Response to Dr. Ray Hagins' Critique of the Christian Scripture

I lament over Dr. Ray Hagins, because I have found myself enjoying some of the things that he advances; however, when he encroaches upon the Word of God, he loses credibility with any serious, Christian scholar. Now, there is a distinction between Christian scholars and Western scholars, and Dr. Hagins’ critique of Christianity is steeped in his observation of what is taught by Western scholars. This is why I promote that I do not practice the form of Christianity that has been put forth by the Western theologian; I practice the form of Christianity that originated in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.

Hagins opens Part 4 by mocking the fact that Christian families teach their children the virtues of their way of life and God’s Word from the cradle, before they can read. Let’s not forget that slaves were forbidden to read in America, but did that prevent them from seeking to chart a path to a relationship with the Lord? God Forbid! I’m sure that the audience who Hagins panders too has people who cannot read; therefore, should he condemn them for listening to him? Hagins’ derisive manner goes over well in a lecture of non-critical thinking followers.

I have discovered that most of Hagins’ lectures are really not for the well informed, because they would puncture holes all throughout his teaching. However, the Haginses of the world appeal to non-thinkers’ lack of critical analysis, and for them, this is their road to fame. Any social scientist will tell you that by the time a child is five years old, most of them will have already learned 80 percent of what they will ever learn. Consequently, this implies that if there is a spiritual vacuum by the time the child enters kindergarten, then it will be filled with something other than Christian teachings. Ha, Ha. Perhaps that is Hagins’ strategy.

Hagins diminishes the authenticity of the Scripture because he claims, “The Bible as we know it…just came into existence in 1611. What we call the King James’ version of the Bible came into existence in 1611 under the auspicious of Jimmy Stewart...” Again, a knowledgeable student of the Scripture would never embrace the notion that King James had a version of the Scripture. At the end of a lecture on Western Christianity, I once told the audience that I use the Translation of 1611, and a woman wanted to know where she could obtain one. Well the irony was not lost on everyone in the service, because there were a few people who understood that she probably had one as well, but she had been conditioned to call it “the King James’ version of the Scripture.”

King James has never had a version of God’s Word!

Hagins utilizes a convenient explanation of History to buttress his position that the Scripture was rewritten by the cadre of men employed by King James. It goes over well with his crowd for Hagins to advance the fiction that 40 men began rewriting the Bible in 1600, while Theologians assert that 40 men wrote the Bible over a 1,600 year period. Again, this is a convenient, almost choreographed explanation, since we know that there were 54 men on the team to work on the Bible translation of 1611, and they started this project in 1604. But his loose explanation of the facts is designed to lend poetic credibility to his lectures.

Another weakness in Hagins’ portrayal of the facts of the translation of 1611 is regarding the role that William Shakespeare served on the team to translate the Scripture. Eastern scholars have for years denied that Shakespeare ever existed, and yet, I am surprised that Hagins makes the claim that Shakespeare worked 11 years on translating the “King James Bible.” As part of their claim that Shakespeare is a fictional, historical character, researchers submit that no one man could have written so many “great” pieces of literary work with the tools that were available at the time. J. A. Rogers (and I believe Ivan Van Sertima, among others) claims that Europeans personified the writings of Egyptian authors and created the name Shakespeare to attribute the pilferage. I’d guarantee that Hagins is familiar with this research, which demonstrates his fraud as a scholar.

The rebuttal regarding the existence of Shakespeare has to do with the number of great works that are contributed to him. According to the logic, no man during the 17^th century could have written nearly 50 great works - sonnets, plays, poems - plus spend 11 years working on the so called King James Bible using the tools of literature that were available. And I would almost guarantee that Hagins is aware of this position, and he probably advances it when it is convenient to do so.

Although Hagins is correct in his assertion that no European was involved in the writing of any verse of Scripture, I see why that is important in his lecture. He demonstrates it as an irony…that the Scripture has morphed into a Western, European ideology, yet not one European was involved in its creation. In fact, the identity of the followers of Jesus originated, not in Greece as some Western theologians would have you to believe, but in modern day Syria, then known as Antioch: And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26b). Where Hagins self destructs is not the what (that the Western world has assumed the identity of the Scripture), but the why. Why has Western Civilization gone to great extremes to assume the identity of the Scripture? Without understanding the pathology behind the Western theologian’s motivation to “appear” to be the oracle of God, it would seem that there is a certain deceit in the Holy Scriptures for those who know the deception that has been perpetrated by Western theology. In fact, the greatest lies of all time have their origin in Western theology.

Also, Hagins claims that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare’s lover, and they carried on their relationship during the rewriting of the Scripture. Bacon is a very complex figure and may have been gay, but I also doubt if he made any meaningful contributions to the translation of the Scripture. He was a master alchemist and he understood the al-chemical nature that underlie some aspects of the Scripture. Consequently, it would be highly unlikely that he would participate in their demise. Plus the translation of 1611 is not a rewritten book, as Hagins suggests, but it was translated from an earlier English version; the Bishops translation of 1568, which was itself revised in 1572. The translation of 1611 used the Bishops’ translation, along with the Latin (Vulgate) translation as its starting point. Hagins knows this, but his lectures have a certain level of theatrics that he must preserve, and Bible-bashing is like “Broadway” for him: it is a live show that keeps the paying crowd lined up at the door.

Whether God’s word is the Christian Scripture (which is of course, what I believe), the Islamic Koran, the Buddhist Dhammapada, the Sutras of Patanjali, or the Hindu Rig Veda, He is the custodian over its proliferation throughout human history. Consequently, He has an obligation to His followers to assure that no matter the translation, it is pure. This is why we can rest assured that God has managed every translation of His Word. I submit that one of the great lies of human history is the notion that the New Testament’s original form was Greek. This is easily debunked, however, by asking one simple question: What language did Jesus speak? And the answer is obviously not Greek, but Aramaic. In fact, to authenticate the facts of the original language, God in His infinite wisdom left one verse of Scripture in the original form: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me (Matthew 27:46, emphasis mine)?

Matthew 27:46 is one of numerous verses of Scripture that proves the authenticity of God’s Word. He foresaw the future attempts by the Western world to personify His Word; therefore He left us clues to buttress the truth. I wonder if Hagins believes that the translation team of 1611 conspired to leave this one verse in its original Aramaic; notwithstanding the fact that it betrays the notion of a Greek New Testament.

Hagins deals with two issues in Part six to assert that inconsistencies in the Scripture render it flawed: falsely attributing Isaiah 7:14 to Christ; and the notion that the Scriptural references to Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew and Luke contradict themselves. I happened to address both of these subjects in detail in my upcoming book, Flawless, God’s Perfect Plan of Redemption (see www.theflawlessplan.blogspot.com), but I’ll share a little here.

First, concerning Isaiah 7:14, unless he understood the distinction between a virgin birth and a non-virgin birth, which it is clear that he didn’t, he would not understand this verse anyway: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). Without revealing too much of my book, I’ll simply ask the question…How can a virgin conceive? Certainly virgins can come together in a sexual union; however, once the initial penetration takes place, before the ejaculation I might add, her virginity has disappeared, and conception does not take place for between three and thirty-six hours later. He claims that the Hebrew word ‘almah,’ is used in Isaiah, meaning young maiden, suggesting that Mary was not a virgin.

This is a deep mystical operation that was conducted by the Holy Ghost that fused the genetic makeup of a human to the divinity of Jesus Christ, because in the absence if a miracle from God, virgins cannot conceive. I deal with it in detail in my book.

Second, Hagins' assertion that Christ’s genealogy is contradictory is easier to poke a hole into than the issue of His virgin birth.

Luke 3 gives us the most complete archive of the ancestors of Jesus Christ. This lineage spans seventy-five generations and provides us with every male progenitor of Christ from Adam to His birth. The archive in the first chapter of Matthew provides us with a slightly different genealogy of Jesus. It begins with the patriarch Abraham and traces Jesus’ bloodline down to King David and through his son Solomon, whereas Luke 3 tracks the blood lineage through King David’s son Nathan.

It is important to note that the bloodline took divergent paths during the life of King David. One leg passed through his son Nathan and continued down through to Joseph, as outlined by Luke. The other leg passed through David’s son Solomon and descended to Joseph, again as described by Matthew. At first glance, we seem to encounter a problem reconciling the accounts of both lineages: How can Joseph, Mary’s husband, have two fathers; Jacob according to Matthew and Heli according to Luke?

Watch the strategy of God.

The lineages described by Matthew and Luke are the lineages of Joseph and Mary respectively. Matthew’s lineage through Solomon demonstrates Jesus’ right to the royal succession, while Luke’s genealogy provides the actual, genetic ancestry of Jesus through Mary. Although Jesus was not Joseph’s actual son, He was adopted, which gave Him all the rights and privileges of Joseph’s family, including the right to lay claim to the royal lineage and sit on the throne of David as the only legitimate king.

The two genealogies establish two requirements for Jesus to ascend to the throne: first, the Messiah had to come from the House of David (Matthew’s account) and second, He had to be born of a virgin (Luke’s account). Luke’s genealogy, however, states that Jesus was the son of Joseph: And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23). Joseph in this description is actually the son-in-law of Heli, who is the father of Mary, and of course, she was the vessel chosen by God to give birth to the Messiah.

The genealogy in Matthew provides us with information that is unavailable in Luke. It demonstrates the non-Hebrew contribution to the royal bloodline. Since Jesus had to fulfill the law, including the law of redemption, we must be able to prove scripturally that He did in fact fulfill that component of the Law of Moses. As the lineage of Christ was being developed, God was faced with the challenge of ensuring that there was enough genetic contribution from the Gentile bloodline to qualify Jesus as their near kin.

Praise God for an understanding of his word!