodorit, as next unto him, both for antiquitie, and for learning. His words be these, Every Countrey that is under the Sunne, is full of these wordes (of the Apostles and Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue) is turned not onely into the Language of the Grecians, but also of the Romanes, and Egyptians, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sauromatians, and briefly into all the Languages that any Nation useth. So he. In like maner, Ulpilas is reported by Paulus Diaconus and Isidor (and before them by Sozomen) to have translated the Scriptures into the Gothicke tongue: John Bishop of Sivil by Vasseus, to have turned them into Arabicke, about the yeere of our Lord 717: Beda by Cistertiensis, to have turned a great part of them into Saxon: Efnard by Trithemius, to have abridged the French Psalter, as Beda had done the Hebrew, about the yeere 800: King Alured by the said Cistertiensis, to have turned the Psalter into Saxon: Methodius by Aventinus (printed at Ingolstad) to have turned the Scriptures into ll Sclavonian: Valdo, Bishop of Frising by Beatus Rhenanus, to have caused about that time, the Gospels to be translated into Dutch-rithme, yet extant in the Library of Corbinian: Valdus, by divers to have turned them himselfe, or to have gotten them turned into French, about the yeere 1160: Charles the 5. of that name, surnamed The wise, to have caused them to be turned into French, about 200. yeeres after Valdus his time, of which translation there be many copies yet extant, as witnesseth Beroaldus. Much about that time, even in our King Richard the seconds dayes, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seene with divers, translated as it is very probable, in that age. So the Syrian translation of the New Testament is in most learned mens Libraries, of Widminstadius his setting forth, and the Psalter in Arabicke is with many, of Augustinus Nebiensis setting foorth. So Postel affirmeth, that in his travaile he saw the Gospels in the Ethiopian tongue; And Ambrose Thesius alleageth the Psalter of the Indians, which he testifieth to have bene set forth by Potken in Syrian characters. So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother-tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England, or by the Lord Radevil in Polonie, or by the Lord Ungnadius in the Emperours dominion, but hath bene thought upon, and put in practise of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grown in mens hearts the sooner, and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalme, As we have heard, so we have seene.
[We see the vast array of textual criticism by the translators. Can we be so rash as to judgethem ignorant of alexandrine readings?]
Now the Church of Rome would seeme at the length to beare a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a Licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the 8. that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the fourth. So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugæ Scripturarum, as Tertullian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set foorth by their owne sworne men, no not with the Licence of their owne Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills.(The Douay Rheims)
 This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touch-stone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactour, lest his deedes should be reproved: neither is it the plaine dealing Merchant that is unwilling to have the waights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and returne to translation. Many mens mouths have bene open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and aske what may be the reason, what the necessitie of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread bene mingled with leaven, her silver with drosse, her wine with water, her milke with lime? (Lacte gypsum malè miscetur, saith S. Ireney,) We hoped that we had bene in the right way, that we had had the Oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complaine, yet that we had none. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but winde in it? Hath the bread bene delivered by the fathers of the Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certaine brethren. Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mocke, as we heare, both at the worke and workemen, saying; What doe these weake Jewes, &c. will they make the stones whole againe out of the heapes of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a foxe goe up, he shall even breake downe their stony wall. Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholicks (meaning Popish Romanists) alwayes goe in jeopardie, for refusing to goe to heare it?
[The Roman Catholic arguement is that the use of extra translations disproves sola scriptura]
Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholicks are fittest to doe it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabulá. Wee will answere them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Jerome, Damnamus veteres? Minimè, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possumus laboramus. That is, Doe we condemne the ancient? In no case: but after the endevours of them that were before us, wee take the best paines we can in the house of God. As if hee said, Being provoked by the example of the learned that lived before my time, I have thought it my duetie, to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any measure to Gods Church, lest I should seeme to have laboured in them in vaine, and lest I should be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) above that which was in them. Thus S. Jerome may be thought to speake. And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. The Judgement of Aristotle is worthy and well knowen: If Timotheus had not bene, we had not had much sweet musicke; but if Phrynis (Timotheus his master) had not beene, wee had not had Timotheus. Therefore blessed be they, and most honoured be their name, that breake the ice, and glueth onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of soules. Now what can bee more availeable thereto, then to deliever Gods booke unto Gods people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountaine that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolomee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jewes, as witnesseth Epiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith; A man had rather be with his dog then with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him.) Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. The vintage of Abiezer, that strake the stroake: yet the gleaning of grapes of Ephraim was not to be despised. See Judges 8. verse 2. Joash the king of Israel did not satisfie himselfe, till he had smitten the ground three times; and yet hee offended the Prophet, for giving over then. Aquila, of whom wee spake before, translated the Bible as carefully, and as skilfully as he could; and yet he thought good to goe over it againe, and then it got the credit with the Jewes, to be called , that is accuratly done, as Saint Jerome witnesseth. How many bookes of profane learning have bene gone over againe and againe, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same booke of Aristotles Ethikes, there are extant not so few as sixe or seven severall translations. Now if this cost may bee bestowed upon the goord, which affordeth us a little shade, and which to day flourisheth, but to morrow is cut downe; what may we bestow, nay what ought we not to bestow upon the Vine, the fruite whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stemme whereof abideth for ever? And this is the word of God, which we translate.
[There is nothing wrong with correcting errors.  They do not do this to disrespect their predecessors. Only they honor what good they did and try to move on to sothing better.]
 What is the chaffe to the wheat, saith the Lord? Tanti vitreum, quanti verum margaritum (saith Tertullian,) if a toy of glasse be of that rekoning with us, how ought wee to value the true pearle? Therefore let no mans eye be evill, because his Majesties is good; neither let any be grieved, that wee have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spirituall wealth of Israel (let Sanballats and Tobiahs doe so, which therefore doe beare their just reproofe) but let us rather blesse God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place.
[We must covet the truth in search of the best manuscript.]
And what can the King command to bee done, that will bring him more true honour then this? and wherein could they that have beene set a worke, approve their duetie to the King, yea their obedience to God, and love to his Saints more, then by yeelding their service, and all that is within them, for the furnishing of the worke? But besides all this, they were the principall motives of it, and therefore ought least to quarrell it: for the very Historicall trueth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritanes, at this Majesties comming to this Crowne, the Conference at Hampton Court having bene appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion booke, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation.
[Note that the pupose of KJV was pinpoint accuracy.They already had a sloppy translation of the Bible.]
 And although this was judged to be but a very poore and emptie shift; yet even hereupon did his Majestie beginne to bethinke himselfe of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfie our scrupulous Brethren. Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romanistes therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burne the Word translated, did no lesse then despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had beene burnt by the Galles, they fell soone to builde it againe: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had bene most sightly and convenient; was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good Patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezrah, and the prophesie of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple build by Zerubbabel after the returne from Babylon, was by no meanes to bee compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembred the former, wept when they considered the latter) notwithstanding, might this later either have bene abhorred and forsaken by the Jewes, or prophaned by the Greekes? The like wee are to thinke of Translations. The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the Authours of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marveile what divinitie taught them so. Wee are sure Tertullian was of another minde: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Doe we trie mens faith by their persons? we should trie their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of an other minde: for he lighting upon certaine rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his owne booke, with giving commendation to them so farre foorth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seene in S. Augustines third booke De doctrinâ Christianâ. To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred yeeres, were of an other minde: for they were so farre from treading under foote, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselite, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretikes, that they joyned them together with the Hebrew Originall, and the Translation of the Seventie (as hath bene before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.
[Here they make the solid case that the Roman Catholic church had no right or business burning translations of the scripture, even if inaccurate.]
But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already. Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Saint Augustine was not afraide to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sonnes of the Trueth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our owne credit, yea, and upon other mens too, if either be any way an hinderance to it. This to the cause: then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought to bee most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not onely of their Service bookes, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of their Latine Translation? The Service booke supposed to be made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in speciall use and request: but Pope Hadrian calling a Councill with the ayde of Charles the Emperour, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the Service-booke of Saint Gregorie universally to be used. Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this meanes to be in credit, but doeth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Romane Service was of two fashions, the New fashion, and the Old, (the one used in one Church, the other in another) as is to bee seene in Pamelius a Romanist, his Preface, before Micrologus. The same Pamelius reporteth out of Radulphus de Rivo, that about the yeere of our Lord, 1277. Pope Nicolas the third removed out of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient bookes (of Service) and brought into use the Missals of the Friers Minorites, and commaunded them to bee observed there; insomuch that about an hundred yeeres after, when the above named Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the bookes to be new, (of the new stampe.) Neither was there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times onely, but also of late: Pius Quintus himselfe confesseth, that every Bishopricke almost had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which others had: which moved him to abolish all other Breviaries, though never so ancient, and priviledged and published by Bishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratifie that onely which was of his owne setting foorth, in the yeere 1568. Now, when the father of their Church, who gladly would heale the soare of the daughter of his people softly and sleightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their oddes and jarring; we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformitie. But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem major parcas insane minori: they that are lesse sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others. If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answere peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, then as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the trueth: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftner. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the tenth allowed Erasmus Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolike Letter & Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnin to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the worke? Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrewes, that if the former Law and Testament had bene sufficient, there had beene no need of the latter: so we may say, that if the olde vulgar had bene at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges bene undergone, about framing of a new.
[Here they argue against the catholic argument against thre making corrections to previous flaws.  If the Catholic church can do this themselves then why not?]
If they say, it was one Popes private opinion, and that he consulted onely himselfe; then wee are able to goe further with them, and to averre, that more of their chiefe men of all sorts, even their owne Trent-champions Paiva & Vega, and their owne Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their owne Cardinall Thomas à Vio Caietan, doe either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other mens making, or note the vulgar Interpretor for halting; none of them feare to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an uniforme tenour of text and judgement about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we wil yet come neerer the quicke: doth not their Paris-edition differ from the Louaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authoritie? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confesse, that certaine Catholikes (he meaneth certainte of his owne side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latine, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertaine and manifold a varietie of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seeme to be left certaine and firme in them, &c? Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordaine by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsell and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latine edition of the olde and new Testament, which the Councill of Trent would have to be authenticke, is the same without controversie which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican?
[the RCC has done the same thing in regards to translations.]
Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the eight his immediate successour, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them waightie and materiall) and yet this must be authenticke by all meanes. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord JESUS CHRIST with Yea and Nay, if this be not? Againe, what is sweet harmonie and consent, if this be? Therfore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great King, before he talked of the dissentions among the Grecians, to compose his domesticke broiles (for at that time his Queene and his sonne and heire were at deadly fuide with him) so all the while that our adversaries doe make so many and so various editions themselves, and doe jarre so much about the worth and authoritie of them, they can with no show of equitie challenge us for changing and correcting. But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in briefe what wee proposed to our selves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survay of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke.
[So here they endeaver make a superior text "our marke"]
To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other mens eyes then in their owne, and that sought the truth rather then their own praise. Againe, they came or were thought to come to the worke, not exercendi causâ (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learne: For the chiefe overseer and under his Majestie, to whom not onely we, but also our whole Church was much bound, knew by his wisedome, which thing also Nazianzen taught so long agoe, that it is a preposterous order to teach first and to learne after, yea that to learne and practise together, is neither commendable for the workeman, nor safe for the worke. Therefore such were thought upon, as could say modestly with Saint Jerome, Et Hebruæum Sermonem ex parte didicimus, & in Latino penè ab ipsis incunabulis &c. detriti sumus. Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latine wee have beene exercised almost from our verie cradle. S. Jerome maketh no mention of the Greeke tongue, wherein yet hee did excell, because hee translated not the old Testament out of Greeke, but out of Hebrewe. And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their owne knowledge, or of their sharpenesse of wit, or deepenesse of judgement, as it were in an arme of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting: they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that S. Augustine did; O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them. In this confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you aske what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive branches emptie themselves into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or originall tongues; Saint Jerome, fountaines. The same Saint Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles. Neither did we run over the worke with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72. dayes; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it againe, having once done it, like S. Jerome, if that be true which himselfe reporteth, that he could no sooner write any thing, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not have leave to mend it: neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helpes, as it is written of Origen, that hee was the first in a maner, that put his hand to write Commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marveile, if he overshot himselfe many times.
[So it appears obvious that the position of the authors was that the former translations were rush and hrried or inferior translations.  That the Hebrew which we know as the masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Byzantine Greek texts which they had used were naturally known as the authority for Bible translation.  They report to us of the inferiority of Origen. What sticks out about this is the fact that we get the earliest copies of the LXX from codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which of course contain the alexandrine greek Text in these 2 specific volumes.  So it is obvious they are saying that Origen's scholarship was inferior and it is safe to affirm the same problem in the New Testament as was found in the Old.]
None of these things: the worke hath not bene hudled up in 72. dayes, but hath cost the workemen, as light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seven times seventie two dayes and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to bee speeded with maturitie: for in a businesse of moment a man feareth not the blame of convenient slacknesse. Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to revise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anvill that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.
[Here we see in the superiority of the AV/KJV not only were the translators using a text based upon  about dozen master unctials supported by 5,000 manuscripts, but in fact they had the ancient translations to provide witnesses and text criticism and provide every alternative text, and they did this for several years.] 
Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concerne Faith, hope, and Charitie. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine.
[Here they make mention of the providence of God on the subject of manuscript differences. So they are open about their faith that God was involved in this process.  As a result of the divergence of these manuscripts the argument is made plain that one party could not have invented the Bible.  But also that the perfect text was a duty for the faithful. So the less faithful party would then not be inclined to have a perfect text.  Of course they would not have seen Origen or the papist to have sound orthodoxy.  So there text can be assumed corrupted.] 
There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.
[here we see them talk about uncertainty, But take nottice that this is all in the area of translation.  You don't see doubt over the Greek and Hebrew text.]
We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their hie Priest had all lawes shut up in his brest, as Paul the second bragged, and that he were as free from errour by speciall priviledge, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were an other matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have bene a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he prooveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace. An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way.
[This would contradict Gail Riplingers view that this translation is inspired in it's spelling (the british style)]
Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie. But, that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveiling; if one where Thinke, never Suppose; if one where Paine, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to savour more of curiositie then wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables?
[The style of the translators is to preserve previous meanings so that we do not loose the force of a certain message for english speaking churches of today.  This point is lost on modern translations.  Liberals use the New translations when they speak of a deistic heretage in western culture. because we have forgotten what me old phrases meant and are not aware of the power of Biblical authoirty in western culture.]
why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the Primitive time shewed himselfe greatly moved, that one of the newfanglenes called , though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth, that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had beene used) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, wee might justly feare hard censure, if generally wee should make verball and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequall dealing towards a great number of good English wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happie that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: so if wee should say, as it were, unto certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, wee might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partiall in our selves and judges of evill thoughts. Adde hereunto, that nicenesse in wordes was alwayes counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be superstitious, may use the same libertie in our English versions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or store that he hath given us.
[ And yet there is also a balance struck in the since that they free themselves from poor translations]
 Lastly, wee have on the one side avoided the scrupulositie of the Puritanes, who leave the olde Ecclesticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation in stead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscuritie of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sence, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may bee kept from being understood.
[It would have been my preference if they started over on words like baptism and church since this has mislead millions and slowed down progress towards a New Testament Church though I understand it would have cost this translation the influence which it obtained.]
But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar. Many other things we might give thee warning of (gentle Reader) if wee had not exceeded the measure of a Preface alreadie. It remaineth, that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further then we can aske or thinke. Hee removeth the scales from our eyes, the vaile from our hearts, opening our wits that wee may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end.
[Judge for yourselves, were these men particularly spirit filled and Godly in their understanding?]
Ye are brought unto fountaines of living water which yee digged not; doe not cast earth into them with the Philistines, neither preferre broken pits before them with the wicked Jewes. Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receive not so great things in vaine, O despise not so great salvation! Be not like swine to treade under foote so precious things, neither yet like dogs to teare and abuse holy things. Say not to our Saviour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts; neither yet with Esau sell your birthright for a messe of potage. If light be come into the world, love not darknesse more then light; if foode, if clothing be offered, goe not naked, starve not your selves. Remember the advise of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great faire, and to seeke to make markets afterwards: also the encouragement of S. Chrysostome, It is altogether impossible, that he that is sober (and watchfull) should at any time be neglected: Lastly, the admonition and menacing of S. Augustine, They that despise Gods will inviting them, shal feele Gods will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessednes in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to reade it; when hee stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answere, Here am I; here wee are to doe thy will, O God. The Lord worke a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all prayse and thankesgiving. Amen.