top of page

Making the Bible of None Effect

Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

Psalm 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun, Ecclesiastes 1:9. The single best way to cast off the cords of the Lord and his anointed, Jesus Christ is to confuse his words. We saw it happen in the garden of Eden. Making the word of God of none effect is the single most effective thing that the devil has done to blunt the effects of the cross. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye, Mark 7:13.

In the case of Mark 7:13, the Pharisees had made a tradition that they taught so powerful in the minds of those to whom they taught that when their students saw the commandments regarding their parents, they reverted to what they had been taught. They felt free to bleed their parents dry. The word of God was there in front of them but it availed nothing because Satan had interjected something in their education which caused them to disregard the plain sense of the scripture.

Magicians are famous for misdirecting the attention of their audiences. While the audience is focused on the magician's right hand, his left hand deftly performs whatever it takes to fool his audience. There can be no better example of this than the havoc that has been created over John 21: 15-17. I think it was in 1978 that someone first told me that two different Greek words for love were used in that passage.

By getting me to concentrate on those two different Greek words for love, the devil hid the entire meaning of the passage from me.

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

John 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

What is the lesson here? The lesson here is that Peter put fishing before his ministry. Lovest thou me more than these? These what? The fish. He is not starting some macabre contest between the Apostles to see which one loved him the most. Peter had to decide what his true love was, Jesus Christ or the fish he caught. Fish were his wealth, his means of making a living. Which one did he love most?

How could the devil keep people from seeing that? By getting them to focus on Greek words. The Apostle John put a safeguard in the passage. He told you that Jesus said the same thing three times. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? What I was taught in 1978 obscured that.

I was taught that by changing the Greek word for love the last time that Jesus asked him, Jesus was purposely asking Peter about a lesser love such as is between friends rather than the highest love for God.

Let me illustrate.

1. I ask a child; "Do you understand me?"

2. I ask the second time; "Do you understand me?".

3. I ask the third time; "Do you comprehend what I am saying?"

By the nature of what I am asking, is there any difference in my question even though I have changed the wording? I have made it clear that I do not intend any change in my meaning by telling you that I asked the third time. John did the same thing. What would be the best way to obscure my question? By making a big ado over me changing my wording. Anyone with any sense would realize what I was saying, but if the words were being translated by a novice, they might get wrapped up in the wrong thing.

Here is how our modern teachers would teach my question to little poopsie sitting in his class. "The first two times he asked if you understood. The last time he asked if you comprehended. They are not the same word. To understand is defined as; To seize, grasp, lay hold of, catch. To comprehend is defined as; To be thoroughly acquainted or familiar with (an art, profession, etc.); to be able to practice or deal with properly."

Our modern teacher would be correct only in the sense that there are dictionary definitions that say just that. In his ignorance of the wide scope of English usage, he doesn't know (or care) that the two words are sometimes interchanged as they were here. How could someone know that the definition was the same in this instance? Well, they could look at the preface to the question which stated categorically that I was asking the third time.

What we know about our teacher is that he doesn't really speak English very well. He is probably only marginally proficient. Perhaps all he knows how to do is to read the alphabet, read cursory sentences and to look up most words in highly suspect lexicons. His adoring students don't know that. What he has done is to empower his poor hearer to feel a kind of sufficiency and superiority over the text he is reading.

Cults are more often successful when they give their adherents the sense that they have knowledge that the rest of the world doesn't have. Just attend a couple of Jehovah Witness sessions to see this played out. Knowledge puffeth up, 1st Corinthians 8:1. Modern Greekifiers do that. John 21:15-17 is one of the better examples. Jesus wanted Peter to love him more that his livelihood. Poopsie came away from his lesson thinking that Jesus was criticizing whether Jesus loved him as God. The word became of none effect.

Man cannot wait to cut the cords of God. The modern versions and the ilk that teach them are helping in that pursuit.

300 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All


"Poopsie came away from his lesson thinking that Jesus was criticizing whether Jesus loved him as God."

Did you mean "...whether Peter loved him..."?


Timothy McVey
Timothy McVey
Mar 08, 2023

I find it interesting that you mention the garden in Genesis 3. When God spake to Adam he used the terms "thee and thou". When the serpent spoke to Eve he said "ye" and then when God passed judgment, he used the pronouns "thee and thou".

Gods word is personal and his judgement is personal.

bottom of page