Jack Hyles’ Independent Fundamentalist Baptist empire was built on a foundation of sinking sand—sexual scandals and cover ups—that infected nearly every church in the IFB movement, and the cover-up continues to this day. The following is a portion of the documents exposing Jack Hyles’ pedophile network as found in the Biblical Discernment Ministries archives.
“Dr. Jack Hyles (born 9/25/26) pastored the First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana (FBCH) from 1959 until his death on February 6, 2001, overseeing its growth from 700 (attendance) to over 20,000 (membership claimed at over 100,000).(The ‘Dr.’ is for a purely honorary degree from the Pontiac, Michigan, Midwestern Bible College, a Hyles’-‘protégé’ school.) He was also founder and chancellor of Hyles-Anderson College...
“Hyles had also become known for his alleged immorality, specifically his behavior with his secretary (the wife of a deacon in the church), and for his explicit sexual references from the pulpit, in counseling, and through FBCH’s schools (grade school, high school, and Hyles-Anderson Bible College)... (The Biblical Evangelist, 5/1/89). Hyles’ reported love affair with his secretary (allegedly begun in 1969), the wife of a deacon at FBCH, is well documented... See ‘Sin in the Camp’ report for more details...
“Besides Hyles own church and schools being scandalized with immorality and pedophilic activity (numerous FBCH men have been charged or convicted of child molestation), Hyles spawned a number of ‘ministries’ (there are approximately 200 independent Baptist churches nationwide that hold Hyles and his teachings in high regard) that have been scandalized in the same manner. For example, seven Hyles-affiliated churches from 1984-1993 were rocked by child molestation scandals (San Diego; North Sharon, MI; Petersburg, VA; Anniston, AL; Monroe, LA; Beaumont, TX; and Hyles own church in Hammond). From 5/16/93-5/20/93, Detroit television station WJBK-TV aired a five-part exposé on Hyles and various associated ministries... In the years since the WJBK-TV exposé, other criminal sexual misconduct scandals involving current or former Hyles-trained/-employed men have come to light...
“Hyles was a staunch member of the KJV-Onlyism cult... At Hyles’ Pastor’s Conference in 3/96, Mrs. Gail Riplinger (author of New Age Bible Versions) was awarded a ‘Sword’ and an ‘Honorary Doctorate’ from Hyles-Anderson College. Hyles, clowning around as was his custom, said he was ready to ‘ordain’ Riplinger to preach. He referred to Riplinger’s book as a ‘masterpiece,’ but shortly thereafter said he had read the book but ‘did not understand it.’ This might explain how he could endorse a book when its author denies the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, the same doctrine believed by the KJV translators. (Reported in the 7/29/96, Christian News, p. 21.)...” (Jack Hyles (1926-2001), Biblical Discernment Ministries Archive )
Not only did Jack Hyles have a 20-year affair with his secretary and covered up what appears to be a pedophile ring in his network of Fundamental Baptist churches, he tolerated all manner of sin, including homosexuality, at Hyles-Anderson College. For more information, read “The Saddest Story We Ever Published!” in The Biblical Evangelist.
James Sightler's father, Dr. Harold B. Sightler, was a contemporary of Pastor Jack Hyles Jack Hyles frequently preached at Harold Sightler’s Tabernacle Baptist Church in Greenville, SC, which is within the large network of 6,000 IFB churches. Hyles was also a frequent speaker at Sightler’s Tabernacle Baptist Church Bible conferences.
When Jack Hyles’ 20 year adulterous affair was exposed along with many other sex scandals at his First Baptist Church and other IFB churches, Harold Sightler participated in the cover-up, according to a former student of Tabernacle Christian School. The former student confirmed that Jack Hyles was a frequent speaker at Harold Sightler’s Tabernacle Baptist Church, chapel and Bible conferences. Also, that Sightler was complicit in the cover-up.
“I attended Tabernacle Christian School in Greenville, South Carolina in the 60’s. Harold Sightler was the pastor of the Church, Rod Bell was the Principal, and Melvin Aiken was the Assistant Principal of the school. Jack Hyles often spoke in chapel and at Bible conferences then. Jack Hyles was young, nice looking and funny, had a beautiful wife, and I enjoyed his sermons. A welcome relief to the rest of the stodgy old speakers.
“For a couple of years in the late 60’s, Dr. Hyles did not appear in chapel or at Bible Conferences. There was talk, even back then, of an adulterous relationship that put him out of favor with Tabernacle. I was personally shaken by this revelation of a man I respected.
“Fundamental circles have been critical of the Catholic Church for fostering and hiding the indiscretions of Priests. It is disappointing to know that we are capable of the same obfuscations.
“As the harboring of homosexuality and pedophilia in the Priesthood has severely damaged the reputation of the Catholic Church, so will the ruin of the fundamental movement be if we continue to ignore the sins of the leaders of our church.
“If a 13 year old boy in Greenville, South Carolina knew the sexual indiscretions of a minister in Hammond Indiana in the late 60’s, it is not a ’local church matter’. Why did it take 20 years for John R. Rice, Harold Sightler, Bob Jones Jr. Rod Bell, Walt Hanford, Oliver B. Green, Jack Van Impe and many others, to bring this man to account. Surely they knew more than this 13 year old boy.
“Fundamental Pastors would do well to temper their exhaustive examination and battle over the version of the Bible they are teaching from, and use any version of the Bible to examine the pastors who are preaching. Bible translations, ancient and modern decry; Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Mark Christopher
Greenville, South CarolinaThe cover-up has continued and victims of IFB church leaders are finally coming forward to warn other church members and to seek justice in U.S. Courts. An investigative reporter uncovered more than 400 abuse claims in IFB churches. Several victims who are now adult women formed the Blind Eye Movement to expose the abuse and cover-ups within IFB churches.
LET US PREY: A MINISTRY OF SCANDALS
It is astonishing that James Sightler, in his endorsement of Gail Riplinger’s 2009 book, Hazardous Materials, compared the theology and practice of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches to the New Testament churches.
“Why is there today a body of fundamental, believing Christians and churches whose theology and practice is exactly the same as that of the early New Testament churches? It is because the true church has always had the scriptures, in translated vernacular form, to search and study and draw sustenance from, to bear witness to and provide the guidance of the Holy Ghost who gives understanding to believers in the true churches.” (p. 1)
Perhaps Dr. Sightler had in mind the theology and practice of the Judaized Galatians and the Corinthians’ tolerance of fornication? Independent Fundamental Baptists continue to make excuses for Gail Riplinger who is twice divorced and married to her third husband in open adultery:.
“It is actually reported that there is fornication among you... And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from among you.” 1 Cor. 5:1-2
When Jack Hqyles’ 20 year adulterous affair was exposed along with many other sex scandals at his First Baptist Church and other IFB churches, Harold Sightler participated in the cover-up. And the cover-up continued. Before his death in 2019, James Sightler was posting Jack Hyles’ sermons on his website, HACAlumni.com. How is this code of secrecy possible?
“[Jack Hyles] negligently and carelessly has fostered...a system of secrecy in the church directing that matters of criminal violations not be reported to judicial authority for whom he openly preaches scorn, but to the church itself, meaning Jack Hyles.” (Jack Hyles and The IFB Cover-Up Machine)
James Sightler, Gail Riplinger and their Independent Fundamental Baptist Network are not Dispensational, but Zionist, Dominionist, Kingdom Now Judaizers of Christianity. It does seem that the Jewish identity of the IFB and its indoctrination from the Talmud and dedication to the subversion of Christianity accounts for its inbred system of secrecy:
“Moses Hess, a friend and collaborator of both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels...stated, ‘A Jew belongs to his race and consequently also to Judaism, in spite of the fact that he or his ancestors have become apostates.’ Hess's grandfather, like Karl Marx, was a rabbi. He not only maintained—like the Talmudists—that the Oral Tradition is much more reliable and sophisticated than the Written Torah, but that ‘it is to this oral development of the law that Judaism owes its existence during the two thousand years of exile; and to it the Jewish people will also owe its future national regeneration.’ Ken Koltun-Fromm, author of Moses Hess and Modern Jewish Identity, writes that for Hess ‘Jewish identity is rooted in a complex web of national and religious commitments.’ Hess believed that this religious commitment was grounded in Judaism, which has sought to subvert Christianity since Christ.” (Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 264-265)
CRYPTO-JEWISH HERETIC: pastor James W. Knox
In the wake of Jack Hyles’ IFB scandal, the leadership of the network of Independent Fundamental Baptist churches passed to Harold Sightler’s Tabernacle Baptist Church. The current pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church is James Sightler’s son-in-law, Joel Logan. Exposure of the scandals in the Jack Hyles' IFB churches occurred during the mid-1980s and the 90s. The IFB pedophile network was only partly exposed in the 80s and 90s, however, the cover-up continued and few of the pedophile pastors were prosecuted.
In 1987, James Knox founded the Bible Baptist Church of DeLand, Florida. Today, James Knox oversees the vast network of IFB churches and frequently travels nationally and internationally to preach at IFB churches. From February 22-26, 2021, James Knox preached at Tabernacle Baptist Church SC whose pastor is Joel Logan, who is also a frequent speaker (from 1999-2016) at James Knox's Bible Baptist Church conferences. Joel Logan’s brother, Brent Logan, is also a frequent speaker at James Knox’s church conferences and is the pastor of Sweet Springs Baptist Church in Ardmore, AL where James Knox last spoke from Sept. 14-16, 2020. James Knox's Assistant Pastor, David Brown, was raised under the preaching of Joel Logan when he was senior pastor of Sweet Springs Baptist Church.
Considering James Knox’s close ties with the IFB leadership, it is reasonable to assume that he has long been aware of the gross immorality of Jack Hyles and the pedophiles in the IFB. Why would Pastor Knox affiliate his church with the morally bankrupt IFB in the first place? Is he complicit in the ongoing cover-up? As of 2023, there were more than 400 claims of child molestation in IFB churches. Have James Knox or the current IFB leadership exposed the pedophiles in the IFB churches or assisted the investigations of 400+ abuse cases and prosecution of guilty ministers? Pastor Knox is frequently critical of Christians from the pulpit and even in his book, From Where I Stand, he is demeaning of many Christians and the Church in general. It is obvious that Pastor Knox has a low view of Christians and Christianity, but never does he expose the sordid history of the IFB which sponsored a criminal network that destroyed the lives of hundreds of children over decades and may still be preying on the innocent.
“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.” Jude 4
JAMES KNOX handles the word of God deceitfully
James Knox preached at Charity Baptist Church in Inchon, South Korea in 2012. There Pastor Knox stated that the King James Bible is without error:
“We believe this book to be without error. Since God gave His Word, the devil and man have tried to find fault with this Bible. But no one has yet found a single contradiction in this book. No one has found a single error in this Bible.”
(We wonder which edition of the King James Bible is without error, since hundreds of changes have been documented in various editions since the 1611 Authorized Version. See: Wrong Readings of the Bible of 1611 Amended in Later Editions)
James Knox asserted that the King James Version is not only perfect but even superior to the original manuscripts. Examples were presented to prove that a translation of an original manuscript is better than the original manuscript. His first example from the Bible was the “translation” of Enoch from earth to heaven and, secondly, the “translation” of the Christian from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light.
“Let’s answer two main objections against our faith in the King James Bible. The first thing you'll be told is ‘it's just a translation.’ A translation, they say, could never be as good as the original. In the Scripture there are three times something is translated. Let’s see what God says about translating. Come to Hebrews 11:5. ‘By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him.’ Enoch was living in a world full of sin, then God translated him. Now he’s living in Heaven in the presence of God. I ask you, ‘Was Enoch’s original condition better or was his translated condition better? According to the Bible, the translated Enoch was better than the original. So if a man says a translation can never be as good as the original, that’s not what the Bible teaches.” (24:30 min)
“Turn to Colossians, chapter 1. The bible says in verse 12, ‘Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:” Are you saved tonight? Before you were saved, you lived under the power of darkness. But when you trusted Jesus Christ as your Saviour, God translated you. Now you’re part of the kingdom of His dear Son. Which is better? Your original condition or your saved condition? So when men say a translation could never be as good as the original, that is not what the Bible teaches.” (29:30 min)
James Knox must resort to false analogies to validate his false teaching. The verb “translate” has more than one meaning: translating a work from one language into another language is a very different action than transferring a soul from one spiritual realm to another. Things that are different are not the same. It is nonsensical to equate translating a literary work to another language to translating a soul to another realm.
Pastor Knox is confident that his Korean audience will not consult the Greek text to verify his assertion. Do other verses having the same Greek verb — “metatíthēmi” (translate) — have negative outcomes? Indeed, other New Testament verses do have the same Greek verb but the latter condition resulting from the action is much worse than the former condition. This same Greek word in Hebrews 11:5 and Colossians 1:13 is used in Paul’s lament that the Galatians were “removed” from the gospel of grace to another gospel and in Jude 4, ungodly men “turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness.”
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal. 1:6)
“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.” (Jude 4)
Strong's Greek Dictionary
3346. μετατίθημι metatithemifrom G3326 and G5087; to transfer, i.e. (literally) transport, (by implication) exchange, (reflexively) change sides,
or (figuratively) pervert:—carry over, change, remove, translate, turn. verb
By omitting these variations of meaning and outcomes, James Knox is subtly teaching a major heresy, that the KJV translation is more accurate than the originals, which replaces the original autographs with a mere translation which has copious errors. To reinforce his heretical teaching, Mr. Knox proceeds to another false teaching that undermines the divine origin of the Ten Commandments: that Moses, not God, wrote the Ten Commandments on the second tables of stone after God wrote the original tables. His false assertion led to the erroneous conclusion that God trusts man to translate His Word perfectly, without error.
”Exodus 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” Well, God remembered what He said. And even though the original writings were destroyed, God was able to replace them. And the second set said exactly what the first set said because God preserved His words. No scholar at the foot of the mount was able to look at the original manuscripts. But none of them said, Moses, how do we know what was in the first set. They believed God was able to give his Word and to give it again if the original disappeared. That’s what we believe.
“Look at verse 34:27, it becomes clearer still. ‘And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.’ We are told by those who don’t believe our King James Bible is perfect, it must have mistakes in it because it’s the work of men. The first set of tables were written with the finger of God. The second set, God said to Moses, ‘You write them.’ The only 10 commandments anyone on earth ever saw were those written by men. Moses wrote the copy. God wrote the original. The copy matched the original because the God who gave the original God who the original also gave the copy, even though it was man who wrote the copy.” (40 min)
Other verses state that the LORD wrote the second tables of stone:
“And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” (Exodus 34:1)
“And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” (Exodus 34:28)
Deuteronomy 10:1-4 confirms beyond a shadow of a doubt that the words “he wrote” in Exodus 34:28 refer to “the LORD”:
“At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. And I WILL WRITE ON THE TABLES the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. And HE WROTE ON THE TABLES, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.”
Commentaries agree that Moses wrote, not the second tables of stone, but a transcript of the whole law and the accompanying precepts. Examples:
“Write thou these words - Either a transcript of the whole law now delivered, or the words included from Ex 34:11 to Ex 34:26. God certainly wrote the ten words on both sets of tables. Moses either wrote a transcript of these and the accompanying precepts for the use of the people, or he wrote the precepts themselves in addition to the ten commandments which were written by the finger of God.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Exodus 34:27)
“And the Lord said unto Moses,? Being still with him on the mount:
“write thou these words; expressed in the preceding verses, from Ex 34:11, as he before had written in a book all those laws, contained in Ex 21:1 called the book of the covenant, Ex 24:4 and which perhaps might be destroyed, as well as the two tables were broken; and therefore upon the renewal of the covenant here, there is a repetition made of the principal laws before given, which are ordered also to be written in a book, which may very well be called by the same name, since it follows:
“for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel, with Moses, as their representative and mediator, and with them represented by him: what is above related carries in it the form of a covenant between them, God having declared on his part what he would do for them, and what laws and rules he required to be observed on their part; which Moses assented to in their name, and was ordered to write them down, that he might repeat them to them.”
“and he wrote on the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments; not Moses, for these were tables of stone, which he could not write or engrave upon without proper instruments, which it does not appear he had with him on the mount; but it was God that wrote them, who, in Ex 34:1 says he would write them, and from Deut 10:2 we are assured he did. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible)
Preaching the same sermon to an American IFB church, Pastor Knox did read Deuteronomy 10:1-5, however, he read it in haste and interrupted the passage to talk about a book he read, and then proceeded to state that the tables were a copy of a copy of the original tables which were destroyed and Deut. 10:3-5 merely repeats that Moses wrote the second tables, which it does not.
“We have a record in Scripture of the destruction of the original manuscripts [tables] and those manuscripts being rewritten by a man under the direction of God himself and the words match. The words in the copy are the same as the words in the original. So you have a Biblical basis for your faith in the words of God as they go from one document to another. Keep reading, verse 3, “And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me.” And the people referred to those documents as the word of the LORD.” (18:30 min)
Before you build a doctrine you must take into account all that God has said on the subject. Therefore, the pronoun “he” who wrote the tables in Deuteronomy 10:4 refers back to “the LORD” in verse 1 who said “I will write on the tables” in verse 2, and not the “I” who made an ark of shittim wood in verse 3, who is Moses.
“1 At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. 2 And I WILL WRITE ON THE TABLES the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. 3 And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand. 4 And HE WROTE ON THE TABLES, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. 5 And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me.”
No one in the church questioned Knox’s heretical exposition of the passage as he hurried on to his next point. James Knox always seems to have his Bible Baptist Church carnival barker in the audience who yells “Preach it” or “That’s right!” or “Amen, brother,” or “Yeah!” at appropriate moments. These distractions serve to disrupt any critical thinking that may be going on in the audience.
James Knox performs the same trick at minute 35 regarding the book of Jeremiah, which he avers Jeremiah threw into the Euphrates River per Jer. 51:63. Words of Pastor Knox:
“Now do you have a book of Jeremiah? We’re reading the book of Jeremiah, right? Well what did he do with the copy of the original that God gave him? He bound it up, tied a rock to it and threw it in the river. Which means whatever was first read and kept by the nation of Israel was at least a third generation manuscript. The first original is in the fire, the first copy is in the river, and yet when the nation read the book of Jeremiah, it was Thus saith the Lord. and when Jesus quoted the book of Jeremiah, he quoted it as the word of God.”
The problem with James Knox’s faulty exegesis is that in each instance, chapters 36 and 51, separate scrolls were written by Jeremiah and destroyed, not the entire book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 51, Mr. Knox starts at verse :63, skipping over verse 60 which limits the prophecy to a single book on God’s judgment on Babylon: “Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon.” And because he passed right over verses 60-62, Knox says Jeremiah, instead of Seriah, threw the book in the river.
Where did James Knox get his false teaching that Moses wrote the Ten Commandments on the second tables of stone? It is a common practice of Jewish Rabbis to cite one verse of the Old Testament and exclude others in order to wrest the Scriptures to mean the opposite of what God actually said. Gail Riplinger performs this sleight of hand frequently, and here we see James Knox employing the same trickery.
So where did James Knox learn his Talmudic tricks? The following article by a Professor of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York presents the identical argument that Knox used to deceive Christians about the divine origin of the Ten Commandments.
Who Wrote the Ten Commandments? (excerpt)
“Where does our Torah come from? Did all the words of the Torah come from heaven, so that the Torah is a perfect divine work? If that is the case, then the tradition the Torah inaugurates is one that human beings should accept in its entirety without introducing any changes. Or is the Torah itself the result of human-divine collaboration? If that is the case, the tradition the Torah inaugurates may allow some change, at least by those Jews of each generation who accept the Torah and live by its commandments...
“This week’s parashah contains a fine example of this tendency to bolster both views. Exodus 31:18 tells us that God ‘gave Moses two tablets of the covenant, tablets of stone written with the finger of God.’ This verse teaches that the words on the tablets were heavenly in origin. So does Exodus 32:15–16: ‘Moses . . . descended the mountain, with two tablets of the covenant in his hand . . . The tablets were God’s work; the writing was God’s writing, inscribed into the tablets.’ These verses indicate that the wording of the Torah’s laws, or at least of the Ten Commandments, comes directly from God.
“The Israelites never had the opportunity to acquire direct knowledge of what was written on these tablets. Moses shattered them before any Israelites saw them (32:19). God then directed Moses to replace the tablets. The new set of tablets was to result from cooperation between Moses and God: ‘The LORD said to Moses: ‘Carve two stone tablets like the original ones, and I shall write down on the tablets the words that were on the original tablets you broke’’(34.1). The writing is supposed to be God’s, not Moses’s.
“When Moses prepares the second set of tablets, however, the information our parashah [Biblical text] provides moves in a different direction: “He was with God 40 days and 40 nights; he ate no food and drank no water; and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (34:28). The subject of the verb wrote, like the subject of the preceding three verbs, seems to be Moses. (The Karaite biblical commentator Abū al-Faraj Hārūn ibn Faraj discusses the syntax we find here, explaining that in a series of verbs, the subject remains the same unless a new subject is introduced.) This verse contradicts the plain sense of God’s command in 34:1. Many scholars, ancient, medieval, and modern, attempt to avoid this problem by asserting that the real subject of the verb write in 34:28 must be God, even though wording of the verse does not indicate a change in subject. (This interpretation appears, for example, in the classical medieval commentaries of Rashbam, ibn Ezra, and Ramban.)
“Other interpreters, however, maintain that Moses, not God, wrote the second set of tablets (see, for example, Exodus Rabbah 47:2). These interpreters explain the contradiction between 34:1 and 34:28 by suggesting that in verse 1 God does not intend literally that He will write the second set, but that Moses will do so on His behalf. According to this reading, the verb back in 34:1 was in the first person only to show that God approves what Moses writes or that God provides Moses strength to carry out the writing. (On these interpreters, see Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine,80–82, and Menahem Kasher, Torah Shelemah,22:126–27.) Grammatically, this is a stronger interpretation: Moses took on what was originally supposed to be God’s role, and he participated in place of God in producing the words on the tablets the Israelites received...
“The Book of Exodus wants us to realize that human beings participated in the creation of the Torah. But it does not want us to be too sure about how far that participation extended. It teaches us that the authority behind the commands that came from Sinai is divine, and thus that all Jews are required to observe Jewish law. But it also suggests that, to some degree, observant Jews of each generation, like those at Sinai, can participate in writing the law. It is in the tension between these two views of tradition and change that the most authentic and ancient form of Judaism dwells.”
Neither Professor Sommer nor any Rabbinic scholars cited mentioned Deuteronomy 10:1-4, the passage which settles the matter: that God wrote the Ten Commandments on the second set of tables. Instead Rabbi Sommer and (Rabbi?) Knox asserted that man participated in the writing of the Ten Commandments, and the Jewish professor extrapolated God’s alleged authorization to participate in the writing of His commandments to the entire Torah. This faulty reasoning can be traced to the authors of the Talmud who conspired to replace the Old Testament with their Oral Tradition:
The previously mentioned first century Rabbis of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Yehosha and Rabbi Eliezer who compiled the Talmud, originated the heretical teaching that God admitted defeat and surrendered His authority to interpret the Torah to the Sanhedrin. How did they arrive at their false teaching in the Talmud?
“Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven’ (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase ‘It is not in heaven’ in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: ‘After a majority to incline’ (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.
“Rabbi Joshua believes in the process of hard debate when creating halacha. He says that, ‘the torah is no longer in heaven’, meaning that God had already given the torah to the Jewish people. Because of this, it is up to the rabbinic scholars to interpret and discuss the halacha that is written in the torah. This also means that God no longer has any authority in halachic discussions between Rabbis.
“In essence, this is an example of the student surpassing the master. The heavenly voice, who we will assume is that of God, is filled with joy at the prospect that his sons have embraced the process of discussing halacha so intently that they no longer need or want divine interference...
“Rabbi Eliezer was excommunicated because it was believed that the rabbis needed to establish the importance of accepting the rule of the majority.”
OHR Torah Stone, an Orthodox Jewish organization that partners with Reformed and Christian Zionist leaders, upholds the authority of the Rabbis and the Talmud over God and the Old Testament:
The Second Tablets and the Role of Divine Intervention in the Halachic Process?
“What is God’s reaction when the rabbis don’t follow His opinion?
“This story teaches that the halachic process is in the hands of the rabbinic authorities and even God can’t interfere with it. God made the choice to give it to the people.”According to the Talmud, God gave the Law to Moses and then entrusted the exposition of the Law to Jewish Rabbis who had the God-given authority to write commentaries that fully contradicted the laws God had given. In short, the Talmud is a manifesto of Jewish rebellion against God’s Law, Jesus Christ and Christians. Why then did James Sightler and James Knox reinterpret the Bible for Christians according to the Talmud. Are Sightler and Knox Jewish? Their colleague, Gail Riplinger, uses Kabbalah to find hidden meanings in the Bible, just like the Rabbis. Is Gail also Jewish? (Chapter 1: Gail Riplinger’s Primer on Kabbalah)
The outcome of this scriptural legerdemain in Judaism and King James Onlyism is the false belief that since God trusted man to make a perfect copy of the Ten Commandments, He also trusts man to make an inerrant copy of the Bible. And according to James Knox, the only inerrant Bible, yea, even more inerrant than the originals, is the King James Version. Therefore, Christians need no Greek or Hebrew texts or other resources to verify the KJV’s accuracy or correct its English words with Greek or Hebrew.
Like James Knox, the Jewish rabbis do not take into account everything that God has said on the subject. The Talmudic Rabbis based their judgment on a few verses in Exodus but excluded the verses in Deuteronomy. Knox excluded Deuteronomy 10 in Korea and misinterpreted the passage in the American church. James Knox frequently handles the Word of God deceitfully — like the deceptive professor and crafty medieval rabbis, but unlike the Apostle Paul who wrote and preached the Word of God honestly: “Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” 2 Cor. 4:1-2
Talmudic Judaism’s War on the Old Testament
Pastor James Knox and Dr. James Sightler have launched an attack against the Ten Commandments. Knox attributed their inscription on the tables of stone to a man, while Sightler replaced the tables of testimony on the Ark of the Covenant with a Canaanite goddess. By their false teachings these men have demoted the Ten Commandments, written by the hand of God, to a human and demonic origin. As such, the Ten Commandments lose their divine authority and may be modified or ignored as having no eternal consequences.
Although the Fundamental Baptist leaders claim to be the spiritual descendants of John the Baptist, the Apostles, the early Church and various medieval sects which they falsely claim preserved the Textus Receptus through the centuries, their postmodernist criticism of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts makes them spiritual descendants of the German modernist scholars who liberalized the churches and, long before them, the Pharisees whose oral traditions made the Word of God of no effect. (Mark 7:13) James Knox, James Sightler, and Gail Riplinger appear to be ethnic Jews of the modern Pharisee sect, Orthodox Judaism, which secretly despises the Hebrew Bible and teaches instead false doctrines from the Talmud which are Rabbinic narratives, fantasies and depravity.
Christian Reconstructionist Gary North advocates the institution of “a Christian theocracy under Old Testament law as the best form of government, and a radically libertarian one... North has written: “I certainly believe in biblical theocracy.” In an essay titled The Judeo-Christian Tradition: A Guide for the Perplexed, Dr. North decried Talmudic Judaism’s attack on the Old Testament:
“Orthodox Judaism is at war with the Old Testament. This is the primary thesis of this essay. But, unlike Reform Judaism, which is infected with the same biblical higher criticism that has undermined mainstream Christianity, Orthodox Judaism claims to accept the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God. How, then, can anyone rightfully say that Orthodox Judaism is at war with the Old Testament? Only by accepting Jesus’ words literally:
“I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? John 5:43-47). The thesis of this book is simple: the Jews of Jesus’ day, like their spiritual heirs, did not believe Moses’ writings….
“Here is how Weiss describes the effective use of the Talmud: “With one hand you acknowledge God’s existence. At the same time, you want to have some maneuverability. Studying critically is contending with God’s writ—acknowledging it but using criticism to alter it. Man is powerless vis-a-vis God and powerful vis-a-vis His Torah. There he can assert his independence by offering an interpretation different from the one God intended.”
It is hopefully dawning on the reader, from this evidence and other sections of this expose, that King James Onlyism is a front for Talmudic Judaism. King James Only teachings make the Word of God of none effect because the KJV translation has usurped the authority of the divine inspiration of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and demoted the Received Greek and Hebrew texts, and KJV-Only advocates have transferred that authority to heretical Aramaic texts and manuscripts. Phil Stringer predicted in Gail Riplinger’s Occult Connections,
“While GAR [Gail Riplinger] claims to be pro-KJB she understands what happens if you destroy the foundation of the KJB. Her teachings will produce modernism in the next generation.”
However, whereas Modernist higher criticism based its method of Bible interpretation on science and reason, Postmodern biblical criticism threw caution to the wind and based the interpretation of the Bible on whatever their audience “considered fitting for their lives.” The author of What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism?, A.K.M. Adam, Episcopalian priest, and Tutor in New Testament and Greek at Oxford University, wrote:
“The postmodern reader recognizes that the rules of interpretation are provisional guides rather than commandments carved in clay tablets; they are not foundations, or natural laws, but the habits and styles that our teachers have passed down to us in the craft of criticism.”
Having dispensed with the “original autographs” and the Ten Commandments written by God in tablets of stone, KJV-Only postmodern critics are at liberty to interpret the Hebrew Torah using “rabbinic midrash” which is not “tediously didactic” or “deriving dogma” from the Torah but “mischievously playful” with “narratives” in the text. “Midrash is biblical exegesis by ancient Judaic authorities, using a mode of interpretation prominent in the Talmud.” Professor Adam explains the difference between modern historical and postmodern biblical criticism:
“At this point in the chapter, we can think of the interpretive situation in a certain (deconstructive) way. The authority of classical historical criticism depends on the existence of an ‘original’ a ‘real history’ which historical criticism has a privileged method for discovering. Of course, there are various 'originals’ at stake in various brands of historical criticism: the original words and deeds of biblical personages (in historical Jesus research for example); the original meanings of the biblical words (in historical philology); the original texts of the Bible (in textual criticism); the original identities and intentions of the writers; the original social contexts for biblical events and for the composition and compilation of biblical writings; and so on. If we displace the notion of ‘the original’ from its position as biblical interpretation’s center of gravity, however, the entire operation begins to reel in quite disconcerting ways...
“A cursory scan of postmodern theoretical essays reveals that many critics have found the interpretive modes of allegory and midrash a productive starting point for their textual explorations... Numerous other postmodern critics have compared their interpretive ruminations to rabbinic midrash, a mode of interpretation that engages the (literary) imagination more than the theoretical faculties. Some postmodern interpreters have been deeply impressed with the freedom that midrash seems to hold out for interpretation; they see Christian allegorism as tediously didactic (concerned as it sometimes was with deriving dogma from narrative), but rabbinic midrash as almost mischievously playful.” (pp. 34, 66-67)
The King James Only controversy is a broadside attack on the Greek and Hebrew texts underlying all Bibles; KJV-Onlyism is therefore a heresy of the first order. The postmodern successors of the modernist higher critics launched the KJV-Only controversy in order to divide and defeat Christianity and destroy the true Word of God. Their strategy was to discredit and eventually eliminate all of the Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the English bibles, then to transfer the inspiration of the original autographs to the King James Bible, and finally to replace the irrelevant and obsolete Greek Received Text with Aramaic and Hebrew texts. This explains why KJV-Only preachers have unanimously endorsed the Aramaic translation, the Syriac Peshitta, as based on the Textus Receptus, which it is not. This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls were “miraculously discovered” which are Aramaic and Hebrew manuscript fragments that rewrite portions of the Old Testament. The authors of these forgeries were the Essenes, an ascetic Jewish community in the Qumran Desert. One scholar, Molly Zahn, U. of Kansas Assoc. Prof. of Religious Studies, analyzed the scrolls of Exodus and Jeremiah and noted that the Essenes believed that God gave them license to change Scripture as partners with Him in the process of revelation. This is the identical claim of Rabbis Eliezer and Yehoshua!
“How the Dead Sea Scrolls Authors Rewrote the Bible, Literally”
“By comparing textual differences among various copies of the scrolls discovered in caves at Qumran, and then comparing those with later canonical versions of books like Exodus and Jeremiah, Zahn concluded that the scribes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls believed they had a literary license to change Scripture. Indeed, she wrote, they saw themselves as partners with the deity in the process of revelation.”
It is no coincidence that the books of Exodus and Jeremiah were targeted for revision by Rabbinic and Essene scribes, who heard a “heavenly voice” and claimed that God gave them literary license to be partners in the process of revelation. Are these not the same books with which James Sightler and James Knox took liberties to reinterpret using Rabbinic Midrash thereby casting doubt on the authenticity and authority of the Ten Commandments as handwritten by God and also the book of Jeremiah, which recorded the apostasy and judgment of the Jewish nation, which book Pastor Knox presumed to be a copy of a copy of the original? Recall that James Knox omitted Jeremiah 51:60 which identifies God’s command that “a book of all the evil that should come upon Babylon,” not the entire book of Jeremiah, to be “read in Babylon and cast into the Euphrates.”
An extra biblical Temple Scroll also rewrote and added new laws to the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus:
“It contains a plan for a gigantic temple, with all the altars and furnishings. Then it contains all these laws that are basically taken from the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and rewritten, revised and put in a new order – along with some new laws that we’ve never seen before.
“It’s interpreting all these earlier traditions. It’s interpreting biblical law. But it presents itself as the words of God speaking to Moses on Sinai.... How does this thing get written centuries after the Book of Deuteronomy was written? This was a time when Torah was already seen as authoritative and sacred, which we used to assume means you can’t go in and change it. And yet here’s this text that claims to be more authoritative than the Book of Deuteronomy. You can still write a text and attribute it to God speaking directly from Mount Sinai.”The conclusion of the KSU professor was that the Dead Sea Scrolls present a different Christianity and Judaism than is found in Scripture:
“Zahn said the evidence of rewriting in the Dead Sea Scrolls “teaches us things about what early Judaism and early Christianity might have been like that are not in line with traditional Christian and Jewish ideas, especially about Scripture and about the origins of Scripture.”
A preview of the nontraditional Judaism and Christianity of the future is the subject of a book authored by Roman Catholic John Bergsma, PhD, professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville:
Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Revealing the Jewish Roots of Christianity
“The Dead Sea Scrolls bear witness to the eschatological expectations of the Qumran sect of Essenes ad that these expectations anticipated several developments in the early Church that 19th Century Protestant minimalists (and their more recent descendants) considered to be “Hellenistic corruptions” that had crept into the Church in the 2nd through the 4th Century. Studying the Scrolls shows that celibacy, ascetic practices, and the idea that the New Covenant promised in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel was imminent (among other ideas) were clearly present in the century or so before Jesus. There is also plenty of circumstantial evidence that the Essenes helped to inspire these ideas in the minds of Jesus and many of his disciples. Textual studies in the Scrolls and the NT seem to show some direct relationship between the Essene sectaries and the nascent Christian movement.”
According to a Coptic-Orthodox source, “Gnosis… is a key word in the scrolls of the Jewish Essene sect found at Qumran.” The Syriac Peshitta was compiled from Gnostic Aramaic manuscripts and has been used by Gnostic Syrian churches since the early Church era. The Essenes, which appeared in Judea during the Hasmonean dynasty (the Maccabean revolt against the Greeks) and continued through the Herodian dynasty, abruptly disappeared after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Robert Graves stated in The White Goddess that the “Alexandrian Gnostics...were the spiritual heirs of the Essenes after Hadrian had suppressed the Order in 132 A.D.” (p.150)
Gnosticism was developed in the Alexandrian School of Philo, a Jewish apostate, who synthesized Christianity with pagan beliefs in order to paganize Christian doctrine. Jewish students of the Alexandrian School, such as Valentinus and Basilides, infiltrated the early churches with their Gnostic doctrines and nearly succeeded in taking over the Church of Rome. It was in Antioch of Syria that the Gnostic heresy took root through the Jews, which prompted Paul to take the matter to James and the church at Jerusalem to determine whether Jewish Christians must continue to obey the Law. (Acts 15) Prominent King James Only teachers, such as Gail Riplinger, James Sightler, Peter Ruckman, James Knox and many others, claim that the manuscripts which were used in Textus Receptus were used by the church in Antioch of Syria and that these Aramaic manuscripts predated the Greek manuscripts which were translations of the Aramaic. This, of course, is untrue. For the facts, read our report, “The Syriac Peshitta: The Plot to Replace the Greek New Testament.”
TALMUDIC JUDAISM IS PHARISAISM
It may seem impossible that the Independent Fundamental Baptist network of churches, which are ultra conservative with regard to modest dress, traditional values, sexual morality, separation and exclusivism, dispensationalism and aggressive evangelism, would be conduits for Postmodernist and Kingdom Now theology. It is not only possible, it is the modus operandi of fronts for Talmudic Judaism to present a facade that is the opposite of what they actually are. The fact that American Fundamentalism held the line against modernist higher criticism, renders it practically unassailable to suspicion of the postmodernist heresy. However, based on the evidence, we should not be surprised to find that the KJV Only Independent Fundamental Baptist network is stealthily undermining belief in the foundational texts of the King James Bible they profess to uphold.
In her book, The Plot Against Christianity, Elizabeth Dilling documented that the Talmud contains the traditions of the Pharisees and that the very name ‘Pharisees’ means ‘separated ones’...”
“Pharisaism became Talmudism... But the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew...studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies. From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered’...
“In Rabbi Finklestein’s history of the Jews, he states: ‘The TALMUD derives its authority form the position held by the ancient academies.’ (Pharisee) ‘The teachers of those academies, both of Babylonia and of Palestine, were considered the rightful successors of the older Sanhedrin... At the present time, the Jewish people have no living central authority comparable in status to the ancient Sanhedrins or the later academies. Therefore, any decision regarding the Jewish religion must be based on the TALMUD as the final resume of the teaching of those authorities when they existed.’ (The JEWS - Their History, Culture, and Religion, vol. 4. p. 1332)... (p. 9)...
“The TALMUD’s basic law is that only the Pharisee ranks as a man, or human being. All others rank as animals: ‘the people who are like an ass—slaves who are considered property of the master’ This attitude resulting from such teaching has been resented by the ‘asses’ in all countries and centuries. Such resentment, however, is always publicized as ‘persecution of the Jews.’...” (p. 10)
Elizabeth Dilling confirms that “the Talmud reverses every one of the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Moses and the Prophets” which precisely describes the formerly cited Talmudic attacks on the Ten Commandments by James Sightler and James Knox:
“Without some knowledge of the written form of the Tradition of the Pharisees, the Babylonian Talmud, one is unable to intelligently judge whether Jesus Christ was fair and just in his acid denunciations of Pharisaism, or not. One needs proof, offered by the irrefutable Exhibits from Jewish authorities herein, that the Talmud reverses every one of the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Moses and the Prophets, and enshrines their opposites under a ‘whited sepulchre’, and Old Testament disguises for murder and ‘all uncleanness’, as Christ charged. Murder of non-Pharisees is always permitted; theft, sodomy, incest, rape are all permitted, and the righteousness of grown men violating baby girls under three is a favorite topic for discussion in book after book of the Talmud. On the contrary, Our Lord’s treatment of little children is like the Light of Heaven compared to the filth of Hell—embraced by the Talmud.” (p. 10)
Are the leadership of the Independent Fundamental Baptist network the modern day Pharisees? The Greek word “Pharisee” means “separate” and separation from those who disagree with IFB teachings is a fundamental doctrine of the IFB Statement of Faith. Independent Fundamental Baptists claim to be descendants of the Anabaptists, a separatist denomination affiliated with the Mennonites, and before them the Albigensians, Cathari and a succession of heretical, crypto-Jewish sects. The interested reader can learn more about Baptist Successionism in Section III: The Real History of “King James Onlyism.”
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” (Eph. 4:14)
“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” (Titus 1:10)
