top of page

The S of Mark 1:12

And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness, Mark 1:12.

For those of you who have read the post Studying Spirits and the three March 8 posts on Genesis 6:3, you will be interested to know that in Mark 1:12 the Oxford Text reversed its habit of taking small "s"s and making them large. In Mark 1:12 they took a capital "S" and made it lower case.

There are still far too many people who can't see a difference. Did Jesus Christ really have his own personal spirit, or did he just share the Holy Spirit with the Father as the Jesus Only heresy claims? Those people claim that there are not really three members of the Godhead. For a proof they say that both Jesus and the Father had the same Spirit. Since every person needs to have his own spirit, they reason that Jesus and the Father are in essence the same person.

Fortunately for us, the Cambridge Text of the King James Bible as it stood between c1920 and 1985 destroys that thesis. By keeping every "s" exactly as it stands in that text, the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated to have his own spirit which is eternal. He had it in Genesis 6:3 which is proof in itself that Jesus is the Lord, and he had it in the seven times that his spirit is mentioned in the gospels.

When the Pure Cambridge Text depicts an upper case Spirit, it always does so to highlight an inner working of God as a person other than the person of Jesus Christ. If you have never done the study suggested in the post Studying Spirits, that may come across as nonsense to you. If you have done the study or have begun the study, no doubt you have begun to see the vexation of having capitalizations mixed up. It dulls the sword.

A generation of King James Bible believers has been blinded to the importance of capitalized Spirit versus lower case spirit by Peter Ruckman's insistence that it didn't matter. I myself never heard or read him make that statement, but I have had more than one person shut off anything that I had to say on the matter, by assuring me that he did indeed insist that whether a spirit was upper case or lower case didn't matter. I have had an easier time getting Roman Catholics to question a papal edict than I have in getting those people to consider the plain facts of scripture.

From what I remember of Peter Ruckman, he would have been ashamed of their attitude. I once listened to Public Radio (hey I was bored) interview a scientist who had discovered the purpose of some minute particle in DNA. It appeared to be a ground breaking discovery. When he was asked what all of the other stuff in DNA was, he replied that it was just garbage left over from evolution. In other words, what he did not understand didn't matter. Many King James Bible (so called believers) take the same attitude. They spend all of their time having hissy fits over changes the ESV or NIV make and never really explore their own bible. It just doesn't seem to matter to them that there are competing texts of the King James Bible. A perfect bible requires a perfect text. Duh!

Two different texts is proof positive that one or both is in error. Silly little evangelicals skip along in their short shorts and effeminate music and never care that the bibles they carry differ one from another. It simply isn't important to them. We have a generation of fundamentalists who wear big boy pants and listen to the old hymns but can't quite grasp that anything less than 100% pure is not perfect.

To understand the difference in Spirit and spirit look at Acts 20:22; And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there. Is it the Holy Spirit that binds Paul here or his own spirit? That is answered in Acts 21:4; And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem. If there is no difference in upper and lower case spirits, then we have a contradiction here or at least a puzzle.

There is a difference in the upper and lower case spirit or Spirit in every single instance of the Pure Cambridge Text of the King James Bible. The Oxford Text (such as the Scofield Reference Bible uses) dating to 1893-94, happily incorporates some of Scrivener's worst errors and proves itself sloppy in its uses of capitalizations and in other errors. There is a difference in whether Jesus was driven by his own spirit to be tempted, or if the Spirit of God drove him to be tempted. One of the greatest proofs that Jesus Christ and the Father are two different persons is that they have two different wills. Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done, Luke 22:42. Whose will was it that Jesus should be driven into the wilderness to be tempted? Was this just some whim of Jesus Christ's to prove how spiritually tough he was? Or, was this the will of the Father to teach Jesus Christ obedience by the things that he suffered? (Hebrews 5:8).

The Oxford says one thing, the Cambridge says another. Must the next generation of Baptists be seduced by the Scofield Reference Bible? The very text Scofield chose is corrupt. His constant bible correcting throughout it in his marginal notes, and his utterly corrupt Protestant theologies need to be put to rest. Isn't it time for King James Bible believing Baptists to become King James Bible believing Baptists? Nothing is funnier than to see a man complain about the ESV or the NIV while he carries a Scofield Reference Bible which begs him to believe ESV or NIV doctrine in every other note, or seduces him to disregard subtle differences in the text.

The Pure Cambridge Text, the post 1985 Cambridge Text and the Oxford Text all differ one from another. Are they all correct? Do jots and tittles really matter? Could God really give us a perfect text? Maybe you should look into that before you start picking on the ESV or NIV people again.

182 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page