Chick Publications

Sspinko52 said "Okay, you guys have my attention. I'm not in agreement, but you have my attention. Everyone keeps mentioning the lies, falsehoods, hate, etc. that Jack Chick uses...then give me some specifics. What lies has he told? What falsehoods?"

I have not examined every single tract he has produced (and I'm sure some of them are without falsehoods, even though I still find them "weird"), but I have collected the KJV-only ones and some of the Catholic ones for my own personal interest. I can discuss some of the errors in the next day or two, they are packed away right now and it will take me a little while to find them again.

Of interest: I have read that at some time in the past, and maybe still today, some or all of Chick's literature has been banned in Canada for "propoganda" and "hate literature" reasons. I am trying to verify.

 

Well as far as Catholics are concerned...my wife is a former catholic, so is her sister, and so is one of my best friends. None of them takes offense to what Chick has said in his tracts. They're thankful that someone is speaking the truth on this matter. Is it going to work like that for everyone? NO, probably not. But on some? Yes, I'm sure of it.

And as far as "Socialist" Candada is concerned, I could care less what they deem "propaganda" and "hate literature". Before long, it will be considered hatred to call "sin" sin in our country. Watch and see. Still, more evidence of soft preaching from the pulpit that is wearing us down. Now here comes a bold and radical statement...before Stalin took over Romania, stuff just like this happened there. And the pastors and parishoners got soft and wouldn't call sin sin. They rolled on with the "love" gospel and communism took over that country. Check out your history.

I thank God that a guy like Jack Chick loves people and loves the Lord enough to speak the truth in love, no matter what his liberal "brothers and sisters in the Lord" think about him.

Again, I'm still open and I'm waiting on specifics of lies and hatred that he's spread. And I mean all of what I have said in the sincerest way. None of this is meant to be mean spirited.

 

Natters, I'm not a KJV only guy, by the way. But this is just an issue where Mr. Chick and I disagree. We also don't agree on his position on "Christian Rock" music.

I will patiently wait for you to dig out those tracts.

 

If one agrees with a Adolf Hitler about evolution, Islam, masonry and mormonism, does that means his material shold be used? Of course not!

I fail to see how bringing someone to Christ gives anyone free reighn to bear false witness for that purpose. Breaking the commandments to bring someone to the Lord is unnecessary, not to mention hypocritical.

Violating the commandments is not a viable approach to bring someone to Christ.

Actually, if he needs to violate God's commands to spread the Gospel, it is Chick who is the liberal, not those who speak out against his sin.

Then I will repost what I said at the beginning of the thread.

For starters, he says that the Roman Catholic Church, wanting to kill all the Jews, was the real culprit behind the Holocaust, and that Adolph Hitler was just a puppet of the Vatican. Also, according to him, the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, and the Masons are all secretly being directed by Jesuit agents. Oh, and while I'm at it, he claims that the Roman Catholic Church was beind the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

I know the RCC is copious with flaws, but this guy has a major case of catholicaphobia.

[ September 14, 2004, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

When has he done this??? No one has given specifics. Sheesh! When has he borne false witness against anyone? What commandments has he broken? Give me (us) some specifics. Blah, blah, blah...that's all I get.

(But I AM waiting patiently for Natters.)
:}

 

These were all done in specific tracts of his. I have seen several of them myself, and they're quite laughable, not to mention untrue. I believe one of them was called "Battle Cry" or something like that. [edited to add note: Battle Cry is a publication, not a tract].

I forgot to mention. Chick says the KKK was created by Jesuits following their failure in the Civil War, in an effort to align blacks and liberal whites against Protestants.

He also says the Jonestown massacre was orchestrated by the Catholic church in an effort to get the public to frown upon fundamentalism.

You might want to pick up a copy of the tract series "The Crusaders" and check his false witness out for yourself.

[ September 14, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

I have located where my tracts are - they are in a box in storage. I will be able to retrieve them tomorrow morning, and hopefully post something later tomorrow.

In the meantime, here are some Catholic websites rebutting the claims made in Chick's tracts. As a computer nut myself, I especially find the claim that the Vatican has a computer with the name of every Protestant very amusing. Also amusing is the claim that the 1981 assassination attempt on the Pope was orchestrated by the Pope himself. Some of John's items and more are listed near the top of the second link, complete with footnotes for reference and verification (especially footnotes 1-13):

http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/jtchick/
http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts.asp

(warning, the second link is VERY long)

 

So, basically b/c Jack Chick said that a former Jesuit priest gave him "information" that the institutionalized Catholic church denies, then our brother Jack is a liar? Could it be that the Vatican is lying? No, that couldn't be.

Johnv, I own the complete Crusaders series and the Alberto series. I used to receive the Battle Cry publication but I recently moved and I guess I didn't send them my forwarding address.

Ultimately we need to pray for discernment on these matters, yes? (not saying that Jack Chick opposers aren't discerning).

Thanks natters for the links. I'll check them out. BTW, I'm not attempting to put down Catholic folks. It's the Vatican that is working for our enemy. Some of my dearest and loved family members are still blinded by the deception of the Catholic "faith". So, I do know of what I speak about.

Parting shot...the Catholic church is much more powerful than most people in this world know and understand. And unless you've "come out from among her", you may not really know what its all about.

 

Sspinko52
"So, basically b/c Jack Chick said that a former Jesuit priest gave him "information" that the institutionalized Catholic church denies, then our brother Jack is a liar?"
"
If that jesuit priest happens to be a fraud instead of a real former jesuit priest, yes.

"the Catholic church is much more powerful than most people in this world know and understand."
''
It's an organization that claims a membership of 1 billion spread all over the globe. It runs the tiniest country on earth on the side. It has the largest art collection on earth. A lot of brilliant people work there and a lot of influential people take the opinions of it's thinkers&leaders very seriously.


"And unless you've "come out from among her", you may not really know what its all about."
''
I can't claim to have 'come out from among her', but
I did have lunch with the head of the jesuit order Hans Kolvenbach last year in Rome, I've known him since the 80's (long story). I Can't say that I have ever seen anything that would wet the appetite of a conspiracy theorist when I was around him.

 

Sspinko52, I found some of my Chick stuff. I was only able to find "The Attack" track and the "Sabotage?" full-size comic book. I have started documenting the errors in them, and hope to post some later tonight or tomorrow.

 

The rather infamous article about Rivera by Cornerstone magazine.
http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228

 

This is truly the most disgraceful posting I have seen on this site. I have struggled to comprehend the thinking of alot of memebers on this site. I can't beleive the way people have acted here in debates about Bible versions. But this topic takes the cake! Anyone denouncing a chick tract should be ashamed! As a few have stated here, chick tracts have won countless souls to the Lord. Is that not the entire purpose of our lives. Have you all forgetten the "Great Commision!" This affirms my beleif that the people on this site have some major work to do in there walks with the Lord. Forget about the MAN, remember the message in a chick tract. I am utterly speachless, and don't even have the words to rebuke you people. This is reason enough for me to never again return to this site. Don't bother posting a reply to me, I will not ever return to this site! I suggest all you re-evaluate what were here for. It is not to debate amongst each other. It is the Great Commision! Jack Chick knows this!

 

"As a few have stated here, chick tracts have won countless souls to the Lord."
""
I've read plenty of salvation stories in my life, but I have read only one that mentioned a Chick tract as a factor.
I suspect that as soulwinning tools the Chick tracts are higly overrated.

 

mjwegs42, why lead people to the Lord through lies, when you can do it through truth? What are those people going to do, when they learn the very thing that led them to Christianity was built on lies???

Would Jesus lie to someone just to get them to repent and turn to him? Should we? Should Chick?

 

These errors are from the tract "The Attack" ( http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp ). Note there is a LOT in this tract about Jesuits, about which I have no knowledge to confirm or deny, but most of those things sound extremely odd, such as Jesuits ordered to become Anglican in an attempt to thwart the translation of the KJV, etc. So I won't comment on those, I'll only comment on things I can/have confirmed:

Page 1 says Dr. Alberto Rivera is an "ex-Jesuit priest"

mioque has provided ample explanation why this is untrue.

Page 4 says the Apocrypha was "always rejected by Christians from the First Century and throughout the Protestant Reformation as being devilish"

There has always been debate as to the canonicity of the Apocryphal books, but they certainly were not "rejected" by Christians of the first century. In fact, we know extrememly little of what Christians in the first century accepted. However, in the 2nd century and onwards, Polycarp, Clement, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and many other early fathers quoted the Apocryphal books. Also, very few, even in the Reformation, considered it "devilish", just that it was not on the same level as scripture.

Page 6 says "Satan used the intellectuals in Alexandria, Egypt to mutilate Old and New Testament manuscripts of God's Word, and the mess they produced is called the Alexandrian manuscripts."

First, although certain individuals in Alexandria altered the word of God for their own purposes, there is no real evidence that these alterations were accepted and incorporated into what would later become known as the "Alexandrian manuscripts". Second even the KJV translators called the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT, coming from Alexandria) "the word of God" despite its imperfections. They also stated that God, and not Satan, was responsible for it.

Page 7 says "The Alexandrian Manuscripts down-played the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, salvation by grace through faith, etc."

This is completely untrue. Chich wishes it was true, but it is not.

Page 7 sayd "True Christians rejected these phoney manuscripts as works of the spirit of antichrist."

This also is untrue. First, it implies that if one doesn't reject those manuscripts, one is not a true Christian. Second, Christians in Alexandria, and elsewhere, accepted and used them.

Page 7 says Emporer Constantine was "the first pope".

Need I comment?

Page 8 says "In 1229 A.D., the Bible, along with the Apocrypha, was placed on the list of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia."

First, the list of forbidden books was not created until 1559. Second, in 1229 Valencia was controlled and inhabited by Muslims - a formal Church Council would have been impossible. Third, in 1229 in Toulouse, there was a Council and the Bishops at this Council forbade the reading of a particular translation done by the Albigensians, who were teaching that there were two gods, that marriage is evil, and that suicide of its members was to be encouraged (no wonder they didn't last very long)

Page 8 says "Satan's next attack came in 1546 during the Concil of Trent. The Vatican declared the Apocrypha was "Holy Writ," and officially part of their Old Testament.

Page 9 says the Catholic Church "claimed 68 million victims from 1200 to 1800 A.D."

There wasn't even 68 million people alive in total in the places of the Inquisition (France, Spain, and Italy) during that time. The entire population of all of Europe in 1400 was 60 million.

Page 10 says "Luther translated the Textus Receptus manuscript into the German tongue, giving Germany "The Word of God". In 1525, Tyndale did the same thing in English."

Luther's translation, indeed "the word of God", is different from the KJV (Chick is writing this tract to promote KJV-onlyism). Tyndale primarily used the TR, but also used Luther's German, Erasmus's Latin, and the Latin Vulgate (which Chick just inferred was "satanic" on page 7) as subsidiary aids.

Page 13 says "King James intended to authorize an English Bible based on the inspired manuscript (Textus Receptus)."

There's quite a bit wrong with that statement. First and probably most importantly, the "Textus Receptus" is NOT "the inspired manuscript". It was a compilation of relatively few manuscripts, put together by Erasmus (a Catholic priest and monk, a fact conveniently not mentioned by Chick in this diatribe against Catholicism and Catholicism's influence on "other" Bibles.) The first edition of what would later become known as the TR was produced in the early 1500s (less than 100 years before the KJV) and went through several editions, both before and after the KJV. So calling it a "manuscript" is totally off the mark, and saying it is "the inspired manuscript" is tantamount to reinspiration of scripture. Second, the King James Bible was based primarily on the Bishop's Bible, correcting as needed by the TR - it wasn't simply based on the TR.

Page 14 says the Jesuit's "plot was to secretly switch the text containing God's Word and replace it with their Roman Catholic (Vaticanus) Alexandrian manuscript. God stopped these undercover Jesuits from destroying His Word by having guards posted at their tables watching every move."

Not only is that erroneous, it is ridiculous. A guard would have no idea what the difference was between various Greek manuscripts, and which ones were being used. Also, the translators were all Anglican (and a few were Puritan) and would be able to tell the difference between the TR (16th century publication) and Vaticanus (4th century hand-written). But third, the Vaticanus was nowhere near England at that time, it was basically sitting locked away in a library at the Vatican, and nobody got a good look at the entire thing for purposes of textual criticism and translation until the 19th century.

Page 14 says "Then they moved to place the Apocrypha in the Old Testament, which also failed. Their last mission was accomplished (on a temporary basis, until the plot was discovered) and that was to place the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments."

This is conspiracy theory on steroids. Chick would have us believe that approx 50 Anglican translators, didn't notice that the Apocrypha was in their own Bible, even though many of them themselves translated it! Then several years later (44 years later, according to page 16), someone when "whoa, how'd that get in there?!?" and took it out? Come on.

Page 16 says "There were no footnotes by men."

There were LOTS of footnotes by men in the 1611.

Page 17 says of Westcott and Hort, textual critics of the late 19th century and producers of the Westcott/Hort Greek NT of 1881, "both men were "closet Catholics"". Chich refers the reader to "Which Bible?" pages 278-281 by Fuller for information. I own that book, and looked it up. Those pages mention Westcott and Hort, but say nothing of anything related to Catholicism. Westcott and Hort were Anglican scholars, and opposed Roman Catholicism.

Pages 17-18 says "Jesuits were sent to infiltrate all Protestant theological seminaries and Bible societies. In time, the Jesuits got into the Bible departments to teach the young impressionable men who would become future Protestant pastors." Page 17 goes on to say "The Vatican was so successful that today almost every Protestant school of theology relies on Satan's Alexandrian manuscript (Vaticanus) as their final authority. Their light has gone out."

Um, right.

Page 20 says "Your old King James Bible (the Textus Receptus in English) is the infallible Word of God...Don't allow it to be thrown out of your church."

Again, there were several editions of the Textus Receptus, none of them identical. And the KJV is identical to none of them.

Page 20 says of Luke 2:33 "This verse denies the virgin birth (found in the New American Standard Bible)".

Completely false.

Page 20 says "What we see is prophetic. [The acceptance of other versions] is the great falling away before the Lord Jesus returns in power and great glory."

Um, right.

Page 21 says of 1 John 5:7, "If that verse is messed up in the Book you call "The Bible," then you know you're looking at a translation that came from Satan's mutilated Alexandrian manuscripts."

First, 1 John 5:7 is "messed up" in the vast majority of ALL manuscripts, including those used for the Textus Receptus. Second, most (all?) ancient translations such as the Peshitta (which Chick has elsewhere praised as "the Word of God") do not have this verse. Third, the first two editions of the Textus Receptus (which is "the inspired manuscript" according to page 13) do not have this verse. Fourth, Luther's German translation (which is "the Word of God" according to page 10) does not have this verse.

I'm sure there are more errors in this tract, but parts of my knowledge of history are not up to stuff to comment on parts of the tract. But keep in mind, all the above errors are in a single, 22 page tract. His other tracts that deal with history, Catholicism, Bible versions, etc., will have errors like this one. I have the full-size comic book "Sabotage?", which is basically "The Attack" with more details (and thus more errors) and a sub-story about a KJV-only believer who got violent in Bible school (because the professor talked about original manuscripts), assaulted the professor and became a violent hippie/criminal, later restored to his Christian faith once some KJV-only friends put him back on track.

 

Dr. Bob - i couldn't agree more with your last post.

Mioque - you know, if i'm trying to hide something, do you think that i'm going to put it out there for everyone else to see? no, i'm not. well, neither is the catholic church nor the mormons nor any other cult for that matter.
Also, if only one comes to know the Lord through bro. Jacks ministry, then i'd say his ministry was a success - at least for the moment when that person's life was changed. can we agree on that?

Natters - no, Jesus would not lie nor mandate us to lie in order to bring someone to the saving knowledge and relationship with Him. AND, i'm still patiently waiting for SPECIFICS.

You know, it just dawned on me that no one here is really going to change anyone else's perspective on this issue. I'm beginning to think that this is just a vain and speculative argument. And i'd hate to think that our arguments would offend a brother or sister in the Lord so much so that he/she would give up reading some of the really good stuff that's posted on this message board. Ya'll be blessed.

 

Sspinko52 said "AND, i'm still patiently waiting for SPECIFICS."

Scroll up to the post right before yours.

 

Well, natters, i asked for specifics and you certainly gave me some. I was probably typing my latest post during the time that you posted. Sorry that I didn't read it before i chided you about my continous patience. I appreciate the time and effort that you put into your research. I'm still not convinced, but will accept your specifics for now as from a fellow beleiver. I'm going away now.

 

I am certainly out of my league.