Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1904-07-07
ST. JOHN REPLIES
To Mr.. Griffith's Infidel Ar.
ticles and Answers Some
of His Absurd aud Fool
ish Questions.

Ireply to MIR. Gritfith's last as follows:
l. gave Luke's own Greek words
and translated them correctly and
plainly according to their meaning, et-
ymology, syntax, derivation and usus
loquendi, i. e., their proper common us
age, and they thus proved that Luke
wrote that Joseph, the reputed father of
Jesus, was only the son-in-law Of He'll,
Mr. Gritfith's King James and Revised
versions, and his man-made church to
the contrary Notwithstanding.
No matter, If man-made church,
which was made by an uninspired man,
who was unauthorized TO make it and
who made it over thousand years af-
ter Christ built bis church" in Jerus-
salem, does say that the King James
version is correct translation, that
does not prove 1t to be correct, The on.
ly way for Mr., q. to prove it is correct
is for him to prove that all its English
words mean exactly what all the orig
inal Hebrew and GreRk words originally
meant.
For him to say that he supposes this
man-made church has taught him the
truth avails nothing especially when
he himself says she helped to make the
revised version, as that act itself Of
hers gave the lie to what he says she
taught him for 70 years, for it said she
knew the old version was not correct.
2. When Mr. q, asserts that all the
churches in Europe and America had
learned men to help make the Revised
Version, he contradicts historical facts
for | assert that the church" which
Christ built did not have a single man
on, neither the board of King James
translators nor on those of the Revised
Version. Both were made by uninspir-
ed men who never did belong to Christ's
church in all their lives, hence their
many stakes in both versions
3, But when Mr.. G. says The new
version knocks He'll out of the Bible
| he states a glaring untruth for it in
Matt. 5, %, 30, 80: 10, 2S: is, 9; %: 10, 3d.:
Mark 9: 43, As, AZ: Luke ~: and James
8: 6, does retain the word Hell" where
it was so translated from the Greek
work, "Gehenna," but where transla-
| ted from the Greek word "Hades, they
transferred it to the English without
translatlng, and means hell and tells
if fully translated where 1t is, while
Gehenna expresses the idea of He'll 5
perpetual fire. So if Mr.. &. will, with
the Revised Version before his eyes, 80
glaringly misrepresent IT, no wonder he
Will mlsrepresent Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John.
4. No, Mr.. g., Mark and Luke were
not present as eye witnesses at the
the crucifixion and resurrection of
Christ as you wrongly say for following
reasons: ~ They did not belong to the
twelve apostles, as any one can soc by
reading 10th chapter of Matthew in
which all the names of the twelve APP
ostes occur, bat Mark and Luke's do
not occur. (2) Luke himself in LIST
chapter, verses l and 2, shows he was
not an eye witness, but got his inform
alton second hand, and so did Mark ac-
cording To history. Hence their seem
ing contradictions to Matthew and John
as they were only evangelists and not
either Apostles or Prophets, as only
Apostles and Prophets had Gods word
revealed to them. (See Eph, 3: 5.) A
great wonder To me they did not make
more mistakes, as they got all their in
formation second hand. But Mark l6:
and Luke "a: DO not contradict Is you
say, for Luke only thought he heard OF
one more than Mark did, and Luke
does not say that they had not been sit.
ting down, neither does Mark say his
man did not get up and stand up. II
either had said such a thing why then
you might say they cOntradlcted each
other, otherwise not Mark does not
deny what Luke says, and so there is
no real contradiction. Even eye and eaI
witnesses in all our courts will tell oi
things which they saw or heard, which
others did not see or hear, and these
discrepancies impress oWr courts that
each is telling the truth as be saw and
heard it, but where all the witnesses
saw and heard identicaLly the same
things and tell them exactly the same
way they alwaysimpress the court thai
they have been coached to tell lies a,
their tales are manifestly made up
to bolster up lie. And so you NIGH
think of Mark and Luke, if their story
was made up" as are all stories of all
witnesses, when every word or all the
witnesses tally in all points.
5. For the following reasons | know
Matthew and John do not contradict
each other as you wrongly say: lst
Matthew does not say that there wa,
but one and only one angel sitting
there, which he would have to have
done in order to have contradicted JohT
and the angel OF whom ne speaks was
evidently sitting at one end OF the Sc
pulcher and this corresponds with John
for be has an angel sitting there anC
one at the other end: and Matthew doei
not contradict John at all, neither does
John contradict Matthew, and then jus
simply and then Just simply adds one
! more to Matthews angel without il
any wise contradicting him. 2nd. His
tory says that the other writer's showed
their books to John and asked him Il
they we're correct, and John said the,
we're in the main but that they had lef
out some things, whereupOn they be
sought him to write his gospel and sup
E ply their omissions, and after he did 3,
J they all joined with him and said, wv
, know that his testimony is true" Johl
81; "a 3rd, Christ did not promise
the Apostles that the Holy Ghos