The guest is wrong on one point: Burgon was not a bishop. He was a cathedral dean. But, as the guest points out, Burgon did acknowledge errors in both the TR and the KJV.
The name “Easter” is never mentioned in the original Scriptures. However, one English translation of the Bible does use the word. The King James Version chose to translate Acts 12:4 like this: “And when he [Herod Agrippa, the King] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” The book of Acts was originally written in the Greek language by the Christian Gentile and physician Luke. The Greek word that the King James Version translates as “Easter” is most certainly not the word “Easter.” It is actually the word “Pascha” (Hebrew: Pesach) which means “Passover”-and this is how all accurate translations show it. For example, the New King James Version says, “So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.” It was during an annual Passover celebration that Jesus was crucified at Jerusalem. Passover is an annual Jewish religious celebration instituted by God (Leviticus 23:5). It dates from the time of Moses when God delivered the Israelites from bondage and spared their first-borns when all first-borns in Egypt died (Exodus 12:11f; Numbers 9:2f; Deuteronomy 16:1f; 2 Kings 23:21f). The King James Bible Why did the translators of the King James Bible translate as Passover all 28 other occurrences of pascha in the New Testament except for this one verse, Acts 12:4, where they translated it Easter? Why didn’t they translate it as Passover here too? Many scholars in researching this puzzling question conclude that it must have been an oversight, and that it would have been changed if it had been caught prior to printing. Nearly every scholar today understands that the early New Testament Church kept the Passover and not the modern holiday observance of Easter. Albert Barnes wrote in his commentary: “There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover, meta to pasca [μετα το πάσχα]. The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honour of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that; nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles. “The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of love, or the Venus of the North, in honour of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). As this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honour of the resurrection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term Easter is used frequently to translate the word Passover. In the translation by Wicliffe [Wycliffe], the word paske, i.e., passover, is used. But Tindal [Tyndale] and Coverdale used the word Easter, and hence it has very improperly crept into our [King James Version] translation” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 1798-1870, comments on Acts 12:4). New King James Version The New King James Version of the Bible was translated over a period of seven years and was completed in 1982. The publishers wanted to preserve the beauty and literary style of the original King James Version. But the NKJV translators wanted to make necessary corrections in vocabulary and grammar too. They and most other modern translators recognize that “Easter” was an inaccurate translation of pascha in Acts 12:4, and they use the word Passover instead. Rather than supporting the Christian observance of Easter, Acts 12:4 corroborates the other 28 uses of the word pascha in the New Testament to show us that the early Church of God observed the Passover. The 29 references cover the span from Christ’s death through the later writing of the apostle Paul. It is abundantly clear that the New Testament Church of God observed the Passover-not Easter! See our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. See the website that refutes the heresies of King James Onlyism at www.KJVOnly.org.
At 9:15 this gets very interesting because I know alot about the SDA church and how much it works with the catholic church. I keep sabbath, so I don't hate them for keeping sabbath. I say this so SDAs know what I am about to say has nothing to do with them keeping sabbath. But as much as the SDA church SEEMS to be against the Papacy, I found much proof they seem to secretly be aligned with them. So the part at 9:15 about the SDA church is very interesting and backs up another suspicion I had.
Questions for KJV Only idolators: Do we have freedom in USA read other Bible versions? Are you forcing people read KJV Only? Is that legalism? Show me in your KJV Bible that God or Jesus said "Read KJV only or go to hell" Which KJV Bible was God's perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one. What was God's perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer. If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details. If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Please give specific verses with proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been) Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it "the word of God") Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not? Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?) Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words? If passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt 5:18 are about the KJV, what did these passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English translation of scripture? When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible? Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position? AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE "BIG 2" QUESTIONS The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the "preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain. If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?
What affronts me, as a native German speaker, the most about the KJV-only position is that from this position, of the KJV being perfect, it would have to follow logically that God's words are not perfect in any other language translation. What is so special about English speakers?
Frauke Schmidt Very good point! King James Onlyism makes no sense at all especially when one realizes that the writers of the original scripture did not know or speak English to begin with. The apostle Paul never had a 1611 King James translation to use so does that mean he was of the devil according to King James Onlyites?!
I have started randomly collating Scripture passage where the Luther 1545 translation disagrees with the KJV. No, he did not have exactly the same textual basis, I think he just used Erasmus. And here's one for starters: the "Comma Johanneum" is not in any edition of Luther's translation published during his lifetime...
S bannoura And when the Holy Spirit first empowered the apostles at Pentecost he used a miracle of tongues, so that the Jews who were gathered in Jerusalem from all the nations would understand Peter's message. Our LORD never restricted himself to just certain written or spoken languages. Translations.The NT texts were translated into other common languages very early on, with the gospel spreading quickly. Who knows, if Luther hadn't translated the Bible into German, you may not even have the KJV. ;)
S bannoura "The KJV was not translated from the german language, it was translated from the received text" You are treating me like I'm stupid. The Lord is using Bible translations in all kinds of languages. If the Scriptures weren't available in German my family and I wouldn't have become Christians. So as far as I'm concerned the Lord uses whichever language people speak/read. Though there is still many languages into which the Scriptures are yet to be translated.
My Pastor and my church is king James only. What can I say to my pastor to give him good logic why we can also include other translations. To tell you the truth im a bit scared of what ive been told about some of the other translations and the manuscripts they come from. When i got saved I started reading the NIV. Is this a good translation.
For starters watch all our King James Only videos on our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 and read all the articles on the website www.KJVOnly.org. Next you need to get a copy of James White's book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" at www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436552035&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+only+controversy&pebp=1436552047942&perid=0D27KWWCHVDRTF6TS1XT and read it. Next you need to listen to all of James White's "Dividing Line" shows on RUclips at ruclips.net/user/AominOrg & select the shows where you can tell he is talking about KJV only issues. Do the same with his KJV only shows on his other RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/DrOakley1689. 1 John 5:13 (KJV) - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13 (NASB) - "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." The earlier & better manuscripts prove that the NASB rendering is the more authentic rendering since the KJV did not have access to those earlier & better manuscripts at the time it was put together. The research needed is in the references above which will prove that clearly. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant! Here's more questions to ask cultic "King James Only" heretics & idolaters: If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language? If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers? Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates! If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it? Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."? When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct? If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary? In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible? Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation) Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation? Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.) Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.) Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"? Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition) Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God? Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is? If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14) Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist? Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.) How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"? How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse) How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated? Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"? Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16] WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18? Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed? Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from? Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611? Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"? What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist]. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604? Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible? If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23] If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement? Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"? Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah --34:16--? Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles --33:19--? Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"? Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850? Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser - "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias] Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69] Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader? Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV? Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV? Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also." Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe? Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek] Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10] Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."] Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."? Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17] Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6] Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above] May the Lord bless you & yours, Larry Wessels www.BibleQuery.org www.HistoryCart.com www.MuslimHope.com RUclips Channel: ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV SermonAudio Channel with Transcripts: www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Larry_Wessels 1 Peter 3:15 (for an excellent exposition of this verse hear Dr. James White's message "The Defense of Our Faith" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7415173271)
For more on how the King James translation was put together hear Dr. James White "The KJV Bible at 400 Years Old" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1028111950342. King James Onlyites make an insidious issue against other Bible translations with the question - 'Who Killed Goliath?' “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (2 Samuel 21:19). “And there was again war with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (1 Chronicles 20:5). The record of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) clearly speaks of the defeat of the giant of Gath by the shepherd boy. This story is used to emphasize faith and faithfulness to the young from their earliest ages. However, some have alleged a discrepancy between the account in 1 Samuel and two other passages (2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5). According to 2 Samuel 21:19, it appears that Elhanan killed Goliah; yet 1 Chronicles 20:5 states that Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The question, then, is who did Elhanan kill? First, we must recognize who Elhanan was not. According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, Elhanan was the son of Jair. This was not the same man as Elhanan the Bethlehemite, son of Dodo (2 Samuel 23:24; Keil and Delitzsch, 1996, 2:681). Furthermore, it appears that Jair and Jaareoregim actually are the same person (Barnes, 1998, 2:120). Barnes, as well as the editors of The Pulpit Commentary, noted that the difficulty may have begun when oregim, the Hebrew word translated “weaver” in this passage, ended up being placed on the wrong line by a copyist-something that has been known to happen in several instances (see Spence and Exell, 1978, 4:514). Therefore, Jair, combined with oregim, became Jaare-oregim in order to make it fit with proper Hebrew grammar (Spence and Exell, 4:514). Second, the phrase “Lahmi the brother of” is absent in 2 Samuel 21:19. The King James Version inserts the phrase “the brother of” between “Bethlehemite” and “ Goliath.” Furthermore, in the Hebrew, eth Lachmi (a combination of “Lahmi” and the term “brother”) appears to have been changed into beith hallachmi (Beth- lehemite). With this simple correction, the two texts would be in clear agreement (Clarke, n.d., p. 369). In other words, “the brother of” and the name “Lahmi” likely were combined by a copyist to form what is translated in English as “Beth-lehemite” in 2 Samuel 21:19. This, however, caused the difficulty when the passage was paralleled with 1 Chronicles 20:5. In his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer used the same scenario mentioned above to explain this difficulty, and then summed up the situation by noting: “In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5” (1982, p. 179). A fair, in-depth examination of the alleged difficulty shows that there actually is no contradiction at all, but simply a copyist’s mistake. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Barnes, Albert (1998 reprint), Barnes’ Notes: Exodus to Esther (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Clarke, Adam (no date), Commentary and Critical Notes on the Old Testament: Joshua to Esther (New York, NY: Abingdon). Keil, C.F., and F. Delitzsch (1996), Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Spence, H.D.M., and Joseph S. Exell, Eds. (1978), The Pulpit Commentary: Ruth, I & II Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). We may have an inaccuracy in our existing copies of the original Hebrew manuscripts of 2 Samuel. After all, the parallel passage of this verse in 1 Chronicles 20:5 tells us, “In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.” Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath, not Goliath himself. First Chronicles 20:5 is apparently the correct reading, and 2 Samuel 21:19 is apparently missing ‘brother of.’ This should not be taken to mean that you should not trust your Bible. You can! Through the science of textual criticism, scholars have been able to examine the thousands of biblical manuscripts, each of which have minor differenced between them, and come to a near certainty as to what the original text must have said. The more early biblical manuscripts we discover, the more minor discrepancies are cleared up. Second Samuel is a good example. Note that, strictly speaking, only the original manuscripts are inspired and inerrant. Manuscript copies are inspired and inerrant to the extent that they reflect the original documents. Source(s): Rhodes, Ron. Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 2008. 63. Print. The following comment is made by Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas / Christian Debater, RUclips Channel: ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV, websites: www.BibleQuery.org, www.HistoryCart.com & www.MuslimHope.com: "King James Onlyists, failing either to understand the proper science of textual criticism or either choosing to ignore it for their own purposes due to their blind devotion to their idol the 1611 King James translation & its numerous revisions that came afterward (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version; for a kinder & gentler approach to KJV advocates hear "The King James Only Debate" at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=the+king+james+only+debate&selectsearch= ) have played fast & loose with textual variations in the manuscript evidence to foster conspiracy theories against any Bible translation besides their "sacred & inspired" King James translation (although the KJV translators themselves never saw it that way, see "The Translators To The Readers Preface to the King James Version 1611 written by the King James Translators" at www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_appendix_a.html). The nonsense KJV Only advocates come up with to attack other Bible translations is incredible & ridiculous on a vast scale. KJV Only apologetics is simply very insulting to common sense & rational intelligence. To prove this point beyond a shadow of a doubt please read the information provided at www.KJVOnly.org which refutes the many errors & heresies of King James Onlyites. It is very difficult to reason with such brainwashed Bible translation idolaters (keep in mind I am not talking about people who simply prefer a KJV over other translations & do not spend their time recklessly attacking other Bible translations & Christians who use them). Fanatical KJV Onlyists attack the Biblical gospel itself by insisting that the King James translation is necessary for salvation (for more on this hear "King James Onlyism" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=414151925346) & thus they cross the line of Galatians 1:6-9 into "another gospel." Since KJV Onlyists constantly attack other Bible translations as "Satanic" they focus on variants in preserved manuscripts (such as "Who killed Goliath?") to mislead unprepared hearers to believe in their perverted view of the KJV. Dr. James White (www.AOMin.org) has done a fine job, not only with his book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" at www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429806117&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+only+controversy+james+white, but in his analysis on Biblical textual criticism which, when properly understood, crushes the bogus arguments made by KJV Onlyites. For a great in depth study of Biblical textual criticism hear Dr. White's series on this subject at "Can I Trust My Bible?" at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=immanuelbc&keyword=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F&keyworddesc=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F which includes "Textual Criticism: Reliability, Answering Critics, Bible Versions & Sufficiency of Scripture." For further study see our playlist " Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 where all our videos on King James Onlyism are located, including videos we have made with Dr. White. Hardcore King James Onlyites are dangerous false prophets causing division & strife within the Body of Christ so beware of them as Christ warned in Matthew 7:15."
“Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” -Luke 13:23-24 Do you understand the question in the above Scripture? “Lord, are there few that be saved?” Someone came to Jesus and wanted to know if “few” people were saved. It's interesting that the person didn't ask if “many” people were saved. Evidently the person had been listening to Jesus' preaching and became convinced that few people were really saved. When the Bible speaks of being “saved,” it means saved from God's wrath upon Christ-rejecting sinners in Hell (for more on hell see our playlist "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 30 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E & "Eternal Punishment, Part 1" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, Part 2" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607143539). Romans 5:9, “Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” All Christ-rejecters go to Hell if they die in their sins. If a person is “saved,” then they are going to Heaven when they die. Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” We are saved from the eternal consequences of sin, which is punishment in hellfire. To be saved is synonymous with being “born again.” When a person becomes a born-again child of God, they are saved eternally. EVERY human being MUST to be saved (i.e., born again) to enter into Heaven. John 3:3, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” If a person dies in their sins without believing on Jesus as the Savior, the Son of God, they will burn in Hell forever (Revelation 20:11-15).Just as the disciple who asked Jesus the question in Luke 13:23, I myself often wonder how few are truly born again believers. I dare say not many. Let's consider the question again...“Lord, are there few that be saved?” There are over one billion Catholics in the world who errantly believe that the Catholic Church is going to save them. Roman Catholics do not trust Jesus Christ alone; but rather, rely upon manmade traditions and self-righteous works to save them. According to the Word of God, genuine Catholics are hellbound in their sins because they are trusting in self-righteousness (Romans 3:20; 10:3-4; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, see our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 129 videos & counting at ruclips.net/p/PLFFA8D69D1B914715). There are over one billion Islamic Muslims in the world who deny that Jesus Christ ever died upon a cross for our sins (see our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 67 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL1C7F68B548009FDD). According to the Bible, they are antichrists and liars on their way to Hell (1st John 2:22-23). There are over 183,000 cults in Japan alone that deny Jesus Christ as the only Savior of the world. Other false religions include Scientology, Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Seventh Day Adventism, Zoroastrianism, Greek Orthodox, Judaism, Jehovah Witness, Mormonism, Freemasonry, and many more (see our RUclips channel CAnswersTV at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV with over 615 videos covering most of these anti Christian religions in detail). Why do I call them “false religions”? It's simply because they all corrupt the Biblical teaching of salvation, i.e., the gospel (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 48 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL9931642C7C8FFEAB). Most false religions ADD works to faith. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses DENY the deity of Jesus Christ (i.e., that He is Almighty God) - see our playlists "Dealing with Mormonism, the Religion of Mitt Romney & Utah" with 20 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL11CD0EE613306BB5 & "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40. Seventh Day Adventists falsely and deceitfully redefine faith to mean works (see our playlist, "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" with 23 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL5316CC6F66F24283). There are hundreds of millions of followers of Hinduism who deny Jesus as the Savior, the Son of God (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Christ Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 42 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL69A3047B3497590A). Judaism denies that Jesus is the Messiah. The same Pharisaical Jews who crucified Jesus 2,000 years ago are crucifying Him today. The Campbellite Church of Christ deceitfully speaks of faith in Christ, but also requires water baptism and living the Christian life to be saved. That is works salvation, which is a lie of the Devil (Romans 3:20; Romans 4:5-6, see our playlist "Dealing with "Saved by Works & Baptism", "Church of Christ" with 72 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLBD55090718DA6D3D). Every Catholic claims not to worship Mary, but the second commandment (Exodus 20:3-5) forbids even bowing to Mary (which every Catholic does, for more on the Roman Catholic installation of the worship of saints, images, & polytheism in church history hear "Perseverance of the Saints & the Worship of Saints (Historical Theology Vol. 1, #17)" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=14101149112 & "The Worship of Images & Civil Authorities (Historical Theology Vol. 1, #18)" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=15101057200). There are hundreds of millions of so-called Charismatic & Pentecostal "Christians" who trade the Word of God for their own wild emotional experiences & replace the Biblical gospel for a gospel of "heath & wealth" despite 1 Timothy 6:10 saying, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" - see our two video series on this: "Blasphemous Charismatic & Pentecostal Mayhem #1: Mad Delusional Experiences Replace Scripture Alone" at ruclips.net/video/Kbv7YsyMf0I/видео.html begins one series while "AGONY OF THE PHONY WORD-FAITH TV PREACHERS #1: MIND SCIENCE ORIGINS OF KENNETH HAGIN & HIS DISCIPLES" at ruclips.net/video/VwQ5BLrYD_U/видео.html begins another series. Even secular humanism, atheism & agnosticism can be considered faith based religions due to the fact that atheists & humanists have a faith that God does not exist while agnostics are willingly ignorant concerning God (see our playlist "Dealing with "God Hating" Atheists, Agnostics, Know-It-Alls" with 20 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL640E505B96CD6B39). Many animistic religions exist throughout the world as well which are described in Romans 1:18-32, see our video "FOREIGN MISSIONS FOR CHRIST: PREACHING TO CANNIBALS, WITCH DOCTORS & TRIBAL NATIVES" at ruclips.net/video/ACnDLyXa9H0/видео.html. All of the religions I have just mentioned account for well over seven eighths of the earth's population or more. Keep in mind, besides all of this, Jesus said, "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). Who are considered "rich people"? It's not just millionaires & world leaders but many lesser wealthy persons who exceed the vast majority of mankind in money & possessions (Luke16:19-31 is a good example of this in the parable of the rich man & Lazarus). See the video "It is Difficult for Americans to Enter Heaven - Tim Conway" at ruclips.net/video/bDwNGXciNCQ/видео.html. Statistics provided in this video show that even the poorest Americans living in the United States have a better net income than most of the world. For instance, according to Forbes magazine, June 1, 2013, the bottom 5% of United States citizens are richer than 68% of people living throughout the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $50,000 a year are richer than 99.69% of the people in the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $20,000 a year are richer than 96% of the people in the rest of the world, U.S. citizens who make $10,000 a year are richer than 84% of the people in the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $100,000 a year are in a category that only 8 out of every 10,000 people achieve in the entire world. Will it be difficult for rich Americans who don't think they're rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Jesus already gave the answer. For more on this hear "Those Whom God Hates He Is Often Pleased To Give Plenty Of Earthly Things To, Edwards" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=427121150346 by the well known theologian Jonathan Edwards who also preached the most famous sermon on North American soil called, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=770213541. If you don't like what I am telling you then get mad at God because He wrote the Bible. If you take the Bible at FACE VALUE, you can only interpret it one way. The best way to interpret the Bible is with the Bible. God said what He meant and meant what He said. Let the Bible speak for itself. Jesus answered the question in Luke 13:24 with the following words...“...for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Most of the people in this world are going straight to Hell when they die because they have not been born again (hear "Few Saved From A Burning Hell" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3514145121). Lies and deception are everywhere! Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses claim to be born-again but they are NOT. You can't get born-again by doing good works, confessing your sins to a priest, getting water baptized, joining a church or keeping the Sabbath Day. Salvation is NOT found in any religion; but rather, in a Person-The Lord Jesus Christ! Most people today have churchianity without Christianity, and they are all going to Hell if they don't repent toward God of their unbelief (for more on this see our video "TRUE BELIEVERS & NON BELIEVERS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF THE REFORMATION: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?" at ruclips.net/video/3_dN0oC57Rk/видео.html). The vast majority of so-called "Evangelical Christians" in the world today do not know what the Biblical gospel is or what "justification by faith alone" is (see our video "SAD STATE OF THE CHURCH: 87% OF EVANGELICAL "CHRISTIANS" DON'T KNOW WHAT GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION IS" at ruclips.net/video/im4ozy_EiR4/видео.html. There are only two types of religions in the world: DO and DONE. Either you believe that you have to DO something to go to Heaven; or else you believe that it is DONE, paid for by Jesus' precious blood. Jesus said in Luke 13:24 that “many” will seek to enter into Heaven but will not be able. That is quite startling. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 7:21-23 . . . “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” The reason why these religious people were not allowed into Heaven was because they attempted to enter Heaven through their own self-righteousness. In Matthew 5:20 Jesus spake concerning the religious leaders of His time . . . “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Most of the religious churchgoers in the world today are as lost as can be, still hellbound in their wickedness. They have not done the will of God concerning salvation, which is to BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (John 6:40; Acts 16:30-31). Jesus provides two contrasts in Luke 13:24, the contrast between seeking to enter and striving to enter and the contrast between seeking to enter through the narrow door and seeking to enter by any other means. Let’s now focus on the second contrast. Look at verses 25-27:"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.' 26 "Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; 27 and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.' (Luke 13:25 NAU) Jesus’ statement at the end of 25 and the middle of 27 is translated well in the NIV: “I don't know you or where you come from.” In effect, He is saying, “I don’t know you at all! You may think that you are mine, but I have nothing to do with you - I don’t even know your family, your village” So what does Jesus mean by the narrow door? What is His intended contrast with other methods of entering? Again, let’s begin by considering what the narrow door is not: The narrow door is NOT being in a church, reading the Bible, listening to sermons, looking to others like a Christian. This is clear from verse 26: these evildoers looked just like believers who had been with Jesus. They had listened to His preaching. But He does not know them, and they stand condemned.The narrow door is NOT being prominent in this life. Jesus says in verse 30 that some who are presently first will be last. Prominence now is no guarantee of one’s entering through the narrow door.The narrow door is NOT being a descendant of a great believer. See verse 28. Remember, Jesus is speaking to descendants of Abraham and Jacob. I sometimes like to use the expression, “God has no grandchildren.” Each of us must come to Jesus on our own, not through our parents, our grandparents, or other ancestors. Then what does Jesus mean by the narrow door? Elsewhere, Jesus says He Himself is the door: I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. (John 10:9) In what sense is this door narrow? In two ways. First, the door is narrow in the sense that no one comes to the Father any other way (John 14:6). No religious activities - Christian or non-Christian - bring us into the Kingdom. Sincere beliefs do not bring us in. Good works do not bring us in. Good feelings about our relationship with Christ do not bring us in. Though in our pluralistic society this message is despised, we must preach, teach, and live out this truth: There is only one door, and that narrow door is Jesus. The Lake of Fire is waiting for "many" when they die. Jesus' disciple asked Him if few people are going to Heaven. Jesus replied that many people will attempt, but fail. When the floods came in Noah's day, many people tried to get on the ark, but it was too late once the door was closed. When the bridegroom came in Matthew 25:1-13, the five foolish virgins were left behind because they were gone buying oil at the last moment. Do not likewise make the mistake of delaying salvation, for you will be sorry when it is too late. Few souls are going to Heaven. Jesus said, "Only those who find that strait gate and narrow way that leadeth unto life (Matthew 7:13-15), which is the righteousness of Jesus Christ will make it to heaven. So many churchgoers have religion, but they have never truly been born of the spirit of God, which is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, hear "Why Are So Few People Saved?" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111710103558). Salvation happens when a person acknowledges their guilt of sin unto God in repentance; believing on Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, to be forgiven (this is a supernatural action caused by God in the heart of a repentant sinner in 2 Timothy 2:24-26; see also "SUPERNATURAL BIBLE PROPHECY CONCERNING JESUS THE JEWISH MESSIAH (PART #1)" at ruclips.net/video/DVByqkjwChs/видео.html). We are SINNERS and Jesus is the wonderful SAVIOR! Acts 10:43, “To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” Salvation is given to those "few" who have been ordained to eternal life by God Himself (Acts 13:48). And who are those "few"? Jesus answers that question in John chapter 6:37,39,44,63 & 65: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." For more on this see our video "The Sovereignty of God Versus Man-Made Religions, Hollywood Movies & Petty Emotionalism" - ruclips.net/video/1UQABR_9gGI/видео.html. Keep in mind that God works with relatively few numbers throughout world history (remember how Elijah thought he was the last prophet of God left in Israel in 1 Kings 19:13-18 & the Lord had to correct Elijah about the number but still the number God told Elijah was small). The God of the Bible has always had His way of operating His plan in this world & it has always been consistently with small numbers (1 Corinthians 1:26-29, "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence." For an excellent message concerning the small numbers God has historically employed please hear the outstanding theologian Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his sermon "Sermon 113 - Three-score and Fifteen Souls" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=99217141430450. We also have a video along these lines called " Biblical Predestination #6: God Only Chooses a FEW for Salvation (Many Called/Few Chosen)" - ruclips.net/video/veCdGzYsc70/видео.html. See also our video "Strive To Enter - But Many Will Not Be Able To - Greg Van Court - Dayspring Fellowship, Austin, TX" at ruclips.net/video/qr2Rn-7o4RA/видео.html. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"
For starters watch all our King James Only videos on our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 and read all the articles on the website www.KJVOnly.org. Next you need to get a copy of James White's book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" at www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436552035&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+only+controversy&pebp=1436552047942&perid=0D27KWWCHVDRTF6TS1XT and read it. Next you need to listen to all of James White's "Dividing Line" shows on RUclips at ruclips.net/user/AominOrg & select the shows where you can tell he is talking about KJV only issues. Do the same with his KJV only shows on his other RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/DrOakley1689. 1 John 5:13 (KJV) - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13 (NASB) - "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." The earlier & better manuscripts prove that the NASB rendering is the more authentic rendering since the KJV did not have access to those earlier & better manuscripts at the time it was put together. The research needed is in the references above which will prove that clearly. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant! Here's more questions to ask cultic "King James Only" heretics & idolaters: If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language? If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers? Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates! If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it? Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."? When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct? If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary? In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible? Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation) Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation? Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.) Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.) Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"? Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition) Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God? Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is? If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14) Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist? Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.) How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"? How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse) How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
Both the NASB and the KJV Bibles are very accurate literal translations, of excellent scholarship, using the best copies of the original languages which were available to them. Both works clearly and accurately represent the Word of God. Literary quality is excellent for both works, and style is identical. In many places the NASB reads exactly or nearly the same as the KJV. When choosing between these two versions, there are various areas of contrast which I have listed in order of significance. 1. Readability - NASB. The New American Standard Bible uses contemporary language and punctuation, the King James version does not, being written almost 400 years ago, and virtually unchanged for about 120 years. The crux of the matter of readability is the difficulty of the Elizabethan English of the KJV, which is laborious to read even for those who are well educated and familiar with the texts, when compared to reading the same texts in the clearly written NASB in it's familiar modern format and natural vocabulary. Other readability issues include the use of quotations and poetic stanzas, small caps for Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, and capitalization of pronouns referring to deity. The NASB also recognizes Greek translations of Hebrew names and translates the names consistently, as opposed to the KJV which gives us multiple names for the same person; for example, the KJV calls Judah, the son of Israel, "Judas" in Matthew 1:2, because that's how it is in Greek. The NASB simply calls him Judah in both the Old and New Testaments; this is simpler to understand and just as accurate. 2. Quality of language translation - NASB. The King James version is excellent, but we have since learned a great deal about both ancient Greek and Hebrew. Our understanding of Greek has grown significantly, particularly with the discovery that the Greek Bible was in common Greek, but our understanding of Hebrew has vastly improved since the 17th century, during which time the ancient Hebrew was very poorly understood. The NASB clearly benefits from a better understanding of the languages, and presents not only closer translations, but provides notes for certain aspects of translation, as discussed above. When the NASB and KJV differ on the rendering of a text, which is not based on variance in the manuscripts, the NASB is usually more favorable to the original languages. Also, slight variations in words chosen and sentance forms used throughout the NASB reflect our current understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, which has improved dramatically in 400 years. 3. Quality of manuscripts - NASB. The KJV was based on the manuscripts which were few in number, local in geography, and late in date. Archeology has, since the KJV, made almost all important manuscript discoveries - everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls back to the Rosetta Stone, all occur after the KJV. These new manuscripts can be found in conclusive families, based on history and geography, with standardized variations of content and recognizable progression of modifications. Today's critical texts are very broad based and careful reconstructions of the original writings, and cannot be reasonably discounted out-of-hand, nor can the published arguments of those who would demand the exclusive use of the Textus Receptus be validated, or even accepted as reasonable. To suppose that the much older, much more widely distributed manuscripts, in many languages, which have been discovered over the last 390 years are all corrupted and inferior to the sources for the KJV is incredible, to say the least. 4. Quality of Notes - NASB. While almost all KJV Bibles are published with some kind of notes, none are version inclusive. The NASB does include a particular set of notes with the text which pertain directly to the rendering. The first example of these notes is the notation of the literal translation in those instances where a word or phrase is not literal. A second set of notations identify certain passages as being included or excluded in various manuscripts, or giving readings found in alternate mss. Other advantages of text notes include the use of the small-capitals font when the New Testament is quoting the Old Testament, the marking of the Greek historical presents tense, and the capitalization of personal pronouns which refer to deity. The fact of the matter is that the English Bible is a translation, and as such, justifiably calls for adequate translation notes, notes which are bountiful in the NASB and completely absent from the KJV. See our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. See also www.kjvonly.org/ & www. isawthelightministries.com/ kjv.html. 2 Timothy 2:15
To those who wish to discuss issues brought up in our video posted here to a greater extent please know that you can email one of our ministry volunteers at certainandsecure@gmail.com. Also realize that we may have an entire playlist of videos on this subject on our RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV. Besides that know that we have three websites to answer additional questions at www.BibleQuery.org (answers over 8500 questions on the Bible & refutes critics of the Bible), www.HistoryCart.com (this website deals with an in depth analysis of early Christian church history) and www.MuslimHope.com (this website is a documented refutation of Islam, a false religious & political ideology of warlike jihad against all unbelievers invented by Muhammad while he was in Medina for the last 9 years of his life where he averaged one offensive military jihad of pillage, rape & slavery every month to six weeks against his neighbors which eventually led to conquering all of Saudi Arabia- see also www.politicalislam.com/, www.answeringmuslims.com/, answering-islam.org/, www.jihadwatch.org/ & our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 71 videos & counting at ruclips.net/p/PL1C7F68B548009FDD). 1 Peter 3:15
As Moses and his family were travelling in their way to Egypt, at an inn where they stopped for the refreshment of themselves and cattle, or in order to lodge all night: so it was, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him; not the uncircumcised son of Moses, as some think, but Moses himself, who had neglected the circumcision of his son; that from the context, and the fact of Zipporah, after related, seems to be the reason of the divine displeasure, and not his bringing his family with him.
According to my references for Acts 2:27, NIV says. "because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay." while the ESV says "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption" while the NASB says "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY." while the KJV says "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." The "grave" is not "Hades" & the KJV mistranslated "hades" here as "hell." "Hades" should be the word used here in this verse. The Pulpit Commentary says, "Verse 27. - Hades for hell, A.V.; give thy Holy One for suffer thine Holy One, A.V., surely not so good a rendering. Hades. The "hell" of the A.V. is the exact English representative of ᾅδης. The article in the Creed, "He descended into hell," is based upon this text especially, the other two alleged in support of it (Ephesians 4:9; 1 Peter 3:18, 19) being less conclusive (see Pearson on the Creed, art. 5.). It is a pity to lose the word "hell" in its true meaning. Corruption; Greek διαφθρόραν, Hebrew שַׁחַת. The Hebrew word always means a pit (from שׁוּחַ); but the LXX. here render it διαφθορά, as if from שָׁחַת (in Pihel, to destroy, waste; in Hophal and Niphal, to be corrupted, spoilt, to rot). In the A.V. it is rendered corruption, here and in Job 17:14, where it answers to "the worms," in the parallel clause. It is very probable that the LXX. are right. Nothing is more common than for Hebrew verbs to take the meaning of verbs with similar radicals. Holy One. So the LXX. and the Keri of the Hebrew text. But the Cethib has Holy Ones in the plural. It is obvious that the singular, Holy One, agrees far better with the singulars which precede and follow it - my heart, my glory, my flesh, my soul, thou wilt show me - than the plural, which is entirely out of place. The two clauses taken together show the full liberation of Christ from the dominion of death - that of his human soul from hell, and that of his body from the grave before it saw corruption (comp. Acts 13:34-37). Now let's get into a little more detail by becoming familiar with some Hebrew and Greek words that are key to understanding this topic. Sheol (Hebrew) - It is the non-permanent place or temporary address of the disembodied souls of dead. It is not the grave or sepulcher, nor is it the eternal location of the souls of the dead. It is the same as the Greek word "Hades", which we will look at in a moment. Prior to Jesus Christ's resurrection, both the souls of the evil and the righteous went there after death. It is translated "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times in King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. Sheol (or Hades) has two separate halves. One side was and is reserved for the torment of the evil, while the other side, called "Abraham's Bosom" in Luke 16:22, was for the comfort of the righteous. There is and impassable canyon, or gulf, between the two halves. When Christ was resurrected, he led the righteous out of Sheol to Heaven. Many (probably not all) of the Old Testament saints were resurrected into their immortal bodies at that time (Matthew 27:51-53). Since then, the souls of all of the saved people go directly to Heaven when their bodies die. The lost people still go to Sheol and join the lost people of the Old Testament in torment on one side of the canyon when they die. The other side of Sheol formerly known as Abraham's Bosom has been vacant since Jesus Christ led the saints within it to heaven after His resurrection. Sheol (or Hades) is described as being "in the heart of the earth" in Matthew 12:40 and is said to be below, down, or beneath in passages such as Deuteronomy 32:22, Isaiah 14:9, and Ezekiel 31:16. The English word "Hell" refers to a place of eternal punishment for the wicked. Its meaning does not distinguish between the two separate places for the wicked to be punished, one temporary for the soul, and the other, the Lake of Fire, permanent for the soul and body. Nor does its meaning include the place of comfort for saints prior to Christ's resurrection. In normal English conversation, "Hell" is used only in the negative sense, with no saved people ever going there. This caused some inadequate translations of "Sheol" and "Hades". Often these words are translated "Hell", which, as just explained, is rather ambiguous and non-descriptive. In many other places "Sheol" and "Hades" are translated as "grave", but the grave is only the place for the body after death, not the place for the soul. This confusion often occurs when the verse refers to a righteous man going to "Sheol", such as men like Jacob, Joseph, (Genesis 37:35) and Job (Job 14:13). Of course, these men did not go to a place of torment, but to the comfort side of Sheol (Hades), called Abraham's Bosom. Hades (Greek) - It is identical to Sheol (Hebrew). It is the non-permanent place or temporary address of the disembodied souls of dead. It is not the grave or sepulcher, nor is it the eternal location of the souls of the dead. Hades is translated "Hell" 10 times and "grave" once by KJV. It is the place for the soul, not the body. Gehenna (Greek, but originally from a Hebrew name) - translated "Hell" all 12 times in KJV It is the permanent place for destruction of the "... soul and body ..." (Matthew 10:28). It is a place of "... fire that never shall be quenched" (Mark 9:45). In most of the references, it is clear from the context that those who enter Gehenna, do so in their bodies, not merely as bodiless souls. For this to happen, it must occur after the resurrection of the damned at the great white throne of judgment. Therefore, Gehenna is the Lake of Fire described in Revelation 19 and 20. It is presently uninhabited, but the Beast and the False Prophet will be cast into it at the end of the tribulation (Revelation 19:20). One thousand years later, Satan will be cast into it (Revelation 20:10) and will be followed shortly by the lost people of all previous time periods (Revelation 20:15). They will all enter Gehenna together, in there resurrected bodies, where they will remain in torment for all eternity. This Revelation 20 passage makes it clear that Hades and the Lake of Fire are not the same place. At the great white throne judgement at the end of the 1000 year kingdom, those in Hades will be removed from Hades, as Revelation 20:13 says, "... hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them ...." And those which were in Hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14-15). Note that the timing of this relocation of the lost occurs just before where Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." Hades, which will be emptied in Revelation 20:13, apparently will them be destroyed, since it is in the heart of the first earth. The future destruction of the wicked is symbolized by the Valley of Hinnom to which Gehenna refers. It is a place south of Jerusalem where the bodies of dead animals and rubbish were taken to be burned. The Valley of Hinnom was also the site of much human sacrifice to the pagan god Molech (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6, Jeremiah 32:35). The fire burned constantly in the valley since additional fuel was frequently being cast into it. "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place" (Jeremiah 7:31-32). Here we see that in the Valley of Hinnom is a place called "Tophet" whose name means "place of fire". "For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it" (Isaiah 30:33). limne pur (Greek) - "lake of fire" occurs 4 times, all in Revelation 19 and 20. This is Gehenna, into which the resurrected damned are cast. Limne means "lake" and is translated as such all 10 times it occurs by the KJV. Pur means "fire" and is translated so 73 times by the KJV while being translated "fiery" once. Other key terms tartaroo (Greek) - Refers to "Tartarus" and only occurs once in 2 Peter 2:4 where it is translated "hell" "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment ...." This is probably a separate place from Hades, and may be a place only for fallen angels. There are no Biblical references to people going there. grave (English) - The place for the fleshly body after death, sepulcher. It is not the abode of the soul or spirit. abussos (Greek) - Abyss. It is translated "bottomless pit" 5 times, "deep" twice, and "bottomless" twice by KJV. It is where Satan will be locked up for the 1000 years of Christ's reign on earth (Revelation 20:1-3). This Abyss is also where the Legion of devils begged Jesus not to send them in Luke 8:30-31. And this Abyss is the bottomless pit that will be opened at the fifth trumpet judgment of Revelation 9:1-11. The beast that will come out of it at the fifth trumpet is mentioned in Revelation 11:7 and 17:8. This Abyss is thought by many to be the same as the impassable gulf described in Luke 16:26. chasma (Greek) - a gaping opening, chasm, or gulf. It is translated "gulf" in its only occurrence in Luke 16:26, where it is the canyon separating the torment and comfort sides of Hades. Abraam kolpos (Greek) - Abraham's Bosom (Luke 16:22). Abraam is translated "Abraham" all 73 times. Kolpos is translated bosom 5 times and creek once (Acts 27:39). paradeisos - Paradise. It is translated "paradise" all 3 times by the KJV. "Paradise" is not the English translation of any other Greek word in scripture. First we hear the words of the thief and Jesus Christ on their crosses in Luke 23:42-43, "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." In 2 Corinthians 12:4, Paul tells how he was "... caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." In Revelation 2:7, Jesus told the church of Ephesus "... To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God." The tree of life is also mentioned in Revelation 22:2, in the new heaven and new earth, where it appears to be not just one tree, but a type of tree of which there are more than one. Since the three references show paradise to be in different places, then either paradise has been relocated once and will yet be relocated again, or it is a general term. Summary Sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) are the temporary place of torment for the souls of the wicked dead. Prior to Christ's resurrection, saints were kept and comforted in the now vacant half of Hades, known as Abraham's Bosom. Gehenna (Greek, but from a Hebrew name) is the Lake of Fire for the permanent place of torment of the souls of the wicked dead in their resurrected bodies. Hell is a rather general and inadequate term that is often used to refer to either Gehenna or the torment side of Hades, both by those who know the basic difference between these two specific places and by those who do not. "Hades" is the Greek term widely used to denote the deity of the underworld and the abode of the dead. The New Testament use of Hades (hades [ᾅδης]) builds on its Hebrew parallel, Sheol (se'ol), which was the preferred translation in the Septuagint. The Old Testament. Sheol refers primarily to death and the abode of the dead, both godly and ungodly (Gen 37:25; Psalm 16:10; 88:10-12; Isa 14:9). These conscious souls face a lethargic existence, apparently without reward or retribution (Job 10:21; Eccl 9:10; Isa 14:10). Since death is not a natural occurrence but invaded creation through the fall and Satan's destructive work (Gen. 2-3), the Old Testament personifies Sheol as the power of Satan and his demonic hosts (Job 18:14; Psalm 18:4-5; Isa 28:15; Jer 9:21). While an antagonist, Sheol ultimately exists at Yahweh's service (1 Sam 2:6; Psalm 55:23; 139:8). The Old Testament confidently awaits God's victory over Sheol (Psalm 98; Isa 25:8; Hosea 13:14). But the precise expectation of a bodily resurrection for the wicked and the related conception of Sheol as an intermediate state is late (Dan 12:2). The New Testament. This indeterminate picture of Sheol and its Greek translation, Hades, allowed varying interpretations by intertestamental Jews. In the New Testament Christ's revelation and salvific work decisively shape this term. For Christ has established authority over all powers (Eph 1:20-23), even the one who "holds the power of death" (Heb 2:14; 2 Tim 1:10). He is the "Lord of both the dead and the living" (Rom 14:9). Hades is the state in which all the dead exist. In the New Testament a descent to Hades may simply refer to someone's death and disembodied existence. In this sense even Jesus enters Hades. Following David's prophecy in Psalm 16:10, Peter interprets the resurrection as God delivering Jesus from Hades (Acts 2:27,31). Similarly, Jesus prophesies that the Son of Man will be delivered from the heart of the earth, just as God delivered Jonah from Hades (Matt 12:40). In both instances, Hades refers to a disembodied existence. The New Testament does not explore Jesus' precise residence or activity while in Hades, unlike the later church traditions of the "harrowing of hell" or a "Hades Gospel." It is widely accepted that the proclamation in 1 Peter 3:19 occurs after rather than before his resurrection (v. 18, "made alive by the Spirit"), and that the dead in 1 Peter 4:6 are deceased believers who heard the gospel while alive. However, Jesus' descent to Hades is theologically important. This is the path of the Old Testament righteous (Isa 53). Furthermore, this descent confirms that God assumed human nature and even our sinful destiny, death (2 Col 5:14, 21; Heb 2:14). Finally, Jesus' deliverance from Hades establishes the new life for humanity (1 Cor 15). Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus portrays additional features of this state (Luke 16:19-31). An unbridgeable chasm separates the wicked and the righteous dead. Death has fixed the human's destiny without further opportunity for repentance. The rich man recalls his fate and that of his family, and cries out in distress for Abraham to send them a sign and relieve his punishment, but to no avail. Usually the details of parables should not be pressed to teach doctrine. In this case Jesus' vivid description of the basic conditions of the godly and ungodly dead is indispensable to the parable's point. Other Scriptures also portray the requests of the dead and the fixity of their future (2 Col 5:10; Heb 9:27; Rev 6:9-10). Hades is the place where the wicked dead reside and are punished. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man experiences torment in Hades. This is the intermediate state, for the bodily resurrection and the final judgment are still future. Jesus' point is that Hades foreshadows the rich man's final judgment. Similarly, Lazarus rests at Abraham's side, connoting the joyous abode of the righteous dead (Luke 16:23). This differentiation between the wicked and the righteous dead continues throughout the New Testament. The righteous dead are "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8), "in paradise" (Luke 23:43), or in the presence of God (Rev 6:9; 7:9; 14:3). The unrighteous are held in punishment and wicked angels are imprisoned in Tartarus, a Greek term designating the lowest part of Hades (1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2:4, 9; Jude 6 ). Jesus' woe to unrepentant Capernaum that it will be brought down to Hades is not simply a prophecy of its earthly demise, but its judgment (Luke 10:15). For some commentations these references to Hades and the dead are problematic and contradict the Old Testament. G. Vos resolves these problems by distinguishing between Hades as a disembodied state for all the dead and the specific abode of the ungodly. As he astutely notes, only the ungodly reside in a punitive place called Hades. The godly dead are with Jesus in a disembodied state also called Hades. The New Testament does significantly modify the Old Testament concept of Hades as a shadowy abode of all the dead. This further development, however, concurs with Jesus' lordship over the living and the dead. Hades' power is conquered. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament personifies Hades and associated terms, such as death, abyss, and Abaddon, as the demonic forces behind sin and ruin (Acts 2:24; Rom 5:14, 17; 1 Cor 15:25-26; Rev 6:8; 9:1-11; 20:14). When Jesus promises that the "gates of Hades" will never overcome the church (Matt 16:18), this phrase parallels Old Testament expressions tied to evil's power and persecution (Psalm 9:13; 107:17-20). Jesus' reference to the future in Matthew 16:18 concurs with Revelation's vision of Satan's final attack on God's people (19:19; 20:7-9). Jesus has promised that he will conquer Hades so that it will not defeat the church. Indeed, his resurrection establishes that this evil empire is already broken. Christ now holds the keys, the authority over death and Hades (Rev 1:18)! The end of Hades. Jesus is the conqueror of all powers, the exalted One, and as such he has graced his church (Eph 4:7-10). With Hades vanquished (Rev 1:18) believers know that nothing, not even death, cannot separate them from Christ (Rom 8:39). They still await the next act in the history of salvation, when Jesus consummates his kingdom. Then Hades will release its dead for the final resurrection and judgment (Rev 20:13). Thereafter Hades, Satan, and the reprobate will be thrown into Gehenna, the place of God's final retributive punishment. (Hades has only a limited existence; Gehenna or hell is the final place of judgment for the wicked. Many English versions foster confusion by translating both terms as "hell.") In summary, the New Testament affirms that Christ has conquered Hades. While dead believers exist in this state, they are also "with the Lord." Hades also denotes the vanquished stronghold of Satan's forces whose end is certain and the intermediate place of punishment for the wicked dead until the final judgment. See also Abraham's Bosom; Death, Mortality; Grave; Hell; Sheol Bibliography. J. W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting; W. J. Dalton, Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of I Peter 3:18-4:6; M. J. Harris, Themelios11 (1986): 47-52; R. L. Harris, TWOT, 2:892-93; A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; J. Jeremias, TDNT, 1:146-49, 657-58; 6:924-28; T. J. Lewis, ABD, 2:101-5; G. Vos, ISBE, 2:1314-15. "Grave" is the place where the physical remains of a deceased person are interred. It is "the place appointed for all living" ( Job 30:23 ). It is where all go, even animals ( Eccl 3:19-20 ). It is a place with no class distinctions ( Job 3:14-19 ). In Old Testament times, a person who touched a grave was unclean ( Num 19:16-18 ). Thus almost all burials took place outside the city except for certain kings. Ezekiel prophesies that Judah will never again defile God's name with the corpses of their kings. The grave became a metaphor for human depravity. Paul quotes Psalm 5:9 ("their throat is an open grave") as part of his scriptural basis that all people are under sin ( Romans 3:9 Romans 3:13 ). Jesus compares some people in his day to whitewashed tombs that are beautiful on the outside but "full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" on the inside ( Matt 23:27 ). They are only outwardly righteous. A grave could be a symbol of pride. Absalom followed the practice of ancient Near Eastern kings when he built himself a monument ( 2 Sam 18:18 ). Isaiah proclaimed that no one had the right to build such arrogant structures. Shebna, the royal steward, was told that he would be hurled out of the country for chiseling out a resting place for himself on the high rock ( Isa 22:15-19 ). A grave might be a symbol of respect. Nehemiah remembered Jerusalem as the place of his father's grave ( Neh 2:5 ). Jacob set up a pillar to mark Rachel's tomb ( Gen 35:20 ). Not being interred in the family tomb was considered unthinkable. The anonymous prophet was punished in this way ( 1 Kings 13:22 ). Josiah did not desecrate this tomb out of respect for him ( 2 Kings 23:15-18 ). Jeroboam's baby was the only one good enough to deserve a burial ( 1 Kings 14:13 ). To show disrespect for idolaters the dust of broken cult symbols was scattered over their graves ( 2 Ch 34:4 ). Josiah broke into the tombs at Bethel and burned the bones of the idolatrous priests upon the altar there to defile it ( 2 Kings 23:15-17 ). In Revelation 11:9 men do not bury the two witnesses to show contempt for them. Graves at times symbolized hopelessness. The Gadarene demoniac made his home among the tombs ( Mark 5:2 ). It is a place of no return, where there is gloom, deep shadow, and disorder ( Job 10:21-22 ). There is no activity there ( Psalms 88:5 Psalms 88:16 ; Eccl 9:10 ). But it is not necessarily a final resting place. Human beings will lie there until the heavens are no more ( Job 14:12 ). The tomb is not an "eternal home" but a "dark house" ( Eccl 12:5 ). A grave is also a symbol of hope, however. With the resurrection of Christ tombs in Jerusalem were opened and the dead came out ( Matt 27:52 ). When people threw a body into Elisha's grave, it came back to life ( 2 Kings 13:21 ). David's tomb reminded Peter of his prophecy that says, "You will not abandon me to the grave" ( Acts 2:27-29 ). Jesus said that "all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out" ( John 5:28-29 ). Christianity is still best represented by the empty grave ( John 20:1-9 ). See also Burial; Death; Funeral; Hell Bibliography. W. Coleman, Today's Handbook of Bible Times and Customs; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1; N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament; R. Youngblood, A Tribute to Gleason Archer. "Hell" is the place of God's final retributive punishment. Scripture progressively develops this destiny of the wicked: the Old Testament outlines the framework, while the New Testament elaborates on it. Jesus, however, is most responsible for defining hell. The Old Testament. In the Old Testament Sheol denotes the abode of the dead; conscious souls face a shadowy existence in this "land of oblivion" ( Job 10:21 ; Psalm 88:12 ; Eccl 9:10 ; Isa 14:10 ). Since death is not a natural occurrence but issues from the fall, the Old Testament confidently awaits God's demonstration of his lordship over Sheol by raising the righteous to life (Gen. 2-3; Psalm 16:10 ; 49:15 ; Isa 25:8 ; Hosea 13:14 ). While God's kingship also has implications for the wicked, here the Old Testament is more reserved. The Old Testament infrequently suggests a bodily resurrection for the wicked ( Dan 12:2 ), a final judgment and retribution for evil deeds ( Psalm 21:10 ; 140:10 ; Mal 4:1-2 ). Nevertheless, the contemptible and horrible destiny of the wicked, irretrievably isolated from the righteous, is clear ( Psalm 9:17 ; 34:15-16 ). The Intertestamental Period. The intertestamental literature constructed divergent scenarios for the wicked dead, including annihilation (4 Ezra 7:61; 2 Apoc Bar 82:3ff.; 1 Enoch 48:9; 99:12; 1QS iv. 11-14 ) and endless torment (Jub 36:11; 1 Enoch 27:1-3; 103:8; T Gad 7:5). Sheol frequently became an interim location for the dead, distinguished from the place of final punishment (1 Enoch 18:9-16; 51:1). This final punishment was usually located in a valley south of Jerusalem, known in Hebrew as Gen Hinnom or the Valley of Hinnom (2 Apoc Bar 59:10; 4 Ezra 7:36), and in Greek as gehenna [gevenna] (2 Esdr 2:29). This valley had a long history as a place of infamy. Notorious for the child sacrifices offered to Molech during the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh ( 2 Kings 16:3 ; 2 Chron 28:3 ; 33:6 ; Jer 7:31-34 ; 19:6 ), this valley was further desecrated when Josiah used it as Jerusalem's refuse dump ( 2 Kings 23:10 ) and it was prophesied as the place of God's future fiery judgment ( Isa 30:33 ; 66:24 ; Jer 7:31-32 ). While some intertestamental writings equate hell with the "lake of fire" in this "accursed valley" of Hinnom (1 Enoch 90:26, 27; 54:1, 2), others use it to denote a place in the underworld (Sib Or 4:1184-86). In addition, the respective scenarios for the wicked, whether annihilation or eternal torment, shaped images of God's judgment. For instance, at times fire consumes the wicked (1 Enoch 99:12); in other texts fire and worms torment their victim to a useless existence (Judith 16:17). The New Testament. In the New Testament hell is where the reprobate exist after the resurrection from Hades and the final judgment. In this lake of fire God punishes the wicked, along with Satan and his henchmen ( Matt 25:41 ), bringing an end to evil's free ways. Gehenna [gevenna] is the standard term for hell in the New Testament. Related phrases include "punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7), "lake of fire" ( Rev 19:29 ; 20:14-15 ), and "judgment." English versions occasionally translate hades [a&/dh"] (esp. Luke 16:23 ) and tartaroo [tartarovw] ( 2 Pe 2:4 ) as hell. However, these terms appear to denote the intermediate state, not the final destiny of the wicked. Jesus says more about hell than any other biblical figure. His warnings of the eschatological judgment are liberally colored with the imagery of hell ( Matt 5:22 ; 7:19 ; 8:12 ; par. Luke 13:28-30 ; Matthew 10:15 Matthew 10:28 ; Matthew 11:22 Matthew 11:24 ; 18:8-9 ; par. Mark 9:43-49 ; Luke 17:26-29 ; John 15:6 ). He portrays this future judgment through pictures of Sodom's destruction ( Luke 17:29-30 ): fire, burning sulfur, and a fiery furnace ( Gen 19:24-25 ). These images of God's judgment were well established in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature. Important portrayals of hell are also present in Jesus' parables, including the tares ( Matt 13:40-42 ), the net ( Matt 13:50 ); the great supper ( Matt 22:13 ), the good servant and the wicked servant ( Matt 24:51 ; par. Luke 12:46-47 ), the talents ( Matt 25:30 ), and the last judgment ( Matt 25:46 ). Here "weeping and gnashing of teeth" ( Matt 13:50 ; 24:51 ; 25:30 ) and "darkness" ( Matt 22:13 ; 25:30 ) are key descriptive phrases. The New Testament conception of hell does not exceed Jesus' description. The following headings outline its essential features. 1. Sinners will occupy hell. While God created us for a loving relation with himself, at the fall humankind rebelled. God's judgment falls on all sinners, unless they have faith in Jesus. After the provisional state of Hades and the final judgment, God's wrath culminates in hell. According to the New Testament, the objects of God's wrath range from the pious hypocrites ( Matt 23:33 ) and those failing to help the poor ( Matt 25:31-46 ; Luke 16:19-31 ) to the vile and murderers ( Rev 21:8 ). Some argue that only an explicit repudiation of Jesus attracts God's eternal wrath, referencing lu 12:8-9. However, Jesus says "the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" ( Luke 19:10 ). In other words, he came offering grace to a world that was "condemned already" ( John 3:17-18 ). Since hell is not a natural fixture of creation but results from the fall and is destiny of the wicked, the New Testament occasionally personifies hell as the demonic forces behind sin. The sinful tongue is itself aroused and "set on fire by hell" ( James 3:6 ). Similarly, Jesus labels the Pharisees "sons of hell, " identifying the root of their hypocrisy ( Matt 23:15 ). 2. Hell exists for the requital and retribution of evil deeds. Hell is the place of God's final judgment. Here God, our King and Supreme Judge, finally rectifies wrongs through his retributive wrath. Here the damned will be paid back for the harm they have done ( Matt 16:27 ; Luke 12:47-48 ; 2 Peter 2:13 ; Jude 15 Rev 14:9-11 ). Wrath is not the natural consequence of evil choices in a moral uerse or the sinner's misconstrual of God's love. Rather, as Paul's use of orge shows, wrath is an emotion or feeling in the Godhead, and thus God's personal action ( Rom 1:18-32 ). By extrinsically imposing penal conditions on the sinner, God rectifies wrongs and reestablishes his righteous rule ( Matt 25:31-46 ; Rom 12:19 ; 1 Cor 15:24-25 ; 2 Col 5:10 ). 3. Hell is a final place of bondage and isolation from the righteous. After the resurrection and the final judgment, the wicked and even Hades are thrown into hell. The New Testament describes hell as a place: a furnace ( Matthew 13:42 Matthew 13:50 ), a lake of fire ( Rev 19:20 ; 20:14-15 ; 21:8 ), and a prison ( Rev 20:7 ). The wicked are imprisoned here so they cannot harm God's people ( Matt 5:25-26 ; Matthew 13:42 Matthew 13:50 ; 18:34 ; Jude 6 Rev 20:14-15 ). While the parable of Lazarus and the rich man occurs in Hades, the intermediate state, and not Gehenna, it does foreshadow the latter. Jesus says an unbridgeable spatial chasm separates these two so no one can "cross over from there" ( Luke 16:26 ). John's vision in Revelation 21 of the new city on a high mountain confirms this separation between the blessed and the damned after the day of judgment. Consequently, Scripture provides no warrant for those speculative images of the righteous rejoicing in the torture of the damned. The prophecy in Isaiah 66:24, which has been so used, does not refer to this eschatological event, for the resurrection of the body has not occurred. 4. Sinners suffer penalties in hell. Jesus repeatedly accentuates hell's dreadfulness and horror: "if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out It is better to enter life with one eye than to be thrown into the fire of hell" ( Matt 18:9 ). While Scripture remains reticent on the specific torments for the impenitent, certain dimensions are clear. At the final judgment, God will declare, "I don't know you Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire" ( Matthew 25:12 Matthew 25:41 ). The wicked in hell are excluded from God's loving presence and the "life" for which humans were originally created ( John 5:29 ). The damned are "thrown outside, into the darkness" ( Matt 8:12 ; 22:13 ). Consequently this "second death" ( Rev 21:8 ) is a useless and ruined existence ( Matt 25:30 ; Luke 9:25 ; John 3:16-18 ; 2 Thess 1:9 ; 2 Peter 2:12 ; Jude 12 ; Rev 21:8 ). Sin has thoroughly effaced every virtue. The reprobate have become obstinate in their rebellion against God, like "unreasoning animals" ( Jude 1:10 Jude 1:13 ; 2 Peter 2:12-22 ). Consequently, the doors of hell can be locked from the inside, as C. S. Lewis observes. In hell, the damned receive their due for "things done while in the body" ( 2 Col 5:10 ; 2 Peter 2:13 ; Jude 15 Rev 14:9-11 ). The "undying worm" has often been interpreted as the soul's internal torment, coveting and grieving what has been lost ( Mark 9:48 ). This regret is compounded since the reprobate are not penitent but locked into their rebellion. But the grave's worms and darkness are also common images of a contemptible fate. Scripture suggests that there are degrees of punishment in hell. The one "who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." More severe is the punishment due to the disobedient who were "entrusted with much" ( Mark 12:40 ; Luke 12:48 ). Annihilationsim and the Extent of Hell. The extent of hell has occasioned much debate in recent scholarship. There are three major points of contention. Some annihilationists have argued that the biblical imagery of a consuming fire, destruction, and perishing implies the cessation of life (Stott). However, Jesus' pictures of hell are not literal descriptions but metaphors. They are mutually exclusive, if taken literally, for the fires of hell conflict with its "utter darkness." In the intertestamental literature the metaphorical image of a fire could suggest annihilation or everlasting punishment, showing the inconclusiveness of this argument. Some annihilationists have argued that when the Greek adjective for eternal, aionios [aijwvnio"], is used with nouns of action, it refers to an occurrence with eternal results, not an eternal process (Fudge). "Eternal punishment, " it is argued, denotes a punishment that occurs once with eternal results. However, counterfactuals dispute this argument. The eternal sin ( Mark 3:29 ), for example, is not just one sin, but an action that irretrievably debilitates so one only sins. Similarly, everlasting salvation (aionios [aijwvnio"] soteria [swthriva]) does not refer solely to Christ's work long ago, and thus preclude his sustaining and preserving presence. For Scripture describes believers, even in the age to come, as existing "in Christ" ( Rom 8:1 ; Eph 1:13 ; Col 2:6-7 ; 2 Tim 2:10 ). So aionios soteria [aijwvnio"swthriva] refers to Christ's eternal (aionios [aijwvnio"]) salvation of the blessed, an action that is everlasting as well as final. In Matthew 25:46 Jesus differentiates the two futures of eternal life and eternal punishment, using the same adjective for each, aionios [aijwvnio"]. In Jesus' mind, it appears, the extent of each future is identical. If the existence of the righteous is endless, so also is the existence of the wicked. Other statements suggest the same conclusion. Jesus teaches that "whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (John 3:36). As long as God's wrath abides on them, the damned must exist. Jesus' picture of hell as a place where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48) indicates that this manifestation of God's wrath is unending. Other passages in the New Testament reiterate Jesus' dreadful warning, by describing hell as "everlasting torment." Even annihilationists admit the difficulty of such texts for their position. For a specific Biblical refutation to annihilationism & universalism & other attempts at evading eternal torment go to "Eternal Punishment, part 1" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, part 2" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=12607143539. Objections to Hell. Hell is a dreadful reality. Just as Christ wept over Jerusalem, believers are similarly troubled and anguished by this destiny of the lost. Some have raised serious challenges to the reality of hell. One perennial difficulty concerns the relationship between God's love and holiness: How could a loving God reject forever the creature he loves? This question assumes that the creature is the highest intrinsic good, even for God. But the highest good for the God of Scripture is not humanity. Humanity was created for God, and cannot be defined in terms of itself; we exist to glorify God (Psalm 73:24-26; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 10:31; Col 1:16). That is why Jesus insists it is idolatrous to enlist God as humanity's servant (Luke 17:7-10). Certainly God loves the creature; creation itself reflects God's free love. But since God's love is complete in himself, even before creation, the creature cannot be presumed as his one and only end. Nor can the character of God's love be decided a priori, but only by revelation. Consequently, Jesus' warning of the wrath to come (Matt 25:31,41,46) must be accepted as an inherent possibility of God's love. Some acknowledge retribution, but question why the wicked are eternally kept in existence to suffer. At issue is the punishment due sin. Since pride conceals the sinner's true debt to God the Judge, again this question should be answered by examining Christ's priestly work of propitiation. At the cross God in Christ became our substitute to bear the punishment for our sins, so as "to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26; cf. 2 Col 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24). The God-man propitiated our sin. This fact, that God the Judge, the "Lord of glory" himself (1 Cor 2:8), accepted the punishment due us, suggests that the penalty for sin against the Infinite is infinite. Questions will remain. But believers personally know God's love in Jesus Christ. And their response to a lost world will parallel that of their Lord, who humbled himself to our condition, suffered, and died for the wicked. See also Death, Mortality url="/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/death-mortality.html"; Eternal Punishment; Grave; Hades; Judgment; Judgment, Day of; Sheol Bibliography. D. L. Edwards and J. Stott, Evangelical Essentials; E. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes; A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain; S. McKnight, Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, pp. 147-57; T. R. Phillips, Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, pp. 47-59; W. G. T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment; D. F. Watson, ABD, 2:926-28.
+Rush Ron My favorite English study bible is the New American Standard Bible (NASB) & I think it does the best job overall although the ESV is very good & the NKJV has done a good job of cleaning up a lot of KJV errors. New American Standard Bible - History The New American Standard Bible (NASB) has evolved from the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. The ASV, in turn, was the American version of the Revised Version (RV) of 1885, also called the English Revised Version (ERV). While preserving the literal accuracy of the ASV, the NASB sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention was given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. In an effort to ensure accuracy, recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament was reviewed, and some passages were updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts. The original NASB earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The New American Standard Bible update (1995) carried on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say-not merely what the translator believes they mean. New American Standard Bible - Translation Method The New American Standard Bible is most known for its strict adherence to "formal equivalence" in its translation. The goal of the NASB is to be as literal "word-for-word" as possible. Most Bible scholars hold the NASB to be the most literal of all the modern English Bible translations. In order to make the NASB easier to read while ensuring accuracy, the following methods were used in the 1995 update: • Archaic "thee's" and "thou's," etc., were updated to modern English. • Words and phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years were updated to current English. • Verses with difficult syntax or vocabulary were retranslated into smoother English. Verbs with multiple meanings were retranslated to accurately reflect the context. • Recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament was reviewed, and some passages were updated. The NASB 1995 update continued the NASB's tradition of literal translation of the original Greek and Hebrew without compromise. Changes in the text have been kept within the strict parameters set forth by the Lockman Foundation's Fourfold Aim-that they be true to the original manuscripts, grammatically correct, understandable, and give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him. New American Standard Bible - Pro’s and Con’s Probably the greatest strength of the New American Standard Bible is its literalness. More so than any other English Bible translation, the NASB seeks to take what was originally said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and say the same thing in English. The primary downside to this method is that it sometimes results in the English not being as smooth and free-flowing as it could be. Overall, though, the New American Standard Bible is an excellent Bible translation. New American Standard Bible - Sample Verses John 1:1,14 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” John 8:58 - “Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Titus 2:13 - “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,” Recommended Resources: How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions by Gordon D. Fee & Mark L. Strauss
+Rush Ron In my opinion, that would be the ESV. The ESV even corrects some of the modern Bibles. For example, Psalm 145:13 is corrected. Psalm 145:13b, "The Lord is faithful in all His words and gracious in all His actions." All the sections in the verse represent a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This part represents "nun" which is not in the KJV or some of the other modern translations. My favored Bible is the NASB and it doesn't contain this part of the verse.
Hear "Why You Can Believe The Bible" by Voddie Baucham at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91314616480 & Dr. James White concerning "Can I Trust My Bible?" at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=immanuelbc&keyword=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F&keyworddesc=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F which includes "Textual Criticism: Reliability, Answering Critics, Bible Versions & Sufficiency of Scripture." How Do We Know the Bible is True? Is it Really the Word of God? Many critics of Christianity attack the Bible’s truthfulness. Many don’t believe it because they say it was written by man. Is the Bible really God speaking to man? Is the Bible of human origin or a direct revelation from God? The Bible The word Bible is from the root word “biblios” which is Greek for “little books.“ The Bible contains 66 books and was written by 40 authors. The books you see in most Bibles have been tried and tested and were generally accepted by the early church. For centuries the Bible was not available to the general public due to their being only hand-copied ones available. The Bible has been banned from many nations, it has been burned by others, it has been declared out of date by moderns, but it has brought salvation to untold millions. It is the unbridled truth and the unchangeable Word of God that changes those who read it. When people read it, it reads them too! It comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. What follows is conclusive evidence that we can believe that the Bible is God speaking to us and not just the words of men. Thus Says the Lord or Thus Says Man? If the Bible were indeed a work of man, then we would expect some of the words to say, “thus says the prophet Jeremiah” or “thus says Peter an Apostle of God” but it doesn’t. From what I could count, “Thus says the Lord” is recorded 418 times. If it were of human origin, then we would read somewhere that the Bible or the message came from a certain author but we never see that anywhere. On the contrary, we read over 1,000 times where “Jesus said” and “Thus says the Lord” were written down. In fact, even the Book of Revelation is not called John’s Book of Revelation at all. In Revelation 1:1-2 we see where the words of this book came from: “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.” So John was just the recipient of the book as he just wrote down what he was told. Paul said, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). Paul clearly said that all Scripture is God-breathed…not just the New Testament or the Old Testament, but all Scripture. Peter reiterates it by writing, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). Peter would tell you that “you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20). God gives a very serious warning to anyone who takes away or adds to any of the words in the Bible, indicating that only He gives the words of this book and no human had better tamper with it. In Revelation 22:19 God warns that if anyone adds to or takes away any of the words of the Bible, He “…shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city (heaven or the new Jerusalem)”. This same warning is given in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 4:2. Alleged Errors in Transcribing When the Word of God was reproduced to make another copy, well before the printing press was invented, there were 70 scribes that worked on it with expert precision second to none. Imagine that each of the scribes had the other sixty-nine scribes check their writings for error. Each of these seventy scribes reviewed each other’s work and every written copy, letter by letter, line by line, book by book were examined meticulously. If any errors were found, the started all over again on that particular book or page. Imagine you’re one of the scribes and you have just finished a section. Now the other sixty-nine scribes check your work and compare it to the original. The amazing fact is that their methods resulted in such an accurate reproduction of scripture that only one error for every fifteen hundred words occurred and these errors were so slight that they never affected the content. This copying left absolutely no room for any private interpretation or mistranslation at all. By modern standards, the accuracy rate is superior to that of Microsoft’s Spelling and Grammar Check, which by the way is not perfect. When you consider the stringent guidelines and conditions, no one can dispute that the translation differences had any negative effect on the message of the Bible or its general context. Manuscript Evidence New Testament manuscripts have been preserved by the thousands and the fact is that no other ancient works in human history have such enormous documented and recorded histories as does the Bible. There are about 6,000 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and over 9,000 manuscripts in various other ancient languages. The dates of these manuscripts range from the 2nd century up to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. Nearly ever year there are more New Testament manuscripts discovered that were handwritten in the original Greek format which continues to add to the enormous collection already on hand. In 2008, 47 new Greek manuscripts were discovered in Albania. Of these, 17 of them were unknown to Western scholars. The fact is that the amount of manuscript evidence is astounding. There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts of which 5,000 of these date from the first century. What that translates into for Historians is what is called a primary source. A primary source is a source that comes from eye witnesses. The nearly 6,000 Dead Sea Scrolls are so close in agreement, contextually, that there is only 0.01% in differences and the main differences are only in the differentiation of vowels. In no way do these miniscule differences affect the text or the context. One of the greatest supportive facts is that the evidence verifies the dating of Matthew’s Gospel as far back as A.D. 60. Scholars argue that Mark wrote the first Gospel. This places the composition of Mark to within 20 years of the events that took place and were recorded in his Gospel. With the evidence that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and Luke’s second volume, Acts, were written so close to the time of the crucifixion, the record of the events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection makes these facts indisputable. Luke and Acts was originally one book but was later separated into two books for the reader’s convenience but the content never changed. The fact that they were written within the lifetimes of those who were eyewitnesses is evidence strong enough to hold up in a court of law. Since the Old and New Testament manuscripts have been preserved by the thousands and there are no other ancient works in human history to compare to it, what we have today in the Bible is as a reliable source as any current historical account or newspaper printed today. The Bible is the Word of God, as men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write it. It is God speaking to us and it is without error and full of truth. If God has revealed Himself in propositional form, that revelation would have certain properties due to His infinite knowledge and moral perfection: It would be entirely true - His infinite knowledge would prevent errors and His truthfulness would keep Him from deception. It would be a coherent unity, therefore not self- contradictory. It would contain God's will for man, and provide the motivation to live according to that will (1). God has revealed Himself in the Bible without error. The Bible itself claims this inerrancy (2 Timothy 3:16-17 (2); Matthew 5:18 (3); etc.). Let's look at some of the proofs for the Bible's claim to be the infallible word of God. Archaeological evidence The first proof we have testifying to the reliability of the Bible is the archaeological evidence. Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference." (4) The liberals made wild claims against the Bible a hundred years ago but now they are silent. This is not true of other religions. The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Institute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible. A.N. Sherwin-White, a respected classical historian at Oxford says, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...", although, not being a Christian, he still regarded it as being "propaganda."(5) Historicity of Jesus A case in point is the historicity of Jesus. Although many atheists state that Jesus never lived, He is mentioned by many contemporary, non-Christian historians. Let us look at the evidence. Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of Jesus and the Christians: "so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (6) Other Jewish rabbinical writings, including Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, talk about Jesus and his miracles. Surprisingly to many atheists, they never denied that miracles took place, but attempted to explain them as a result of evil (7). More information about Jesus in the Talmud can be found at Jesus Christ In The Talmud. Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the first century Christians in his Annals (a history of the Roman empire): "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." (8) Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote ca. 52 A.D. attempting to give a natural explanation for the earthquake and darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. Mara Bar-Seraphon wrote a letter to his son in 73 A.D. which tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." Jesus is also mentioned by Phlegon, a first-century historian, Lucian of Samosata (in The Passing Peregrinus), and Plinius Secundus, (Pliny the Younger). Scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus ." (9) The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (10) Even the atheist H. G. Wells spoke of Jesus, "...one is obliged to say, "Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented." (11) Scientific evidence Recent scientific evidence is adding to the evidence supporting the reliability of biblical chronology from the scriptures. This study demonstrated the reliability of the Biblical record regarding the Egyptian plagues and demise of Jericho. Drs. Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht reported in the prestigious British journal, Nature (12), that the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 (+/- 13 years) B.C. (using 14C dating). This date is significant, since several archeologists have insisted that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians between 1550 and 1300 B.C. The recent study discredits the Egyptian theory, since the date is much too old. What is even more exciting is that scientists, using 14C dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which recently has been dated to 1628 B.C. (13). This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt. Check out Exodus 10: Then the Lord said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even a darkness which may be felt." So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. (Exodus 10:21-22) Even the researchers commented that the 45 years difference in events was "rather striking." The Bible's Uniqueness and Unity The next proof is the Bible's uniqueness and unity. The Bible was written by over 40 authors who came from just about every walk of life conceivable, including fisherman, kings, a butler, priests, and a tax collector. The 66 books of the Bible were written over a 1,500 year span in three languages on three continents with one theme and no contradictions. C.J. Sharp captures this miracle well: "If a fragment of stone were found in Italy, another in Asia Minor, another in Greece, another in Egypt, and on and on until sixty-six fragments had been found, and if when put together they fitted perfectly together, making a perfect statue of Venus de Milo, there is not an artist or scientist but would arrive immediately at the conclusion that there was originally a sculptor who conceived and carved the statue. The very lines and perfections would probably determine which of the great ancient artists carved the statue. Not only the unity of the Scriptures, but their lines of perfection, suggest One far above any human as the real author. That could be no one but God (14)." Prophetic evidence Yet another reason Christians believe God is the ultimate author of the Bible is the predictive prophecies in the Bible. This aspect is unique to the world's religions because if one predicts something will happen and it does not, they are proven to be phony. The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy. Here is a list of 85 Messianic prophecies along with their fulfillment through the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus: Prophecies of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah #Prophetic ScriptureSubjectFulfilled 1 Genesis 3:15 seed of a woman Galatians 4:4 2 Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18 descendant of Abraham Matthew 1:1, Acts 3:25 3 Genesis 17:19, Genesis 21:12 descendant of Isaac Luke 3:34, Luke 3:23-24 4 Genesis 28:14, Numbers 24:17 descendant of Jacob Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:23-24 5 Genesis 49:10 from the tribe of Judah Luke 3:23-24, Luke 3:33 6 Isaiah 9:6, 11:1-5, Jeremiah 23:5-6 descendant of David Matthew 1:1, Luke 3:23-24 7 Isaiah 11:1 descendant of Jesse Luke 3:23-24 8 Ezekiel 37:24 will shepherd His people Matthew 2:6 9 Isaiah 9:7 heir to the throne of David Luke 1:32-33 10 Micah 5:2 His pre-existence Colossians 1:17 11 Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:1 eternal existence John 8:58, 11, 14, Ephesians 1:3-14, Colossians 1:15-19 12 Psalm 45:6-7, Psalm 102:25-27 anointed and eternal Hebrews 1:8-12 13 Psalm 110:1 called Lord Matthew 22:43-45 14 Isaiah 33:22 judge John 5:30 15 Psalm 2:6 king Matthew 27:37 16 Micah 5:2 born in Bethlehem Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4-5, 7 17 Daniel 9:25 time for His birth Matthew 2:1, 16, 19, Luke 2:1-2 18 Isaiah 7:14 to be born of a virgin Matthew 1:18, 24, 25, Luke 1:26-27, 30-31 19 Psalm 72:9 worshipped by shepherds Luke 2:8-15 20 Psalm 72:10 honored by great kings Matthew 2:1-11 21 Jeremiah 31:15 slaughter of children Matthew 2:16-18 22 Hosea 11:1 flight to Egypt Matthew 2:14-15 23 Isaiah 40:3-5 the way prepared Matthew 3:1,2, Luke 3:3-6 24 Malachi 3:1 preceded by a forerunner Luke 7:24, 27 25 Malachi 4:5-6 preceded by Elijah Matthew 11:13-14 26 Psalm 2:7, Proverbs 30:4 declared the Son of God Matthew 3:17, Luke 1:32 27 Isaiah 9:5-6, Jeremiah 23:5-6 God's name applied to Him Romans 10:9, Philippians 2:9-11 28 Isaiah 11:2, 61:1, Psalm 45:8 anointment of Holy Spirit Matthew 3:16, 17, John 3:34, Acts 10:38 29 Isaiah 9:1-2 Galilean ministry Matthew 4:13-16 30 Psalm 78:2-4 speaks in parables Matthew 13:34-35 31 Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11 temple becomes a house of merchandise instead of prayer Matthew 21:13 32 Psalm 69:9 zeal of Jews for the temple instead of God John 2:17 33 Deuteronomy 18:15, 18 a prophet Matthew 21:11, Acts 3:20, 22 34 Isaiah 29:18, Isaiah 35:5-6 blind, deaf, and lame are healed by the Messiah Luke 7:22, Matthew 9:35, 11:3-5 35 Isaiah 40:11, 42:2-3, Isaiah 53:7 Messiah will be meek and mild Matthew 12:18-20, Matthew 11:29, Hebrews 4:15 36 Isaiah 53:9 Be sinless and without guile 1 Peter 2:22 37 Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 49:1 will minister to Gentiles Matthew 12:18-21Luke 2:32 38 Isaiah 61:1-2 to bind up the brokenhearted Luke 4:18-19 39 Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 59:16 to intercede for the people Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25 40 Isaiah 53:3, 8:14, 28:16, 63:3, Psalms 69:6, 118:22 rejected by His own people, the Jews John 1:11, 7:5,48, Luke 23:18, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:6-8 41 Psalm 118:22 Be rejected by the Jewish leadership Matthew 21:42, John 7:48 42 Psalm 2:1-2 plotted against by Jews and Gentiles alike Acts 4:27 43 Psalm 110:4 priest after the order of Melchizedek Hebrews 5:5-6 44 Zechariah 9:9 enter Jerusalem on donkey Mark 11:7, 9, 11, Luke 19:35-37 45 Haggai 2:7-9, Malachi 3:1 entered the temple with authority Matthew 21:12, Luke 2:27-38 46 Psalm 8:2 adored by infants Matthew 21:15-16 47 Isaiah 53:1 not believed John 12:37-38 48 Zechariah 13:7 sheep of the Shepherd scattered Matthew 26:31, Mark 14:50 49 Psalm 41:9, 55:13-15 betrayed by a close friend Matthew 10:4, Luke 22:47-48 50 Zechariah 11:12 betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Matthew 26:14-15 51 Zechariah 11:13 betrayal money used to buy Potter's field Matthew 27:6-7 52 Psalm 35:11 accused by false witnesses Mark 14:57-58 53 Isaiah 53:7 silent to accusations Matthew 27:12, Mark 15:4-5 54 Isaiah 50:6 spat on Matthew 26:67, 27:30 55 Isaiah 50:6 beaten Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30 56 Micah 4:14 struck on cheek Matthew 27:30 57 Isaiah 49:7, Psalm 35:19, Psalm 69:4 hated without reason John 7:48, 15:24-25 58 Isaiah 53:5 wounded and bruised Matthew 27:26 59 Isaiah 53:5 vicarious sacrifice John 1:29, , 3:16, Romans 5:6, 8 60 Daniel 9:24-26 cut off, but not for Himself Matthew 2:1, Luke 3:1, 23 61 Isaiah 53:12 crucified with malefactors Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27-28 62 Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16 pierced through hands and feet Luke 23:33, John 20:25-27 63 Psalm 22:7-8 sneered and mocked Matthew 27:31, Luke 23:35 64 Psalm 109:24, 25 fell under the cross Luke 23:26 65 Psalm 69:9 was reproached Romans 15:3 66 Psalm 38:11 friends stood afar off Luke 23:49 67 Psalm 109:25 people shook their heads Matthew 27:39 68 Psalm 22:17 stared upon Luke 23:35 69 Psalm 22:16, 69:21 given vinegar for His thirst Matthew 27:34, John 19:28-29 70 Psalm 109:4, Isaiah 53:12 prayer for His enemies Luke 23:34 71 Psalm 22:17-18 soldiers gambled for His clothing Matthew 27:35-36, John 19:23, 24 72 Psalm 22:1 forsaken by God Matthew 27:46 73 Psalm 31:5 committed Himself to God Luke 23:46 74 Exodus 12:46, Psalm 34:20 no bones broken John 19:32, 33, 36 75 Psalm 22:14 heart broken John 19:34 76 Zechariah 12:10 His side pierced John 19:34 77 Amos 8:9 darkness over the land Matthew 27:45 78 Isaiah 53:9 buried with the rich Matthew 27:57-60 79 Psalm 3:5, 16:10, 49:15 to be resurrected Mark 16:6-7, Acts 2:31 80 Isaiah 44:3, Joel 2:28 sent the Holy Spirit John 20:22, Acts 2:16-17 81 Isaiah 55:3-4, Jeremiah 31:31 establishes a new covenant Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:6-10 82 Psalm 68:18, Psalm 110:1 His ascension to God's right hand Mark 16:19, Acts 1:9, 1 Corinthians 15:4, Ephesians 4:8, Hebrews 1:3 83 Psalm 29:11, Micah 4:3 peace proclaimed by disciples Luke 2:14, John 14:27, Acts 10:36 84 Isaiah 60:3 "Light" to Gentiles Acts 13:47,48 85 Isaiah 11:10, 42:1, 49:1-12 the Gentiles will seek the Messiah Romans 11:25, 15:10 Although some of these prophecies are vague and could have been deliberately fulfilled, many are very specific: 16. Place of birth (Micah 5:2). 17. Date of birth (Daniel 9:25). 18. Manner of birth (Isaiah 7:14). 62. Manner of death (Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 22:16 prophesied before the invention of crucifixion). 76. Piercing in side (Zechariah 12:10). 78. Burial (Isaiah 53:9). The Bible made several prophecies of the complete destruction of cities. Many of the cities it said would be rebuilt and several it claimed would never be rebuilt - The Bible is 100% accurate in both categories as archeology shows. One amazing example is the city of Tyre. Ezekiel 26:3-5,7,12,14 and (15) predict: Nebuchadnezzar will take the city. Other nations will participate in the fulfillment. The city is to be made flat like the top of a rock. It is to become a place for spreading nets. Its stones and timber are to be laid in the sea. The old city of Tyre will never be rebuilt. History records that Nebuchadnezzar took the adjacent mainland settlement of Ushu ("Old Tyre"), but the people escaped out to the island city. Later, Alexander the Great took the island off the coast by taking the old city's rubble and throwing it into the sea making a land-bridge (this caused the old city to look flat like a rock due to the scraping of the material). The old city is now a place for fisherman but no city has been planted there even though there is an excellent water supply to support a major city. Shelly, Rubel. 1990. Prepare To Answer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p 92. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18) Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, Farrar, Strauss and Cudahy, New York, 1959, p. 31. "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less a propaganda document than the Gospels, liable to similar distortion. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd." A. N. Sherwin-White. 1978. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Baker, Grand Rapids, p. 189. Flavius Josephus The Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 Matthew 12:24, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15, Flavius Josephus The Antiquities of the Jews 18:63, Talmud P. Ta'an. 65b, and the Sanhedrin 3a Cornelius Tacitus Annals 15.44 from The Tech Classics Archive translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb Otto Betz. 1968. What do We Know about Jesus?, SCM Press, page 9. Encyclopedia Britannica (Article on "Jesus") H. G. Wells, Outline Of History. Bruins, H.J. and J. van der Plicht. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature 382: 213-214. Friedrich, W.L., P. Wagner, and H. Tauber. 1990. Thera and the Aegean World III Thera Foundation, London, UK. Kuniholm, P.I., B. Kromer, S.W. Manning, M. Newton, C.E. Latini, and M.J. Bruce. 1996. Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC. Nature 381: 780-783. Renfrew, C. 1996. Kings, tree rings and the old world. Nature 381: 733-734. Shelly, Rubel. 1990. Prepare To Answer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p 114. therefore, thus says the Lord God,` Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord God, `and she will become spoil for the nations.'... For thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army.... Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water.... And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Lord God.... "Then all the princes of the sea will go down from their thrones, remove their robes, and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment, and be appalled at you." (Ezekiel 26:3-5,7,12,14,16) Is the Bible inspired? The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, and that it is a divine product; and because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant. The copies of those documents are not inspired. We have copies of inspired documents. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the Old Testament as being inspired. The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will. Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, we can easily see that the Old Testament Scriptures are full of statements and phrases claiming to be the Word of God. "Thus says the Lord" occurs 418 times in the NASB, 413 in the KJV Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My first-born.'" 1 Kings 11:31, "And he said to Jeroboam, 'Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and give you ten tribes.'" Isaiah 7:7, "thus says the Lord God, 'It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.'" "God said" occurs 46 times in both the NASB and the KJV Genesis 1:3, "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you." Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, 'I am the Lord; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.'" God spoke through prophets 1 Kings 14:18, "And all Israel buried him and mourned for him, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke through His servant Ahijah the prophet." 2 Sam. 24:11-12, "When David arose in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, 12 'Go and speak to David, Thus the Lord says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I may do to you."'" Zech. 7:7, "Are not these the words which the Lord proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?" The Spirit of the Lord spoke through people 2 Sam. 23:2, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue." 1 Kings 22:24, "Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, 'How did the Spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you?'" 2 Chron. 20:14-15, "Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the Lord to you, Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's.'" As you can see, the Old Testament Scriptures are clearly full of statements showing the inspiration of God through the writers. The Old Testament assumes and speaks from the perspective of divine inspiration. Should we do any less? What about the New Testament? We see that the Old Testament is repeatedly spoken of as being inspired via the numerous references cited above but what about the New Testament? Are the New Testament books inspired as well? The Christian church has always considered the New Testament documents to be inspired. Though in the early church there were some debates on which New Testament books to include in the Bible, God worked through the Christian church to recognize those inspired works. Therefore we now have 27 inspired books for the New Testament. In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." This means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them. So, we can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, that Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God, and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. In addition, since the Christian Church recognizes the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired and since we see internal claims of inspiration in the New Testament, we conclude that inspiration applies to the New Testament documents as well. Objections Inspiration violates free will. A. Inspiration does not violate free will. What if the person through whom God is working has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and desires to have the Lord speak through him? Would this negate the ability of God to inerrantly speak through such a person? Would it also mean that the person has no free will if he has voluntarily subjected his will to the will of God? B. Certainly, God has the ability to work through individuals to bring them to a place where they can record inerrant statements. Cannot God manifest himself to someone, deliver to him a verbal message, and have that person record it? Would that statement not be inspired of God? C. Proverbs. 21:1,"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever He wishes." This verse clearly states that God is able to work through an individual's "free will" to bring about what God desires. 2. What about the numerous contradictions in the Bible? A. It is true that there are difficulties with in the Word of God. But these are due to copying errors through the centuries. As more and more historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence is uncovered, the fewer Bible difficulties there are. Nevertheless, for an examination of answers to the alleged Bible contradictions, please see www.BibleQuery.org. 3. The manuscript evidence doesn't support inerrancy of the originals. A. This is a subjective conclusion. The more I have studied about the ancient manuscripts, the more I have concluded that the original documents were indeed inspired and inerrant. B. The logical implication of the statements within the Bible is that they are inerrant since they claim to be offered from God. They either are or are not inspired of God. If they are not, then their claims of speaking for God are lies. 4. Inspiration applies to scripture--not people. A. God works sovereignly through people to inspire his documents. It is the people whom God indwells with his spirit and the people who are inspired by God to write his word. If inspiration only refers to Scripture, and somehow means that people are not themselves inspired, the Scriptures are still God-breathed and necessarily inerrant. For more see our website www.BibleQuery.org.
I have been asked about great preachers to listen to or read . Here are my recommendations of which all can be found at www.sermonaudio.com/ (Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas speaking, RUclips channel ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV): Charles Haddon Spurgeon (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=C._H._Spurgeon), John Bunyan (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Bunyan), A.W. Pink (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=A._W._Pink), Martyn Lloyd-Jones (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Martyn_Lloyd-Jones), John Calvin (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Calvin), George Whitefield (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=George_Whitefield), Jonathan Edwards ( www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jonathan_Edwards), Richard Baxter (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Richard_Baxter), Isaac Ambrose (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Isaac_Ambrose), Stephen Charnock (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Stephen_Charnock), Cotton Mather (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Cotton_Mather), John Knox (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Knox), John Foxe (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Foxe), Martin Luther (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Martin_Luther), John Owen (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Owen), John Gill (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Gill), Augustus Montague Toplady (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Augustus_Toplady) Present day preachers: John MacArthur (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Pastor_John_MacArthur), Phil Johnson (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Phil_Johnson), Ian Brown (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Rev_Ian_Brown), James White (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._James_White), R.C. Sproul (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._R._C._Sproul), Albert Mohler, Jr. (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._R._Albert_Mohler,_Jr.), Voddie Baucham (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Voddie_Baucham), John Reisinger (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Reisinger), Paul Washer (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Paul_Washer), Matthew McMahon (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Matthew_McMahon) Sinclair Ferguson (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._Sinclair_B._Ferguson), Tom Nettles (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Professor_Tom_Nettles), Iain Murray (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currpage=1&keyword=Pastor%5FIain%5FMurray&SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&sortby=added) Curt Daniel (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currpage=1&keyword=Dr%2E%5FCurt%5FD%2E%5FDaniel&SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&sortby=added). For in depth church history/ historical theology lectures hear William Cunningham (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=William_Cunningham). For a Biblical refutation of the heretical Word-Faith Movement of the phony TV preachers, the fraudulent modern day tales of trips to heaven & hell, & the spiritual delusion of the Charismatic & Pentecostal movement hear Justin Peters (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Justin_Peters). For Biblical creation lectures contrasted to Darwin's metaphysical theory of evolution hear Ken Ham (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Ken_Ham). For the most famous sermon ever preached on North American soil hear Jonathan's Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" ( www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11140523305). Death can come suddenly & unexpectedly. Hear deathbed testimonies of the damned during their last days, hours & moments before going into eternity: "Horrifying & Terrifying Death Bed Scenes Of Atheists, Apostates & Reprobates" (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=horrifying&selectsearch=). For deception in the news media hear Peter Hammond (www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5131365140). For the importance of the local church fellowship hear Mark Dever - which includes a free transcript (www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=912071916550). Sermon Audio featured a talk in their "Staff Picks" section of a French lady who gave her testimony about coming to faith in Christ through watching our "CAnswersTV" RUclips videos there in France - "Testimony: Camille Jolly" (www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6414192554). Hear my own pastor Greg Van Court (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Greg_Van_Court) who took the place of my original pastor for 30 years Jackson Boyett who was called home to be with the Lord (hear Pastor Boyett at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jackson_Boyett). There are many other great preachers listed in the "Classic Speakers" & "Reformers & Puritans" section found in the "Sermons by Speaker" section of www.sermonaudio.com/. I hope that this list of outstanding Christian preachers may be of help to you in your Christian walk. 2 Timothy 4:2-5, " Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."
I grew up Jewish, went to Hebrew school, and had to read some scripture in Hebrew for my Bar Mitzvah before I ever got saved. Later, I studied Hebrew in Israel for a year, four hours a day, six days a week. We even looked at Hebrew scripture in class, which by the way, is part of the Bagrut, the Israeli college matriculation exams, comparable to our SATs. The whole argument for the perfect translation is one based on outright ignorance. The KJV is like a black-and-white photo. The Bible in its original languages is like a color photo. Neither is trick photography, but which gives you more information? Never mind just what is translated correctly or incorrectly, but do you realize that the puns, the acrostics, and the meanings of the names and places do not get translated into English? SO MUCH gets lost in translation. No, you don't need the original languages to have a walk with Jesus Christ, just as we used to watch black-and-white TV before color TV came out. But to ignore the languages as a preacher commanded to "study to shew thyself approved unto God"? KJV-only in its extreme forms is a cultic teaching, for it subtly keeps a person from all that the scriptures teach by locking one into a translation. This teaching could not have taken root in the old days, when students in general and theologians in particular in the US were trained in language (including foreign languages), logic, and rhetoric.
"Evangelical" Christianity (see our video "ECUMENICAL CHAOS: Going to Bed With Roman Catholic False Prophets & Idolaters" at ruclips.net/video/S76Nvi6p0lw/видео.html) is awash in bad theology (via Wesley & Finney), bad leadership (like Billy Graham & TBN), & Biblical ignorance (87% don't know the Gospel or what justificaton is) thus it seems to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian (like Romanists, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists or whoever). For proof of this see the following: "Methodist Founder & Self Proclaimed Heathen John Wesley Said He Never Believed In or Loved God" (short version) at ruclips.net/video/L_bz2RyShFI/видео.html & "JOHN WESLEY, FOUNDER OF METHODISM & AN ARMINIAN, SAID HE DID NOT LOVE GOD & WAS "AN HONEST HEATHEN" (long version) at ruclips.net/video/6Vo3ljr7ccs/видео.html; BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS: CHARLES GRANDISON FINNEY - PHONY REVIVALIST & ARCH-HERETIC at ruclips.net/video/0rUbi8AJRw4/видео.html, "Exclusive Interview with Dave Hunt about the Gospel-less Mother Teresa & Compromiser Billy Graham" at ruclips.net/video/8YtX1DirDI4/видео.html, Our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 & "SAD STATE OF THE CHURCH: 87% OF EVANGELICAL "CHRISTIANS" DON'T KNOW WHAT GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION IS" at ruclips.net/video/im4ozy_EiR4/видео.html. See our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 119 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLFFA8D69D1B914715, our playlist "Dealing with Mormonism, the Religion of Mitt Romney & Utah" with 20 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL11CD0EE613306BB5 & our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" at ruclips.net/p/PL5316CC6F66F24283. Billy Graham's false views on universal salvation & hell distort the Gospel message & is another reason he is so popular with the world (Galatians 1:6-10, see our playlist "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 30 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E). Please reference the websites: www.BereanBeacon & www.CWRC-RZ.org. The simple Biblical fact is that few are going to be saved from the wrath of God & hell (Luke 13:23-30, Matthew 7:13-29, etc.); see our video on this: "Unpopular Bible Doctrines #2: Many "Christians" Are Not Real; God Loves Judgment; No Forgiveness" at ruclips.net/video/iJIlReP9SFw/видео.html. All the ecumenical "love" & "harmony" in the world is not going to change the fact that God still hates false religions (Deuteronomy 28:64, 32:17, 21, Leviticus 17:7, Psalm 106:37, Jeremiah 44:3, 1 Corinthians 10:20, see also biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-17.htm) & false doctrine (Revelation 2:6,14-15, 2 Peter 2:15, etc.). Thus following the Bible alone is the only safe path to travel (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 4:2-5, 1 Timothy 1:3-11, 6:3-5, etc.; see our video "WITHOUT "SOLA SCRIPTURA" (THE BIBLE ALONE), WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?" at ruclips.net/video/dcMnF6tgya0/видео.html). 2 Timothy 2:15
The one thing the KJV has going for it apart from eloquence is that its errors are well known and documented, making the pitfalls of the text easy to work around. Different translations are fine as long as they are accurate and that is the problem today - most are simply liberal, heretical attempts at getting around scripture by changing it. It helps to know the original languages; but, I have to side with the late Dr. Walter Martin on my selection.
1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." See links: "The Sheep Need Men to be Their Pastors - The Blasphemy of Women Pastors" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112706102442, "Can Women Be Pastors?" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=59131749272 & "Unpopular Bible Doctrines #7: God Condemns Astrology, Witchcraft, & Sin; No Women Pastors Allowed" at ruclips.net/video/Ql_obI6wA9w/видео.html). Question: "Women pastors / preachers? Can a woman be a pastor or preacher?" Answer: There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation. The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to them, teaching them publicly, and exercising spiritual authority over them. There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism-therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11-14. Yet another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women where chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. However, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people-the church, the body of Christ-and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity. Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the reason why women cannot be pastors perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for,” giving the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived” (verses 13-14). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and in the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given in 1 Timothy 2:14 as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This does not mean that women are gullible or that they are all more easily deceived than men. If all women are more easily deceived, why would they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? The text simply says that women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church. Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15). God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership-in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them. Women pastors - what does the Bible say? The only way to have a productive dialogue on the women pastors issue is to discuss it biblically. Yes, undeniably, there are men whose views on the issue are clouded by chauvinism. At the same time, there are men and women on both sides of the discussion. So, it should never be assumed that one holds a particular view due to latent chauvinism. The issue should be decided based on what the Bible teaches, not on who can make the strongest ad hominem attack. The key passage on the women pastors issue is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which reads, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." At its face, this passage is abundantly clear. Paul restricts women from teaching or having spiritual authority over men. While it is not explicitly laid out in the text, the focus seems to be on the concept of pastoring/shepherding. A pastor's duties are primarily teaching and leading. It is this shepherding role over men that God, through Paul, restricts to men. There are several lines of argument against this interpretation of the women pastors issue in 1 Timothy 2:11-12: (1) Women were uneducated at that time, and therefore not qualified to be teachers. The passage nowhere mentions education. Education is not mentioned as a qualification for church leadership in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 or Titus 1:6-9. If education was a requirement, few, if any, of Jesus' disciples would have been qualified. (2) Paul was only dealing with Artemis worship at Timothy's church in Ephesus. The context, and all of 1 Timothy for that matter, nowhere mention Artemis or the prominence of women in the worship of Artemis. If there was a problem with women usurping authority over men in the church in Ephesus, Paul would have addressed it directly. (3) Paul is referring to husbands and wives, not men and women. Wives are not to teach or have authority over their husbands. The Greek words could refer to husbands and wives, but the context indicates otherwise. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer? Are only wives to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:8-10)? The immediate context indicates that men and women in general are the subject, not husbands and wives exclusively. (4) There are women in the Bible who served in ways that contradict this interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe are the most commonly given examples. Ultimately, Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah are meaningless to the issue, as Paul is addressing leadership in the church. Leadership in old covenant Israel is not the subject at hand. In regards to Priscilla and Phoebe, the New Testament nowhere describes them serving in a way that contradicts 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, discipled Apollos in their home (Acts 18:26). Phoebe is simply identified as a servant/deaconess of the church (Romans 16:1). (5) Galatians 3:28 says that men and women are equal in God's eyes. Men and women are absolutely equal in God's eyes, but that is not the issue. The subject of Galatians 3:28 is equality in Christ, equal access to the salvation Christ offers. Men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slave and free are absolutely equal in this context. Church leadership is not the subject of Galatians 3:28. Further, we cannot take one verse and use it to cancel out another verse. Both Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are absolutely true. They do not contradict each other. If education, culture, or marriage are not the reason for the restriction on women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, what is the reason? The answer is given in the next two verses: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived" (1 Timothy 2:13-14). The order of creation and the nature of the fall impacts spiritual leadership in the church, and in the family (see Ephesians 5:22-33). Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because women were created to be "helpers" to men and because Eve was deceived into sin. Through creation, and because of the Fall, God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church. So, what exactly does this mean practically? What are women restricted from doing? The clear implication is that women are not to serve in any role which involves the authoritative spiritual teaching of men. By this definition, the role of teaching pastor/shepherd is reserved for men. This is confirmed in the two passages which deal specifically with the qualifications for church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Church leaders are described as the "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and "men worthy of respect." Rather than focusing on what ministries women are restricted from, the focus should be on the multitude of ways God calls and gifts women to serve. Women are nowhere restricted from proclaiming the gospel to the lost (Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15). Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). Women are nowhere restricted from teaching children. Women seem to excel, far beyond men, in some of the spiritual gifts and fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12; Galatians 5:22-23). Women being restricted from spiritual teaching authority over men is not a punishment. Rather, it is a refocusing to the ministries, skills, and gifts God with which blesses women. Question: "What roles can women fill in ministry?" Answer: Women in ministry is an issue upon which Bible-believing Christians can and do disagree. The point of separation centers on the passages of Scripture that forbid women to speak in church or "assume authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34). The disagreement is whether or not those passages were relevant only to the era in which they were penned. Some contend that, since there is neither “Jew nor Greek . . . male nor female . . . but you are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28), women are free to pursue any field of ministry open to men. Others hold that 1 Timothy 2:12 still applies today, since the basis for the command is not cultural but universal, being rooted in the order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13-14). First Peter 5:1-4 details the qualifications for an elder. Presbuteros is the Greek word used sixty-six times in the New Testament to indicate “seasoned male overseer.” It is the masculine form of the word. The feminine form, presbutera, is never used in reference to elders or shepherds. Based on the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, the role of an elder is interchangeable with the bishop/pastor/overseer (Titus 1:6-9; 1 Peter 5:1-3). And since, according to 1 Timothy 2:12, a woman should not “teach or exercise authority over a man,” it seems clear that the position of elders and pastors-who must be equipped to teach, lead the congregation, and oversee their spiritual growth (1 Timothy 3:2)-should be reserved for men only. However, elder/bishop/pastor appears to be the only office reserved for men. Women have always played a significant role in the growth of the church, even being among the few who witnessed the crucifixion of Christ when most of the disciples had run away (Matthew 27:55; John 19:25). The apostle Paul held women in high regard, and in many of his letters to the churches he greeted specific women by name (Romans 16:6, 12; Colossians 4:15; Philippians 4:2-3; Philemon 1:2). Paul addresses these women as "co-workers," and they clearly served the Lord to the benefit of the whole church (Philippians 4:3; Colossians 4:15). Offices were created in the early church to fit the needs of the body. Although many modern churches interchange the positions of elder and deacon, they were not the same office. Deacons were appointed to serve in a physical capacity as the need arose (Acts 6:2-3). There is no clear prohibition against women serving in this way. In fact, Romans 16:1 may indicate that a woman named Phoebe was a respected deaconess in the church at Rome. There is no scriptural precedent that forbids women from also serving as worship leaders, youth ministers, or children’s directors. The only restriction is that they do not assume a role of spiritual authority over adult men. Since the concern in Scripture appears to be the issue of spiritual authority rather than function, any role that does not bestow such spiritual authority over adult men is permissible. Question: "What does the "husband of one wife" phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 mean? Can a divorced man serve as a pastor, elder, or deacon?" Answer: There are at least three possible interpretations of the phrase “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2. 1) It could simply be saying that a polygamist is not qualified to be an elder, a deacon or a pastor. This is the most literal interpretation of the phrase, but seems somewhat unlikely considering that polygamy was quite rare in the time that Paul was writing. 2) The phrase could also be translated “one-woman man.” This would indicate that a bishop must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to. This interpretation focuses more on moral purity than marital status. 3) The phrase could also be understood to declare that in order to be an elder/deacon/pastor, a man can only have been married once, other than in the case of a remarried widower. Interpretations 2) and 3) are the most prevalent today. Interpretation 2) seems to be the strongest, primarily because Scripture seems to allow for divorce in exceptional circumstances (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:12-16). It would also be important to differentiate between a man who was divorced and remarried before he became a Christian from a man who was divorced and remarried after becoming a Christian. An otherwise qualified man should not be excluded from church leadership because of actions he took prior to coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior. Although 1 Timothy 3:2 does not necessarily exclude a divorced or remarried man from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, there are other issues to consider. The first qualification of an elder/deacon/pastor is to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2). If the divorce and/or remarriage results in a poor testimony for the man in the church or community, it may be the “above reproach” qualification that excludes him rather than the “husband of one wife” requirement. An elder/deacon/pastor is to be a man that the church and community can look up to as an example of Christ-likeness and godly leadership. If his divorce and/or remarriage situation detracts from this purpose, perhaps he should not serve in the position of elder/deacon/pastor. It is important to remember, though, that just because a man is disqualified from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, he is still a valuable member of the body of Christ. Every Christian possesses spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-7) and is called to participate in edifying other believers with those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7). A man who is disqualified from the position of elder/deacon/pastor can still teach, preach, serve, pray, worship, and play an important role in the church. Question: "What are the responsibilities of deacons in the church?" Answer: In the New Testament, the word usually translated "serve" is the Greek word diakoneo, which literally means "through the dirt." It refers to an attendant, a waiter, or one who ministers to another. From this word we get the English word “deacon.” We first see the word "deacon" used this way in the book of Acts. “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2). The men who were giving themselves to feeding the flock by preaching and teaching realized that it wasn’t right for them to leave those activities to wait tables, so they found some other men who were willing to serve, and put them in place to minister to the church’s physical needs while the elders or pastors ministered to their spiritual needs. It was a better use of the resources they were given, and a better use of everyone’s gifts. It also got more people involved in serving and helping one another. Today, for the biblical church, these roles are essentially the same. Elders and pastors are to “preach the word…reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2), and deacons are to be appointed to take care of everything else. In a modern church, this might include taking on administrative or organizational tasks, ushering, being responsible for building maintenance, or volunteering to be the church treasurer. It depends on the need and the gifts of the available men. The responsibilities of a deacon are not clearly listed or outlined; they are assumed to be everything that does not include the duties of an elder or pastor, which is to preach, teach, and exhort. But qualifications for a deacon’s character are clearly outlined in Scripture. They are to be blameless, the husband of one wife, a good household manager, respectable, honest, not addicted to alcohol and not greedy (1 Timothy 3:8-12). According to the Word, the office of deacon is an honor and a blessing. “For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 3:13). Is God/the Bible sexist? Sexism is generally defined as one gender having dominance over another and is usually applied to men dominating women. Because the Bible includes many references to women that appear demeaning from our contemporary context, some conclude that God and/or the Bible are sexist. Is this true? The time period of the Old Testament included a cultural system that was patriarchal. Rather than viewing men and women as created in God's image as the Bible states (Genesis 1:27), women were typically seen as less important than men in society. This is part of fallen human nature in which people lived in ways contrary to God's design. To discover and develop the view God has given for the roles of men and women in society, we must look to Scripture. Though in Old Testament accounts many references to women appear sexist from our modern perspective, two things must be considered before making such an accusation. First, many references in the Bible that appear sexist are simply stating actions that took place without reference to whether they were right or wrong. For example, in Judges 11 Jephthah appears to have sacrificed his own daughter to keep a vow he made to the Lord. Scripture does not state that God approved this action; it only records it as a fact of history. Second, many references to women that appear sexist based on contemporary standards were appropriate or even better than the norm of the original cultural setting. For example, 1 Timothy 2:9 says Christian women should not adorn themselves with braided hair. Why not? In that time, braided hair was associated with the practices of immoral women in the area. Further, braided hair as understood in that cultural context was a costly, extravagant luxury. However, even in a time when women's rights were different than today, there are several biblical accounts of women being treated with dignity and respect above the level of cultural norms. For example, Jesus publicly spoke with a Samaritan woman at a well, something that even she noted as uncommon (John 4:9). Jesus also allowed women to serve among His followers (including Mary and Martha and Mary Magdalene), and even appeared first to women after His resurrection rather than to men. Far from being sexist, Scripture presents both men and women in high regard. In the beginning, woman was made in God's image, complementing man as a helper with him. She would serve as woman, wife, mother, and various other roles. In the Old Testament, women are seen in many influential roles. In addition to Eve, the mother of all people, Scripture speaks highly of Abraham's wife Sarah, Isaac's wife Rebekah, Deborah who served as a judge in the book of Judges, the mother of Moses, Miriam the sister of Moses, Ruth the faithful Moabite, Hannah the mother of Samuel, and Queen Esther who saved the Jewish people. In the New Testament, women served in prominent roles as well. Mary the mother of Jesus is presented as an ideal servant of God. Four women are mentioned by name in the family lineage of Jesus. Mary's relative Elizabeth obediently raised John the Baptist. Many women also served Jesus during His ministry, with Mary Magdalene in particular noted. Several women existed among the 120 first followers of Jesus in the upper room when the church began (Acts 1-2) and led in a variety of roles within the early church. While it is unlikely that women served as apostles and did not serve as elders, some women served as prophets or at least gave prophecies. Acts 21:8-9 shares, "On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied." Further, the New Testament speaks highly in favor of strong families and discourages divorce, something that culturally hurt women greatly at the time of writing. James 1:27 is exemplary of Scripture's instructions to care for widows, those women without husbands to provide for the needs of their family. Though some portions of the Bible may appear sexist, the overall teaching of Scripture presents a beautiful view of women that provides much insight for today. Question: "What does the Bible say about the form of church government (polity)?" Answer: The Lord was very clear in His Word about how He wishes His church on earth to be organized and managed. First, Christ is the head of the church and its supreme authority (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18). Second, the local church is to be autonomous, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). Third, the church is to be governed by spiritual leadership consisting of two main offices-elders and deacons. “Elders” were a leading body among the Israelites since the time of Moses. We find them making political decisions (2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 17:4, 15), advising the king in later history (1 Kings 20:7), and representing the people concerning spiritual matters (Exodus 7:17; 24:1, 9; Numbers 11:16, 24-25). The early Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, used the Greek word presbuteros for “elder.” This is the same Greek word used in the New Testament that is also translated “elder.” The New Testament refers a number of times to elders who served in the role of church leadership (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14) and apparently each church had more than one, as the word is usually found in the plural. The only exceptions refer to cases in which one elder is being singled out for some reason (1 Timothy 5:1, 19). In the Jerusalem church, elders were part of the leadership along with the apostles (Acts 15:2-16:4). It seems that the position of elder was equal to the position of episkopos, translated “overseer” or “bishop” (Acts 11:30; 1 Timothy 5:17). The term “elder” may refer to the dignity of the office, while the term “bishop/overseer” describes its authority and duties (1 Peter 2:25, 5:1-4). In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the bishops and deacons but does not mention the elders, presumably because the elders are the same as the bishops. Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2, 8 gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons but not of elders. Titus 1:5-7 seems also to tie these two terms together. The position of “deacon,” from diakonos, meaning “through the dirt,” was one of servant leadership to the church. Deacons are separate from elders, while having qualifications that are in many ways similar to those of elders (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Deacons assist the church in whatever is needed, as recorded in Acts chapter 6. Concerning the word poimen, translated “pastor” in reference to a human leader of a church, it is found only once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 4:11: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.” Most associate the two terms “pastors” and “teachers” as referring to a single position, a pastor-teacher. It is likely that a pastor-teacher was the spiritual shepherd of a particular local church. It would seem from the above passages that there was always a plurality of elders, but this does not negate God’s gifting particular elders with the teaching gifts while gifting others with the gift of administration, prayer, etc. (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11). Nor does it negate God’s calling them into a ministry in which they will use those gifts (Acts 13:1). Thus, one elder may emerge as the “pastor,” another may do the majority of visiting members because he has the gift of compassion, while another may “rule” in the sense of handling the organizational details. Many churches that are organized with a pastor and deacon board perform the functions of a plurality of elders in that they share the ministry load and work together in some decision making. In Scripture there was also much congregational input into decisions. Thus, a “dictator” leader who makes the decisions (whether called elder, or bishop, or pastor) is unscriptural (Acts 1:23, 26; 6:3, 5; 15:22, 30; 2 Corinthians 8:19). So, too, is a congregation-ruled church that does not give weight to the elders’ or church leaders’ input. In summary, the Bible teaches a leadership consisting of a plurality of elders (bishops/overseers) along with a group of deacons who serve the church. But it is not contrary to this plurality of elders to have one of the elders serving in the major “pastoral” role. God calls some as “pastor/teachers” (even as He called some to be missionaries in Acts 13) and gives them as gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:11). Thus, a church may have many elders, but not all elders are called to serve in the pastoral role. But, as one of the elders, the pastor or “teaching elder” has no more authority in decision making than does any other elder. Some liberal theologians, cultists, New Agers & apostates have argued that the "Jezebel spirit" allows for the Christian church to have women pastors which only shows the absurdity that they will go to disobey God's straightforward & clear commands in scripture that women pastors are not allowed. The people that would use the "Jezebel spirit" argument to allow for any kind of church leadership model whatsoever have clearly demonstrated that they themselves have the very "Jezebel" spirit they claim for their authority to have women pastors, etc. What a ridiculous position to hold since they themselves are condemned by the very argument they use. Question: "What is the Jezebel spirit?" Answer: There is a variety of opinions about what constitutes a Jezebel spirit, everything from sexual looseness in a woman to the teaching of false doctrine-by a man or a woman. The Bible does not mention a Jezebel spirit, although it has plenty to say about Jezebel herself. Jezebel’s story is found in 1 and 2 Kings. She was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre/Sidon and priest of the cult of Baal, a cruel, sensuous and revolting false god whose worship involved sexual degradation and lewdness. Ahab, king of Israel, married Jezebel and led the nation into Baal worship (1 Kings 16:31). Ahab and Jezebel’s reign over Israel is one of the saddest chapters in the history of God’s people. There are two incidents in the life of Jezebel which characterize her and may define what is meant by the Jezebel spirit. One trait is her obsessive passion for domineering and controlling others, especially in the spiritual realm. When she became queen, she began a relentless campaign to rid Israel of all evidences of Jehovah worship. She ordered the extermination of all the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:4, 13) and replaced their altars with those of Baal. Her strongest enemy was Elijah, who demanded a contest on Mount Carmel between the powers of Israel’s God and the powers of Jezebel and the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18). Of course, Jehovah won, but despite hearing of the miraculous powers of Jehovah, Jezebel refused to repent and swore on her gods that she would pursue Elijah relentlessly and take his life. Her stubborn refusal to see and submit to the power of the living God would lead her to a hideous end (2 Kings 9:29-37). The second incident involves a righteous man named Naboth who refused to sell to Ahab land adjoining the palace, rightly declaring that to sell his inheritance would be against the Lord’s command (1 Kings 21:3; Leviticus 25:23). While Ahab sulked and fumed on his bed, Jezebel taunted and ridiculed him for his weakness, then proceeded to have the innocent Naboth framed and stoned to death. Naboth’s sons were also stoned to death, so there would be no heirs, and the land would revert to the possession of the king. Such a single-minded determination to have one’s way, no matter who is destroyed in the process, is a characteristic of the Jezebel spirit. So infamous was Jezebel’s sexual immorality and idol worship that the Lord Jesus Himself refers to her in a warning to the church at Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29). Most likely referring to a woman in the church who influenced it the same way Jezebel influenced Israel into idolatry and sexual immorality, Jesus declares to the Thyatirans that she is not to be tolerated. Whoever this woman was, like Jezebel, she refused to repent of her immorality and her false teaching, and her fate was sealed. The Lord Jesus cast her onto a sick bed, along with those who committed idolatry with her. The end for those who succumb to a Jezebel spirit is always death and destruction, both in the physical and the spiritual sense. Perhaps the best way to define the Jezebel spirit is to say it characterizes anyone who acts in the same manner as Jezebel did, engaging in immorality, idolatry, false teaching and unrepentant sin. To go beyond that is to engage in conjecture and can possibly lead to false accusations and divisiveness within the body of Christ. Female based religious cults such as Seventh Day Adventism (see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 24 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL5316CC6F66F24283), Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy & other New Age cults (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Christ Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 42 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL69A3047B3497590A & many of today's modern Charismatic & Pentecostal TV preachers like Joyce Meyer & Paula White (see our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 26 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128) promote the type of "Jezebel spirit" & "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" the scripture warns about. Question: "Who are the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 14-15?" Answer: The exact origin of the Nicolaitans is unclear. Some Bible commentators believe they were a heretical sect who followed the teachings of Nicolas-whose name means “one who conquers the people”-who was possibly one of the deacons of the early church mentioned in Acts 6:5. It is possible that Nicolas became an apostate, denying the true faith and became part of a group holding "the doctrine of Balaam," who taught Israel "to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality." Clement of Alexandria says, “They abandoned themselves to pleasure like goats, leading a life of self-indulgence.” Their teaching perverted grace and replaced liberty with license. Other commentators believe that these Nicolaitans were not so called from any man, but from the Greek word Nicolah, meaning "let us eat," as they often encouraged each other to eat things offered to idols. Whichever theory is true, it is certain that the deeds of the Nicolaitans were an abomination to Christ. They, like the Gnostics and other false teachers, abused the doctrine of grace and tried to introduce licentiousness in its place (2 Peter 2:15, 19; Jude 1:4). According to the writings of the Early Church leaders, Nicolas taught a doctrine of compromise, implying that total separation between Christianity and the practice of occult paganism was not essential. From Early Church records, it seems apparent that this Nicolas of Antioch was so immersed in occultism, Judaism, and Christianity that he had a stomach for all of it. He had no problem intermingling these belief systems in various concoctions and saw no reason why believers couldn't continue to fellowship with those still immersed in the black magic of the Roman empire and its countless mystery cults. Occultism was a major force that warred against the Early Church. In Ephesus, the primary pagan religion was the worship of Diana (Artemis). There were many other forms of idolatry in Ephesus, but this was the primary object of occult worship in that city. In the city of Pergamos, there were numerous dark and sinister forms of occultism, causing Pergamos to be one of the most wicked cities in the history of the ancient world. In both of these cities, believers were lambasted and persecuted fiercely by adherents of pagan religions, forced to contend with paganism on a level far beyond all other cities. It was very hard for believers to live separately from all the activities of paganism because paganism and its religions were the center of life in these cities. Slipping in and out of paganism would have been very easy for young or weak believers to do since most of their families and friends were still pagans. A converted Gentile would have found it very difficult to stay away from all pagan influence. It is significant that the "deeds" and "doctrines" of the Nicolaitans are only mentioned in connection with the churches in these two occultic and pagan cities. It seems that the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans was that it was alright to have one foot in both worlds and that one needn't be so strict about separation from the world in order to be a Christian. This, in fact, was the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans that Jesus "hated." It led to a weak version of Christianity that was without power and without conviction - a defeated, worldly type of Christianity. Nicolas' deep roots in paganism may have produced in him a tolerance for occultism and paganism. Growing up in this perverted spiritual environment may have caused him to view these belief systems as not so damaging or dangerous. This wrong perception would have resulted in a very liberal viewpoint that encouraged people to stay connected to the world. This is what numerous Bible scholars believe about the Nicolaitans. This kind of teaching would result in nothing but total defeat for its followers. When believers allow sin and compromise to be in their lives, it drains away the power in the work of the Cross and the power of the Spirit that is resident in a believer's life. This is the reason the name Nicolas is so vital to this discussion. The evil fruit of Nicolas' "doctrine" encouraged worldly participation, leading people to indulge in sin and a lowered godly standard. In this way he literally conquered the people. God wants to make sure we understand the doctrine the Nicolaitans taught, so Balaam's actions are given as an example of their doctrine and actions. Revelation 2:14,15 says, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate." When Balaam could not successfully cure the people of God, he used another method to destroy them. He seduced them into unbridled, sensual living by dangling the prostitutes of Moab before the men of Israel. Numbers 25:1-3 tells us, "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they [the daughters of Moab] called the people [the men of Israel] unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people [the men of Israel] did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor...." Just as the men of Israel compromised themselves with the world and false religions, now the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans was encouraging compromise. As you are well aware, compromise with the world always results in a weakened and powerless form of Christianity. This was the reason Jesus "hated" the "doctrine" and the "deeds" of the Nicolaitans. Jesus commends the church of Ephesus for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans as He does (Revelation 2:6). No doubt the leaders of the Ephesian church protected their flock from these destructive heresies and kept their people from committing the same evil deeds. All sin is hateful to Christ, as it should be to His followers, as we hate men’s evil deeds, not the men themselves. For the church at Pergamos, Jesus had not commendation, but censure. Unlike the Ephesians, they actually embraced the teachings of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15). Jesus warns them that unless they repent, they are in danger of the judgment that is sure to fall on those who teach false doctrine, attack His church, and destroy His people. The sword of judgment is poised over their heads, and His patience is not limitless (Revelation 2:16; 19:15). The lesson for us is that the church of the Lord Jesus throughout the ages has been plagued by those of the Nicolaitan spirit. The only way to recognize false teaching is to be intimately familiar with truth through the diligent study of the Word of God. See our website www.BibleQuery.org which answers over 8000 bible questions. 2 Timothy 2:15
Did Jesus go to hell & get tortured by the wrath of God & the wrath of Satan & his demons? Many heretical Charismatic & Pentecostal TV preachers like Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin & Joyce Meyer (see our series on RUclips entitled "Blasphemous Charismatic & Pentecostal Mayhem" on our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 26 videos & counting at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128) are joined by King James Only advocates like Steven L. Anderson in teaching that Jesus was tortured in hell (see videos: "Steven Anderson's King James Onlyism and Outrageous Behavior" at ruclips.net/video/qwA_oN0gEYc/видео.html, "Pastor Steven Anderson Admits He Hates Gays and They All Should Be Killed" at ruclips.net/video/TCIE0vqk6Uo/видео.html, "STEVEN ANDERSON FALSE TEACHER EXPOSED" at ruclips.net/video/MR55ZPiWS_Q/видео.html (has clips of Anderson saying that he prays that President Obama would die & go to hell), "Dr. James White Full Interview 'NWO Bible Versions'" (Anderson versus Dr. James White) at ruclips.net/video/xJrptikLjq8/видео.html & "10/28/2013 The Dividing Line - Steven Anderson, Strange Fire, David Allen" at ruclips.net/video/Y9WP8bW74u4/видео.html. Why do blasphemous Word-Faith Charismatics like Copeland & company get along in doctrine on this subject with a King James Onlyite like Anderson who says Jesus was a "burnt offering" when it comes to Jesus the Lord of Glory & God in the flesh being thrown in hell & being tortured by demons (see our video "IS JESUS GOD ALMIGHTY IN THE FLESH MEANING THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY OR IS HE SOMETHING ELSE?" at ruclips.net/video/_BlPm7M7uv8/видео.html). Is it not blasphemy to say that Jesus, who is the eternal Son the God, was cast into hell where He had His "wormy spirit" as Copeland says tortured & "stomped on" by demons? Are Charismatics & King James Only advocates such as Anderson right in teaching this mockery of Christ? Question: "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?" Answer: There is a great deal of confusion in regards to this question. The concept that Jesus went to hell after His death on the cross comes primarily from the Apostles’ Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek equivalent of sheol is hades, which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between hades and the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades, then, is a temporary place. Many people refer to both hades and the lake of fire as “hell,” and this causes confusion. Jesus did not go to a place of torment after His death, but He did go to hades. Sheol/hades was a realm with two divisions-a place of blessing and a place of judgment (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27-31). The abodes of the saved and the lost are both generally called “hades” in the Bible. The abode of the saved is also called “Abraham’s bosom” (KJV) or “Abraham’s side” (NIV) in Luke 16:22 and “paradise” in Luke 23:43. The abode of the unsaved is called “hell” (KJV) or “Hades” (NIV) in Luke 16:23. The abodes of the saved and the lost are separated by a “great chasm” (Luke 16:26). When Jesus died, He went to the blessed side of sheol and, from there, took the believers with Him to heaven (Ephesians 4:8-10). The judgment side of sheol/hades has remained unchanged. All unbelieving dead go there awaiting their final judgment in the future. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes, according to Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20. Some of the confusion has arisen from such passages as Psalm 16:10-11 as translated in the King James Version: “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. . . . Thou wilt show me the path of life.” “Hell” is not a correct translation in this verse. A correct reading would be “the grave” or “sheol.” Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43); He did not say, “I will see you in hell.” Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to be with the blessed in sheol/hades. Unfortunately, in many versions of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.” Some have the viewpoint that Jesus went to “hell” or the suffering side of sheol/hades in order to further be punished for our sins. This idea is completely unbiblical. It was the death of Jesus on the cross that sufficiently provided for our redemption. It was His shed blood that effected our own cleansing from sin (1 John 1:7-9). As He hung there on the cross, He took the sin burden of the whole human race upon Himself. He became sin for us: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This imputation of sin helps us understand Christ’s struggle in the garden of Gethsemane with the cup of sin which would be poured out upon Him on the cross. As Jesus neared death, He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). His suffering in our place was completed. His soul/spirit went to hades (the place of the dead). Jesus did not go to “hell” or the suffering side of hades; He went to “Abraham’s side” or the blessed side of hades. Jesus’ suffering ended the moment He died. The payment for sin was paid. He then awaited the resurrection of His body and His return to glory in His ascension. Did Jesus go to hell? No. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes. Question: "What is paradise? Is it different than Heaven?" Answer: Paradise is a place of blessing where the righteous go after death. The word paradise is usually used as a synonym for “heaven” (Revelation 2:7). When Jesus was dying on the cross and one of the thieves being crucified with Him asked Him for mercy, Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus knew that His death was imminent and that He would soon be in heaven with His Father. Therefore, Jesus used “paradise” as a synonym for “heaven.” The apostle Paul wrote of someone (probably himself) who “was caught up to paradise” (2 Corinthians 12:4). In this context, paradise obviously refers to heaven. There has always been a separation of believers and unbelievers after death (Luke 16:19-31). The righteous have always gone to paradise; the wicked have always gone to hell. For right now, both paradise and hell are “temporary holding places” until the day when Jesus Christ comes back to judge the world based on whether or not individuals have believed in Him. The first resurrection is of believers who will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to receive rewards based on meritorious service to Him. The second resurrection will be that of unbelievers who will stand before the Great White Throne Judgment of God. At that point, all will be sent to their eternal destination-the wicked to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15), and the righteous to a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21-22). There are cases in which paradise can refer to the Garden of Eden, such in the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 3:8, which speaks of Adam and Eve hiding “amidst the trees of paradise.” The context of the word will determine whether it refers to heaven or Eden. Question: "What did Jesus mean when He said, ‘Today you will be with me in paradise’?" Answer: It is common knowledge that punctuation, including commas, was introduced into the biblical manuscripts centuries after the books were completed. Therefore, commas are not authoritative. However, the placement of commas can affect our understanding of a text. For example, in Luke 23, one of the thieves crucified next to Jesus says, “‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ Jesus answered him, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise’” (verses 42-43). Commas help us keep the original phrasing intact. Was Jesus saying, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me . . .” (meaning that “today” is when the thief would be in paradise)? Or was He saying, “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me . . .” (meaning that “today” is when Jesus was speaking”)? First, we note that every major Bible translation inserts the comma before the word today. Thus, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and RSV all agree that Jesus was speaking of the time that the thief would enter paradise. The thief would be in paradise with Jesus on that very same day. Also, Jesus prefaced His response with the phrase, “I tell you the truth” (“Verily I say unto thee” in the KJV). Many scholars have noticed that Jesus uses this as a prefix phrase when He is about to say something that should be listened to with care. Seventy-six times in the New Testament, Jesus uses the phrase. Interestingly, no one but Jesus ever says it. When the Lord says “I tell you the truth,” He is affirming that what He is about to say is worthy of special attention. It was Jesus’ way of saying, “Listen up! What I’m about to say is very important and should be listened to carefully.” We’re too used to hearing the phrase to appreciate the astonishing authority it expresses and the often solemn nature of the announcement that follows. In every one of the 76 times Christ uses this introductory phrase, He simply says it and then makes a startling statement. It would be strange indeed if, in this one instance, Jesus departed from His normal way of making His signature statement by adding the word today to it. In every case where this sort of introductory phrase is used, Greek scholars add a punctuation break after the phrase in question and before the rest of the statement. So, the translators have it right. The comma in Luke 23:43 belongs where they put it. This brings us to another question. If Jesus was buried and rose after three days and then many days later ascended to heaven, how could He have been in paradise with the thief? After Christ died, it was His body that was buried in the tomb. However, Jesus’ spirit/soul was not in the tomb. Jesus’ spirit was in the Father’s presence (Luke 23:46; Ephesians 4:8). As Jesus was hanging on the cross, paying our penalty for sin, He made a promise to a dying, repentant thief. By the grace of God and the power of Christ, that promise was kept. The thief’s sins were washed away, and his death that day was his entrance to paradise. TRANSLATION ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION Since the King James Version has many translation errors within its pages the false teaching that Jesus went to hell has arisen. Of the many English Bible translations the King James Bible had the most number of cases where the word “hell” is used in the Old Testament. It translated the Hebrew word “Sheol” as “grave” 31 times, “hell” 31 times, and “pit” 3 times. Almost without exception, all the other leading Protestant Bibles didn’t have the nerve to do what the King’s translators did, that is, take the Hebrew word “Sheol” where everyone went, according to the Old Testament teachings, and divide it into “hell,” a place for the unrighteous, and “grave” or “pit,” presumably the place for the righteous. They translated this word according to their theology, and not according to the Hebrew. Most of the translations did not have the word “hell” in any part of the Old Testament. The ones that did, have mentioned it only a handfull of times, always from the Hebrew word “Sheol” which they translated the vast majority of times “grave, underworld, etc..” Those translations that use the word “hell” are so inconsistent with it, that it is impossible to determine which Scriptures clearly refers to “hell” and which refers to “grave.” Where one translation had “hell,” another had “grave.” In other words, those translations that tried to put “hell” into the Old Testament couldn’t agree with each other as to which verses spoke of “hell” and which spoke of the “grave.” The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: “When he had tarried among them more than ten days,” they inserted the following marginal note: “or, as some copies read, ‘no more than eight or ten days.'” Unfortunately notes such as these as well as much other information contained in the Original KJV have been removed to support the “Inerrancy” fraud. Enough . . . of this sad chapter of Bible translating. If I got into the personal lives of the people involved here, it would make Hollywood jealous. Often “KJV Only” writers use smear tactics to discredit other translations. They freely use character assassination as a screen to throw people off from searching things out for themselves. If we got into the personalities of the people involved in this chapter of Bible productions , we wouldn’t have to smear. The truth would shock you! But our desire is not to dishonor anyone, our purpose is to set people free of error which is holding them in bondage to false doctrines and keeping them in bondage to men and women who use the Scriptures deceitfully. Let us go on. Compare Jonah 2:2 from various translations: Original King James Version: 1611 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction vnto the LORD, and hee heard mee; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voyce. The spelling is exactly as in the original. English has changed much since 1611. The original has a note in the margins about the word “hell.” It says “or, the grave.” Later editions took the marginal readings out to conform to the mythical standard of an “inerrant Bible.” Marginal alternative renderings showed that translators were uncertain of the meaning. This did not conform to the “inerrant” idea so the marginal readings, which sometimes were more correct than the text, were taken out in later editions. Please note if Jonah was in “hell,” as the KJV has it, then Jonah escaped from a place where, according to modern theologians, there is no escape. The New American Standard Bible: 1977 and he said, “I called out of my distress to the LORD, And He answered me. I cried for help from the depth of Sheol; Thou didst hear my voice.” The New International Version: 1973 He said: “In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me. From the depthes of the grave I called for help, and you listened to my cry. The Living Bible: 1971 “In my great trouble I cried to the Lord and he answerd me; from the depths of death I called, and Lord, you heard me!” The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (Lamsa): 1957 I cried to the Lord in my distress and he answered me; out of the depths of Sheol cried I, and thou heardest my voice. Good News Bible: 1976 “In my distress, O Lord, I called to you, and you answered me. From deep in the world of the dead I cried for help, and you heard me.” The Holy Bible an American Translation: 1976 …and said: “In my distress I called to the Lord, and He answered me. From the belly of the underworld I cried, and You heard my voice.” New Catholic Liturgical Bible: 1963 Jona 2:3 Out of my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me; from the midst of the nether world I cried for help, and you heard my voice. New Revised Standard Version: 1989 …saying, “I called to the Lord out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.” The Amplified Bible: 1965 And said, I cried out of my distress to the Lord, and He heard me; out of the belly of Sheol cried I, and You heard my voice. The New King James Version: 1985 And he said: “I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction, And He answered me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and You heard my voice. As we can see, after 350 years of saying Jonah was in “hell,” the New King James finally admitted he wasn’t there after all. He was in Sheol, like everyone else who has died. Many people have come out of the grave. The Bible is full of examples. King James Onlyites like Steven Anderson depend & believe that every word in the King James version is translated correctly from the original Greek & Hebrew while refusing to review reliable & documented evidence to the contrary. Thus Anderson thinks his KJV is correct in its rendition of Acts 2:31 in the KJV which says, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." The question wasn't, did Jesus go to "hell," but was "hell" whatever that might mean, an accurate translation of Acts 2:31. And the answer of course is no! The idea in view was the promise that the Messiah's body would not rot nor His soul be abandoned to Hades. This view is also presented in Psalm 16:10, "For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." Sheol is used in the OT to both refer to the grave, or place where our dead bodies are placed, and for the abode of the dead, the place where our souls go after physical death. Because of the construction, referring both to the a soul being abandoned, and to the body seeing corruption or decay, the best and most accurate translation is Hades. Jesus went to Paradise with the thief on the cross which was the paradise side of Hades & there proclaimed that He was the risen Lord, and from there returned to heaven! People like Anderson can't believe this since they are stuck with their faulty translation of this verse & thus they are lead into blasphemous heresy just like the blasphemous Charismatic Word-Faith heretics (see heretic Joyce Meyer on this at ruclips.net/video/nFG7cXOLiQQ/видео.html). Thus modern translations like the New American Standard (NASB) & the English Standard Bible (ESV) get Acts 2:31 right when they render that verse as "he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of [a]the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh [b]suffer decay. (NASB) & "he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." (ESV) which accurately refutes the Charismatic & King James Only heretics at the same time. Did Jesus descend into Hell or Hades after he died on the cross? While on the cross for three hours, after all the sins were laid upon him Jesus cried out that God forsook him (looked away, breaking fellowship). After nearly 6 hours on the cross Jesus said that He entrusted His spirit into the Fathers hands before He died. He was totally restored before He died. His Spirit was not committed into anyone’s hands, but the Father’s. So there is no possibility of him going to hell for any reason of completing the sacrifice or punishment. He did finish on the cross everything that was needed for salvation. If Jesus went to Hell this means the Father did not accept His sacrifice, but instead rejected it. While Jesus was on the cross He promised the thief on the cross next to him that he would be with Him in paradise that very day (Luke 23:43). If the thief was not in paradise with Him but would have entered into suffering with Jesus and Jesus lied. Paradise was still in the earth called Abrahams bosom until Christ raised and went to heaven (then he took those saints with him to heaven Eph.4:8). The Bible-Acts 2:27, “For you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption.” Peter repeats himself just a few verses later in Acts 2:31: “His soul was not left in Hell (actual word is Hades), nor did his flesh did see corruption.” Notice it says neither soul nor body saw corruption (decay). If he was a sinner would mean He did see corruption. The verse quoted by Peter is Psalm 16:10. Some Bible versions use the word hell; a more accurate translation would be Sheol. In Hebrew, this encompasses the place for both the righteous and unrighteous that have died. Sheol is used 65 times in the Old Testament; rarely is it used to denote a place of torment (Luke 16:23 is one of the rare scriptures in the New Testament). The customary meaning is realm of the dead, meaning the state of death or the grave (Genesis 37:35; 1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 141:7). The New Testament Greek equivalent is Hades, and gives us a more detailed explanation of the realm of the dead. It is divided into two compartments; on one side is Abraham's bosom for the righteous, on the other side is what we call hell, which Jesus said: “was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). We find in Luke 16:23, 25 that in Hades there is a place of punishment (called Hell), and a place of rest, (Abraham’s bosom), depending on which side you are on. The context should bear it out. If Jesus went to hell for any amount of time as a punishment then the cross was insufficient for our redemption. For example in 1 Cor 15:55: "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" The Greek word for both death and Hades is thanatos (properly, an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively) In Rev. 1:18 "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.” The word for death is thanatos, Hades is haides in Greek, from 1 (as negative particle) and 1492; properly, unseen, i.e. "Hades" or the place (state) of departed souls: KJV-- grave, hell. What actually did happen to Jesus’ spirit? We know He committed His spirit to God. I Peter 3:18 states, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened (made alive) by the Spirit.” Christ died in body only (put to death in the sphere of the flesh), not the spirit. And continued to exist in spirit, just as He did before He came to earth. His existence in His earthly life ended but He continued His life existing in the spirit inside the earth, in Hades, before He resurrected. It is His flesh that was made alive again, resurrected. Christ died in body only. We can prove this by 1 Peter 3:19-20: “By whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah...” This event occurred between Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus went to those who were believers and presented his victory at the cross. He also went to those that were incarcerated from the time of the flood. The word for “preach” is Kerysso in Greek, meaning to proclaim or announce (judgment). This is different then to evangelize and proclaim the good news of reconciliation for salvation, which is used in 1 Peter 4:6. This proclamation was directed to either the fallen angels or the human souls that died in the flood or both (Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4). Announcing to them their judgment is imminent, as he had just come from the victory on the cross. Again Hades, Sheol encompasses the whole realm of the dead and the context must bear out what it says. Thus King James Onlyites are brought into gross error by the very translation of the Bible they worship. The KJV makes other translation errors as well such as the following: 1. HOLY GHOST 2. JEHOVAH 3. JUPITER & MERCURIUS 4. MOUNT SION 5. NEW TESTAMENT 6. A FALLING AWAY 7. GREAT TRIBULATION 8. ANTICHRIST 9. IN THE HAND/FOREHEAD 10. GIANTS 11. END OF THE WORLD 12. EASTER whereas the original Greek & Hebrew actually say: 1. HOLY SPIRIT 2. YHWH 3. ZEUS & HERMES 4. MOUNT ZION 5. NEW COVENANT 6. THE FALLING AWAY 7. THE GREAT TRIBULATION 8. THE ANTICHRIST 9. ON THE HAND/FOREHEAD 10. NEPHILIM 11. END OF THE AGE 12. PASSOVER. For much more information when dealing with King James Onlyists & their heresies please go to www.kjvonly.org. Titus 1:9-16
+Dave Brown Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use. The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God. When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages? Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Recommended Resources: The King James Only Controversy by James White
Before you talk to your Pastor about the "King James Only" position he holds you need to do enough research on the issue to be prepared. This will require some study. Our ministry has 494 videos posted on RUclips organized into 19 playlists listed on the right hand side of our RUclips channel CANSWERSTV going down the page. Click on the one entitled, "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" & watch all our other "KJV Only" videos found there. Also read website KJVONLY ORG.
Isaiah 14:12 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 12 “How you have fallen from heaven, O [a]star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! Footnotes: Isaiah 14:12 Heb Helel; i.e. shining one So here we have in their own footnote the translation of Heb Helel - shining one... They then translate it to "morning star".. Do we translate the Original Hebrew or Greek, of say, "cow" and then again translate it to "o' eater of grass"?? Thus twisting the personage of the subject.. Jesus himself claimed to be "the bright and morning star" Yet the translation of "shining one" is not used in this.. And you will tell me, as this verse is laid out in front of you, that this is not deliberate??
See our playlist on "King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128&feature=plcp which analyzes this movement created by a Seventh-day Adventist cultist. Different Words in Different Bibles? A careful student of the New Testament may notice, either through notes in a reference Bible,[2] through using different translations,[3] or by reading commentaries, that there are variations in the Greek text of the New Testament. That is to say, all of the manuscripts do not have the exact same wording at every point. These variants arose during the long period when the only way to produce a copy of any document was by hand (prior to the invention of the movable-type printing press by Johann Gutenberg in 1452). People are not capable of copying a lengthy document by hand without making mistakes, as witnessed by the fact that no two of the approximately 5,400 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that have survived are identical. They all have at least minor variants from all other manuscripts. It is easy to get an entirely wrong idea when reading about such variants. One might conclude that there are so many of them that no one today has any idea what the apostles wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is not at all the case. The first person who made a copy of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans most certainly made errors in his copy; so did the second person; so did the third. The important point is that the second person did not make the same errors as the first person, and the third person did not make the same errors as the first two. The result of this phenomenon is that the text was entirely preserved, but not in any one particular manuscript. The New Testament was copied and distributed very rapidly in the early centuries of the Church. Over a period of time, variants acquired a geographic aspect. That is to say, groups of variants were preserved in particular locations. As a result, manuscripts of the New Testament are generally classified into three families that have geographic titles. They are the Alexandrian family, the Byzantine family, and the Western family. By studying variations in the individual manuscripts in light of their family relationships, scholars are able to determine the exact text of the New Testament with a high degree of accuracy. While biblical scholars have been aware of transcriptional errors since the early days of the Church, most laymen have had scant knowledge of their existence. Recent controversies and modern translations have created a new awareness of these blemishes. Some Christians have become very distressed over the thought that there is anything less than perfect certainly about every single word in the Bible. They have often concluded that anyone who recognizes such uncertainly does not really believe the Bible is God’s Word. Such “unbelievers” are frequently attacked with the most intemperate language. We should note that no one living today created the variants, and that they present a certain challenge to any believer who will face them honestly. There are groups of Christians who attempt to remedy the problem by simply asserting that the King James Version of the Bible is the perfect Word of God without any flaws whatsoever. It is superior to all other versions, whether Greek or English. Although they would loudly deny this, people who take such an extreme position in essence deny that God has preserved the Bible. Their position leads to the necessary conclusion that God rather restored His Word by re-inspiring[4] the translators of the King James Version. They cannot point to any text immediately prior to the publication of the KJV in 1611 and declare that text to be the perfect Word of God. The King James translators themselves provide an insurmountable obstacle to this position by the marginal notes which they placed in the Bible. They included notes which gave 2,156 alternative translations in the Old Testament and 582 in the New. Their New Testament notes also supplied 37 variant readings.[5] Few modern printings of the KJV include these notes. Many believers also do not realize that the KJV in use today differs in thousands of particulars from either of the two original printings of 1611 (which two printings differed from each other!). In very general terms, two manuscript traditions are reflected in the body of the text of current popular printed editions of the Greek New Testament. The text which the vast majority of New Testament scholars, both conservative and liberal, believe to be the most accurate gives weight to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Almost all modern translations of the New Testament are based upon this form of the text. The King James was not translated from this text. It was translated essentially from a form of the New Testament based upon the Byzantine family of manuscripts. King James Only advocates consistently proclaim that the Alexandrian manuscripts are vile corruptions of the Word of God. They are wrong. This can be proven without deciding which manuscript tradition is the most accurate.[6] The Alexandrian manuscripts cannot be vile in the sense indicated by KJV Only people because the Alexandrian manuscripts are not very much different from the Byzantine manuscripts. The vast majority of differences consist of minutia. The few differences that are more substantial have no impact upon the fundamental doctrinal teachings of the New Testament. All of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith are taught with equal clarity in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine families of manuscripts. The best way to appreciate the differences between the two families is to read and compare two printed editions of the Greek New Testament, one based upon the Alexandrian family, and one based upon the Byzantine family. Obviously, most Christians are not able to do this. The second best approach is to compare two English translations, one based upon each of the two families. Unfortunately, there are not two English translations available that lend themselves to such a comparison. One would need two translations where the English text would only differ in places where the underlying Greek text differed. English translations differ much more as a result of style and philosophy of translation than as a result of differences in the Greek texts from which they were translated. Discussions about variations between the Byzantine family of manuscripts and the Alexandrian family frequently focus upon the most significant variants. Such an approach is naturally biased in the direction of emphasizing their differences. A more balanced approach is obtained by simply choosing a passage at random and making a comparison of the passage in the two texts. The first chapter of the Book of Romans is reproduced in the following table.[7] The King James Version has been reproduced with bold type to indicate places where the Greek text used by the New American Standard Bible differs from that used by the KJV. The nature of the difference is indicated within brackets. In examining the following material, the reader should not only note the small extent of the differences between the “Byzantine” and “Alexandrian” texts in this chapter, but also the very high percentage of complete agreement.
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus], called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for [synonym] you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. 13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit [same words, order reversed] among you also, even as among other Gentiles. 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ [absent]: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also [absent] gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves [synonym]: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication [absent], wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable [absent], unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. There are differences in the two Greek texts that are not reflected in the table. These consist mainly of differences in spelling. They could be illustrated in English by the two possible spellings of “color” verses “colour”. The first is American, the second British. Such differences occur frequently in Greek, but have no impact on the meaning of the text. Romans 1:1. There is a variation of word order in the name “Christ Jesus” verses “Jesus Christ”. Obviously there is no difference in informational content. Romans 1:8. There is a difference in the Greek text that is lost in translation. There are two Greek synonyms in different Greek manuscripts, either one of which can be translated “for”. The word that is not in the Greek text that was used by the King James translators occurs 333 times in other places in KJV Greek text, and is frequently translated “for” (as in Luke 4:28). Both prepositions are used so widely, with such a breadth of meaning, that it would be quite difficult to establish any significance of one over the other in this context. Romans 1:16. The Alexandrian manuscripts do not contain the descriptive clause “of Christ” after the term “gospel”. King James Only advocates often assert that the people behind modern translations, including the people who copied the Alexandrian manuscripts, hated the Lord Jesus and often sought to remove His name and titles from the Bible. The evidence for this seems weak when one considers that the NASB contains the term “Christ” 521 times. The phrase “the gospel of Christ” occurs eight other times in the NASB. Most textual scholars believe that the Byzantine family represents a later form of the text, and that later copyists tended to smooth and clarify the text by adding explanatory wording. At any rate, the Alexandrian text of Romans is quite clear that the gospel is concerning Jesus Christ (1:1-4). Those who accuse modern translators of trying to rid the Bible of the name of Jesus never explain why the New American Standard Bible includes His name in numerous references where it is not included in the King James Version (see Luke 5:34, 7:15, John 12:1, Acts 3:16, 9:22, 10:48, 16:7, 18:25, 24:24, Romans 8:34, Galatians 5:24, Ephesians 3:6, Colossians 4:12, and Jude 25.) Romans 1:24. There are two variants in this verse. The Alexandrian text does not contain the word “also” as the third word. Two synonyms are found for “themselves” as the last word in the verse. The different words are different ways of saying the same thing. Romans 1:29. The vice of “fornication” is not found in some Alexandrian manuscripts in this list. The printed edition of the Greek New Testament that became the basis for the King James Version was first prepared by the famous Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus. Upon this verse he commented, “Whenever a catalog of nouns occurs, whether you consult the Greek or Latin exemplars, there are differences. This is due to the forgetfulness of the scribes, for it is difficult to remember these kinds of things.”[8] In the Greek text the word that precedes “fornication” is very similar to the word for fornication in both spelling and pronunciation.[9] In fact, each word has seven letters, and shares six of those letters with the other word. The Scriptures were often copied by a group of scribes while someone read the text to them. It is easy to imagine some scribes writing the wrong word here, especially since either word makes good sense in the context. Later scribes, confronted with different words might well include them both to be safe. In the 25 other verses where this Greek word is present in the Greek text that underlies the KJV, it is also present in the Greek text that underlies the NASB. There is every reason to believe that either the addition or deletion of this word originally occurred by accident, with no evil intent. Both the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts clearly condemn sexual immorality in many other verses where there is no dispute about the text. Romans 1:31. The Kings James contains the vice “implacable,” which is not listed in the New American Standard. Once again, two words that are similar in both appearance and pronunciation occur next to each other in the Greek text.[10] The two words are identical in three of their four first letters, and in their last three letters. The letters that differ in the first four letters are tau verses pi. These two letters are very similar in Greek, and it is easy to see how confusion arose. The variants found throughout the New Testament are generally similar to the ones contained in Romans 1. They give no indication of a grand conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God, as alleged by members of the King James Only movement. Rarely is there a variant where any devious theological motive can even be imagined, let alone proved.[11] There are frequently hints in the passage as to how the different readings may have arisen, and the suggested circumstances are almost always benign. There is no question but that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. There exists 100% certainty about the exact wording of most of the text, and there is a clear limitation on the uncertainty that remains. God has preserved His word so that the possibilities are clear. For example, in Romans 1:16, the correct reading is either, “the gospel,” or “the gospel of Christ.” There is no doubt but that one of these readings is the correct one. Finally, it should be noted that the variants have a much greater impact upon the “inspiredness” of the text than they do upon the inerrancy of the text. For example, if Paul included “fornication” in the vice list in Romans 1:29, it is part of the inspired Word of God and it should be included in all copies of the New Testament, both Greek and English. But what if someone made a mistake and did not include it in a particular copy of Romans? Would that copy of Romans cease to be the Word of God? If that were the only change, would that copy of the book cease to be without error? The answer to both questions is no. The copy would contain less information, and in that sense would have lost some of its “inspiredness”, but it would still be true in all that it said, and all of the words that remained would have indeed been inspired. The point here is that it is easy to find variants that change the informational content of a passage in some minor way, but it is quite difficult to find a variant that would clearly introduce error into the text, especially in regard to doctrinal content. Ultimately our confidence in the preserved Word of God is based upon our faith in the working of God, but we also find that our faith is not contradicted by the facts of history. Conservative, Bible believing scholars consistently recommend the King James Version as a reliable translation of God’s Holy Word. It contains some wording that is obsolete and difficult for contemporary readers to understand without help. It also contains certain words easy to misunderstand. Three more modern translations, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the New King James Version, are widely recommended for those who desire more current language. The NASB is excellent for careful study, while the NIV is smooth and easy to read. Although the NIV is conservative, the functional equivalence approach to translation makes it difficult to use for careful word studies. The NKJV retains much of the KJV in modern language. Christians should be aware that many of the other translations range from mediocre to heretical. [1] Copyright 1998, 2006, James Richard May. This article may be reproduced in its entirety for free distribution. All other rights are retained. [2] In the New Scofield Reference Bible such notes appear, for example, at Matthew 6:13, Mark 9:44, 16:9, John 5:3, 7:53, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7. [3] Those who believe that Christians should not consider alternative translations are at variance with the translators of the King James Version. The preface to the original printing of the KJV contained their opinion, “Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” [4] There are many who would deny a re-inspiration for the KJV, but whose position demands some such supernatural act. [5] F.H.A Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) (Cambridge: 1884), p. 41. [6] Anyone with a reading knowledge of Greek can form a reasonable opinion about the extent of the differences between printed editions of the Greek New Testament. It is a much more arduous task to form a well-founded opinion about which family of manuscripts is superior. Many people who are all too willing to express an opinion have no qualifications to do so. [7] I collated the first eight chapters of Romans in preparation for this paper, but decided that including that much material would make the paper too tiresome for its intended purpose and would over-do the illustration. The pattern of variants in chapters 2-8 is similar to what is shown in chapter 1. I did not actually choose these chapters at random, but did so because of their doctrinal content. I was not influenced by any consideration of the sampling of variants contained in the chapters. [8] Quoted by White, p. 58. [9] “poneria” = “unrighteousness” confused with “porneia” = “fornication” [10] “astorgos"” = “without natural affection” confused with “aspondos"” = “implacable” [11] See Gordon D. Fee, “A Critique of W.N. Pickering’s The Identity of The New Testament Text”, Westminster Theological Journal, 41 (1979), pp. 404-09.
Yet someone today did in fact translate "shining one" to "morning star". I thank you for your response.. I need not read of the Who, How and Where of the Majority and Minority, Hort and Westcott, human error, did this, mean that?.. as if God can not preserve his Word, because this is in fact what the entire debate has been on.. The pretense of "hath God said?" Who is the author of confusion.. It seems to me that man has been most helpful... NKJ Lk 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. NIV Man does not live on bread alone. NAS Man shall not live on bread alone. NWT Man must not live by bread alone. KJV Mk 10:24 .how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! . NIV how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! . NAS how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! . NWT how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God! I could do this all week.. this goes much further than translation and confusion... Passages, verses, words, context.. changed, twisted and omitted.. The debate will go on.. "hath God Said"
"THE SPIRIT ITSELF," OR, THE GREATEST DEFECT IN THE KING JAMES VERSION Any honest evaluation of the King James Version of the Bible leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. Among these are places where it certainly does not follow the reading of the original manuscripts, places where its rendering violates Greek or Hebrew grammar, and places where it is simply inaccurate, unintelligible or obscure. But of these translationally related defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun "it" to refer to the Holy Spirit. At least four times in the King James Version of the Bible, the blessed Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, is referred to by the degrading word "it"-- John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him." Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow." (Quoted according to the KJV text as found in the Old Scofield Bible; emphasis added). In this regard--that is, calling the Holy Spirit "it" four times instead of "he" "or "himself"--the KJV is paralleled (to my knowledge) in English Bible versions currently in use only in the Jehovah's Witnesses' corrupt New World Translation, a translation deliberately falsified to exclude all references to the Deity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Jehovah's Witness translation agrees exactly with the KJV in calling the Holy Spirit "it" in all four passages. I checked the New King James Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version, Today's English Version, the New English Bible, Moffat's translation, the Revised Standard Version (1946) and the New Revised Standard Version (1990). Only the last two--the RSV and the NRSV--imitate the KJV in any of these passages, the RSV referring to the Holy Spirit as "it" in John 1:32, while the NRSV does so in both John 1:32 and I Peter 1:11. Even the 21st Century King James Version calls the Holy Spirit "it" in only the first three references (in I Peter reading "He"). So, the KJV shares this distinction only with the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and to a lesser extent with the RSV and NRSV translations of the apostate National Council of Churches. If it were the NIV or the NASB and not the KJV which had this feature in common with these notoriously unreliable versions, it would be shouted from the rooftops by Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger, Cloud, and the rest of the KJVO rabble. But because it is the KJV, they are silent as a tomb, and are very accommodating to this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To call any person, but especially to call one of the Persons of the Trinity by the English pronoun "it" is degrading and debasing, and is inexcusable. The correct pronoun--the ONLY correct pronoun--in such a case is "He." This use in the KJV of the neuter pronoun "it" to refer to a Divine Person has many defenders among the King James Only extremists. They argue that the Greek noun PNEUMA-- "Spirit"--and the pronoun AUTO used in Romans 8:16, 26 are grammatically neuter and therefore the pronoun is correctly translated by the neuter English pronoun "it." (John 1:32 and I Peter 1:11 have no pronoun in Greek, so any pronoun used in the English translation is one supplied by the translator). Such an assertion displays an ignorance of both Greek and English grammar. While Greek does have grammatical gender, English has only natural gender; and while in Greek nouns relating to persons may be neuter (such as TEKNON and PAIDION, both words for "child", just as MAEDCHEN, "girl" in German is also grammatically neuter), it does not follow that these nouns describe "its" rather than "hes" or "shes," and when translating into English, no one would sensibly translate "the child, it. . ." or "the girl, it. . ." Yet , "the Holy Spirit, it. . ." is defended! Not only that, but in the Old Testament, the word for "Spirit" (RUACH) is often feminine in grammatical gender (Hebrew has no neuter), such as Genesis 1:2, and Judges 6:34 and many other places. Does this mean that in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit should be called "she"? Perish the thought, yet to be consistent with their defense of the KJV's fourfold "it" in the New Testament on the basis of Greek grammatical gender, KJVOers should insist that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit should be referred to as "she." Some who proclaim the KJV to be error-free, among them David Cloud, editor of "O Timothy," have a strange reticence in defending the KJV on this point. About four years ago, Cloud and I exchanged a number of letters on the KJV issue. In four or five consecutive letters, I specifically challenged him to tell me whether he believed the KJV was correct to call the Holy Spirit "it." He never once had the courage to address the issue. I suspect that he knew deep in his inner soul that on this point at least, the KJV was very seriously in error and was completely indefensible. If he thinks otherwise, why has he no courage to state his opinion? I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it. The fault is not in the original text, but in the translation. When Paul uses a neuter Greek pronoun AUTO, "himself," to refer to the Holy Spirit twice in Romans 8 (no pronoun is used in John 1:32 or I Peter 1:11), he does so for grammatical regularity. In Greek, as in Spanish, French, German, Latin, Romanian, and many other languages, pronouns, like adjectives and the definite article, must agree with the noun they modify in gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), number (singular, dual, or plural) and case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative). By using AUTO, the neuter, instead of the masculine form AUTOS, Paul was merely conforming to standard Greek grammar. By way of comparison, John--a native speaker of Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew in which the word for "spirit" is also feminine)--occasionally uses the masculine demonstrative pronoun EKEINOS when referring to the Holy Spirit (John 14:25; 15:26; 16:8); once he uses the masculine pronoun AUTON (John16:7). Of course, in each case, John is quoting Jesus, who may have been speaking in Greek, or who may have spoken in Aramaic, which John, under the Holy Spirit's unerring guidance, translated into Greek. John uses masculine pronouns ad sensum, in "violation" of standard Greek practice, to refer to the Holy Spirit, a Divine Person. How did this practice of calling the Holy Spirit "it" enter the KJV? Emory H. Bancroft, long-time Professor of Doctrine and Systematic Theology at the Baptist Bible Seminary in Johnson City, New York, wrote what has been one of the most widely-used Bible college theology textbooks, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: SYSTEMATIC AND BIBLICAL (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961. Revised edition]). It was, for example, one of two standard theology textbooks at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri during my student days there, as well as for many years both before and after. Bancroft directly addresses the issue of the KJV's reference to the Holy Spirit as "it" and offers some very serious criticisms of the theology of the KJV translators: "In the Authorized Version, the personal pronoun which refers to the Holy Spirit is translated by the neuter 'it,' as an index of the trend of thought among Christian people of that time. Men prayed of the Spirit as of 'it,' an influence, an energy, proving that the Socinian teaching had chilled the zeal and enthusiasm of the Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit. A striking evidence of the revival of the truth concerning the personality of the Holy Spirit is the reintroduction into the revised version of the masculine pronoun wherever the Spirit is referred to." (pp. 147-148) If Bancroft is correct, the charge of heresy on the part of the at least some of the KJV translators cannot be denied. This would be yet one more in the list of their heresies, false doctrines and false practices, including baptismal regeneration and salvation only in the church, the union of church and state, infant baptism, persecution of dissent, hierarchical church government, a special priest class, clerical vestments, the "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's supper, amillennialism, and more. If KJVO advocates were to judge the theology of the KJV translators (and Erasmus) as severely as they judge the theology of Westcott and Hort, they would never touch the KJV (or the textus receptus) again. It is to be noted that the KJV was at least in part, but only in part, following the practice of earlier English versions. What follows are the results of a search of editions available to me. In John 1:32, Tyndale's first edition (1526) read "it" but his revised edition (1534) did not, nor did the revisions of Cranmer (1539) or Coverdale (1540), which simply supplied no pronoun in translation. The Geneva New Testament of 1557 did not read "it," but the editions of 1560, 1562 and 1607 did. Likewise, the Bishops' Bible edition of 1602 had "it." The Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament of 1582 reads "he." In Romans 8:16, Tyndale (both 1526 and 1534) has "the same sprete" [that is, spirit] as do Cranmer and Coverdale. The Geneva reads "the which selfe same Sprite" [that is, Spirit] in the 1557 edition, but "the same Spirit" in the editions of 1560, 1562, and 1607. The Bishop's edition of 1602 has "The Spirit it selfe," while the Rheims has "the Spirit him selfe." At Romans 8:26, Tyndale (both editions) plus Cranmer and Coverdale have "the sprete." Geneva 1557 has "the Sprite," while the other three Geneva editions have "the Spirit it self(e)," as does the Bishops' Bible. Rheims reads "him self." In I Peter 1:11, none of the versions examined offered any precedent for the KJV translation "it," all reading otherwise. In summary, the KJV had no agreement with Tyndale 1534, Cranmer, Coverdale, Geneva 1557, and Rheims in any of the four passages (0:4); with Tyndale 1526, the agreement was only once (1:4); with the Geneva 1560, 1560, 1607, agreement was only half (2:4); with the Bishops', agreement was in three-fourths (3:4). The KJV calls the Holy Spirit "it" more than any of the translations before it. Some might try to justify or excuse the KJV translators by saying that they were merely following their predecessors. This is hardly an excuse. In truth, fully half of these English translations examined never called the Holy Spirit "it," and another one--Tyndale's first edition--did so just once, a reading which he subsequently changed in his revised edition. Only the Bishops' Bible comes close to setting a pattern followed by the KJV. Yet, the KJV outdid even the Bishops' by adding another passage--I Peter 1:11--where the Holy Spirit is addressed by the degrading pronoun "it." Furthermore, it was the duty and responsibility of the KJV translators to carefully examine prior translations and correct their defects. This they utterly failed to do in these passages, leaving the defective rendering of the Bishops' Bible intact in three places and introducing an error in a fourth. Whatever their predecessors did or did not read cannot excuse the KJV men on this point. The KJV by its four-fold reference to the Holy Spirit as "it" set a precedent that had and even yet has a long and pernicious life. Error dies hard, especially once entrenched. When later scholars set to revise the KJV, they often left these four passages uncorrected. Henry Alford's mid-19th century revised English version left the KJV uncorrected in all four verses. The American Bible Union (Baptist) revised New Testament of 1865 (2nd edition, 1867) also let this old error stand uncorrected in all four verses. Even the later revision of this translation done by Henry Weston, Alvah Hovey and John Broadus (published ca. 1889) leaves "it" in John 1:32, though Romans 8:16, 26 read "himself" and I Peter 1:11 has "he." The English Revised Version of 1881 retains the KJV's "it" in John 1:32 and I Peter 1:11, but has "himself" in both Romans 8 verses. Its American "cousin," the American Standard Version follows the same pattern, but also introduces a new error in this regard. At Acts 8:16, contrary to all previous English versions I have examined which read "he," the ASV has, "for as yet it [that is, the Holy Spirit] was fallen upon none of them." While correcting the errors in Romans 8:16, 26, the ASV introduces one here, for which it could and should be blamed. The RSV of 1946 follows the ASV at this point, as does the New World Translation. It is only when we arrive at the twentieth century (aside from the Catholic Rheims translation of 1582) do we find English versions which consistently and correctly identify the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit of God, as "He" rather than the blatantly erroneous "it" and "itself" so-long propagated by the KJV. It is indeed a very telling fact that only the KJV and the Arian New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to disseminate this error in our day. Those who imagine that the KJV, unlike any translation of the Bible before or since in any language, is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter: are the Arians, Socinians and Jehovah's Witnesses right? Is the Holy Spirit correctly and properly spoken of as "it" rather than "He"? Only if these heretical groups are right can the KJV be deemed infallibly correct in its translation of John 1:32, Romans 8:16, 26, and I Peter 1:11. "King James Onlyites" & "Ruckmanites" (of Peter S. Ruckman) make a big deal about how other Bible translations are inferior or in some cases "Satanic" (as per Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" & her supporters such as Texe Marrs - see our video response to this, copy & paste "New Age Bible Versions" & the "King James Only" Controversy - A Refutation" in the RUclips search box). But why hasn't this controversy been going on in the Christian church over the last 400 years since the KJV came out in 1611? Why does this controversy seem to be restricted only to the middle 1900s & beyond? There is a reason for this. The "King James Only" theory was started by a Seventh-Day Adventist & others then bought into it (much like any new cultic movement). BENJAMIN WILKINSON. In the investigation of King-James-Version-Onlyism, (KJVO) just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), and then through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, he wrote "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," a book of several hundred pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt because it was awash in a vast ocean of unmitigated error). In that book, Wilkinson attacked the Westcott Hort Greek text, in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious ad Hominem method). He also expresses a strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath keeping (Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27). Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12:6,7 specifically to the KJV as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse six (when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of verse five). Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type (all of which is demonstrably false). Thus Wilkinson, is the first generation of KJV Onlyism. J.J. RAY. Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been had its errors died with him!), until 1955 when J.J. Ray, who is self-described as a "business manager, missionary, and Bible teacher" published a little volume, "God Wrote Only One Bible" (Ray is apparently still living, but we can find out nothing about him, and he refuses to reply to certified letters; if anyone can supply specific information about this man, we would greatly appreciate it). In his book, Ray heavily plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements. DAVID OTIS FULLER. The other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was David Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor. Fuller must be counted as part of the third generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the dedication of Counterfeit of Genuine (1975), Ray's book "God Wrote Only One Bible" were also repeatedly noted on pp. 2-4 of "Which Bible?" Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for more information; Ray directs Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson, is lead astray, then reprints Wilkinson in "Which Bible?" In 1970, Fuller issued "Which Bible?", which was in its 5th edition by 1975 and contained 350 pages. Of those pages, almost half were taken from Wilkinson's "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," with some editing, first to conceal from view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst of his errors. According to D.A. Waite, long associated with Fuller in KJVO matters, Fuller knew full-well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately concealed that fact from the reader, and even from the publisher [see note at end of article], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't understand." For much more see the website www.KJVONLY.ORG. See also our playlist on "King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128&feature=plcp.
Try writing Bob Ross at P O Box 66, Pasadena, TX 77501. His son Mike recently passed away who ran the website & Bob's eye sight is getting bad enough where he can hardly read a computer screen. He might be able to read a letter. You can try calling his store at (713) 477-2329 as well. You could also try contacting Doug Kutilek himself through his website KJVONLY ORG (the link should be in the description text of this video - click on the "show more" to see the entire text. Blessings in Christ.
Who was King James? Was he a homosexual? Did he burn a Baptist at the stake? According to Wikipedia: "James VI and I (19 June 1566 - 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death. The kingdoms of Scotland and England were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union. James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and a great-great-grandson of Henry VII, King of England and Lord of Ireland (through both his parents), uniquely positioning him to eventually accede to all three thrones. James succeeded to the Scottish throne at the age of thirteen months, after his mother Mary was compelled to abdicate in his favour. Four different regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1583. In 1603, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I, who died without issue.[1] He continued to reign in all three kingdoms for 22 years, a period known as the Jacobean era after him, until his death in 1625 at the age of 58. After the Union of the Crowns, he based himself in England (the largest of the three realms) from 1603, only returning to Scotland once in 1617, and styled himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland".[2] He was a major advocate of a single parliament for both England and Scotland. In his reign, the Plantation of Ulster and British colonisation of the Americas began. At 57 years and 246 days, James's reign in Scotland was longer than those of any of his predecessors. He achieved most of his aims in Scotland but faced great difficulties in England, including the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 and repeated conflicts with the English Parliament. Under James, the "Golden Age" of Elizabethan literature and drama continued, with writers such as William Shakespeare, John Donne, Ben Jonson, and Sir Francis Bacon contributing to a flourishing literary culture.[3] James himself was a talented scholar, the author of works such as Daemonologie (1597), True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), and Basilikon Doron (1599). He sponsored the translation of the Bible that was named after him: the Authorised King James Version.[4] Sir Anthony Weldon claimed that James had been termed "the wisest fool in Christendom", an epithet associated with his character ever since.[5] Since the latter half of the 20th century, historians have tended to revise James's reputation and treat him as a serious and thoughtful monarch.[6]" For more on the homosexuality of King James see this link - www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/kingjames.htm. "KING JAMES BURNED A BAPTIST PREACHER AT THE STAKE IN 1611! By Bob Ross (from www.KJVOnly.org) RUCKMAN PAINTS KING JAMES AS "GODLY" DESPITE BURNING A BAPTIST Someone recently sent a piece of propaganda, originating from a Pensacola, Florida fruitcake factory known as the "Bible Believers Bookstore," operated under the "Possel and Profit of the Posseltolic Faith and Order," Peter Ruckman. The item is a circular on "King James The VI of Scotland & The I of England Unjustly Accused?" and seeks to promote a book by that title which became available September 17, 1996 from "the Bookstore" (from which Ruckman "gets no royalties," and from which he claims "King James Bible believers" have been stealing for "years"). This circular is just another "example" of Ruckman's KJVO entrepeneurism, whereby he seduces money from his disciples who get their "fixes" from his palabberous materials. A few years ago, when I read Ruckman's "Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship," I was surprised to read "that the people who objected to the Authorized Version were Puritans who BURNED 'HERETICS' AT THE STAKE" [see "Church History, Vol. I, page 365"] (page 169, 170). I thought perhaps I had "missed something" in my study of English history, so I consulted Ruckman's "Church History" to see what was presented in Volume I, page 365. For the life of me, I could not even find the word "Puritan" on the page! Neither could I find anything about "heretics" being burned, nor about someone's "objecting" to the AV! When I was at the 1995 Christian Booksellers Convention, I asked Bob Neidlinger, who was in-charge of Ruckman's booth, about this matter, but he couldn't find any more than I found. Bob suggested it might have been a "typographical error." But the problem with Bob's suggestion is this: the ONLY PERSON who had "authority" in England to burn anyone in the early 1600's was KING JAMES! The Puritans couldn't have burned anyone if they had wanted to! Ruckman's reference contained nothing about Puritans' burning anyone because he had nothing he could write. It was simply a "ploy" to make his reader think he had elsewhere "documented" the charge. Not only did James have the only authority to burn people, he did that very thing. In 1611, the year the "King James Version of the Bible" was published, King James burned a BAPTIST by the name of EDWARD WIGHTMAN at Litchfield. This fact of history is recorded in many Baptist histories, the first being that of THOMAS CROSBY, who authored the first history of English Baptists. Crosby was a member of John Gill's church, the church later pastored in the latter 1800's by C. H. Spurgeon. I herewith quote from Crosby: "The other one [burned] was Edward Wightman, A BAPTIST, of the town of Burton upon Trent, who on the 14th day of December [1610] was convicted of diverse heresies before the bishop of Coventry and Litchfield; and being delivered up to the secular power, was BURNT at Litchfield the 11th of April following." (Vol. 1, pages 108, 109). This is the King who is the subject of the book which Ruckman is now peddling at his "Bookstore," and it was written in defense of King James' "Godly character," a stated in the circular. I see nothing in the folder which indicates that the author, Stephen A. Coston Sr., offers a defense of the King's burning a Baptist yet still is able to sustain his "Godly character." Not only this, history says those "Puritans" were chased out of England, and the King bragged about his doing it. They went to Holland, and from there many of them came to settle in what is now New England. I also see no reference to this "godly" action by King James in Ruckman's circular. From time to time, I have read Ruckman's embellishments of King James, but I have yet to read anything from him about the King's burning of Baptists and others during his reign. Ruckman does say in one of his books that King James was "more spiritual than any Pope" -- whatever that amounts to! ("Church History," Vol. II, p. 396). I am not mentioning King James' burning people to reflect on the King James Bible; I am simply demonstrating that an effort to accredit the King James Bible by embellishing King James is a "non sequitur," or simply wasted effort. In fact, it might be more favorable to the KJV to never mention the "character" of King James. We have it on "good authority" (even Ruckman himself) that "A man who would burn a man at the stake for disagreeing with him doctrinally is not a man to be emulated or followed or admired" ("Hyper-Calvinism," p. 1). Ruckman said that about John Calvin, and if Ruckman says that about Calvin, why wouldn't it also apply to King James? *********************************************************************** No. 214 BAPTIST MARTYR, BURNED BY KING JAMES, REMEMBERED ON ANNIVERSARY I just received the following "forwarded message" from a well-known minister who is on my list, and this item is especially appropriate at this time -- especially in the light of the fact that a "Baptist" church in North Carolina is having Stephen Coston speak at a Conference in an effort to embellish the name of King James I of England to naive Baptists, as if to enhance the King James Bible. Coston has a despicable article on a website, and he lists all of the allegations made against EDWARD WIGHTMAN -- every single one of them purely of a "religious" nature, and not a single one of them being truly "criminal." Wightman was burned for not endorsing the religion of King James and the Pedobaptist State-Church of England. Despite this act of intolerance, Coston defends King James as a man of "godly character," and a Baptist church in Mt. Airy, North Carolina is having Coston to present his embellishment of James at an upcoming Bible Conference. After reading the following article, the "Baptist" church in North Carolina should repent in sackcloth and ashes for embellishing the King who burned a Baptist at the stake. __________________________________________ Subj: Saturday, April 11, 1612 Date: 98-04-11 12:04:33 EDT From: whitmanf@ats.it(Frederick Whitman) To: info@bmm.org(Baptist Mid-Missions) Dear E-mail Prayer-warriors, Today, Saturday April 11 is a very special one in my family history and I want to share it with you. It won't make the front pages of today's newspapers and I know that it is no reason to be proud because as Paul said, "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised...to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." I Corinthians 1:27-29 In 17th century England, there was a tailor by the name of Edward Wightman, of whom I am a direct descendent, who converted from the Anglican Church [Church of England] to faith in Christ and the Anabaptist Movement. The first of March 1611, he was brought before King James I [Head of the Church of England], not for an autographed copy of the original KJV Bible, but to defend his faith as an Anabaptist. He was then arrested and condemned as a heretic for, among other things, being an Anabaptist. The death sentence was read in the Litchfield Cathedral on the 14th of December. He was condemned to the stake, to be burned alive. The day of his execution, "Market Square" was full of spectators as Wightman was brought from the prison and chained to the stake. While his religious murderers were gathering burning embers around his feet, the silence of such a solemn moment was pierced by a blood-curdling cry. The condemned heretic was pleading mercy and pledging to recant, to deny his Anabaptist position, to deny his faith, if only they would get him out of the flames! He had previously stated very eloquently that the baptism of babies was an abominable act and that Baptism and the Lord's Table should not be practiced as done by the Anglican Church. However, in this terrible moment he was ready to deny it all. The penitent heretic was pulled out of the flames, with those who freed him actually being burned by the flames too, and then led back to the prison. After two weeks Wightman was brought again before the court to sign his denial papers. This time, however, having spent two weeks in the anguished soul-searching of the Apostle Peter, he was ready to stand firm for his faith, refusing to sign the denial. The court secretary wrote that he actually was "more blasphemous and audacious" than before. Wightman's condemnation was renewed and he was taken again to "Market Square", where he was again chained to the stake. This time there wasn't a hint of wanting to recant. Edward Wightman was burned alive on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter, April 11, 1612. The martyr left his widow, Frances, with four children, Priscilla, 15, John, 13, Anna, 3 and Samuel who was 8 months old. The family then moved to London and the next generation left for the American colonies. Valentine Wightman started the first Baptist church in Connecticut as well as in New York. Valentine's son Timothy followed in his dad's footsteps pastoring churches in Connecticut, organizing the second Baptist Church in that colony. Valentine's grandson John Gano* [see note] pastored in the same state, organizing the Third Baptist Church of Groton. May God grant each of us the courage to leave an inheritance like this to our children and the children of our children. Have a great Easter as you celebrate our Lord's Resurrection. There is reason to rejoice! ************************************* Yours for Christ in Italy, ************************************* Fred & Rachel Whitman Jonathan, Jeremy, Joshua & Elizabeth ************************************* Baptist Mid-Missions, Italy C.P. 34 06132 San Sisto (PG) Italy ************************************* Ph./Fx. -- (075) 528-9287 E-Mail -- whitmanf@ats.it ************************************* No. 220 MORE ABOUT THE BURNING OF EDWARD WIGHTMAN BY KING JAMES In an article which was sent to me as a "forward," and which I forwarded to my own list on April 18, the following statement was made: Valentine Wightman started the first Baptist church in Connecticut as well as in New York. Valentine's son Timothy followed in his dad's footsteps pastoring churches in Connecticut, organizing the second Baptist Church in that colony. Valentine's grandson John Gano* [see note] pastored in the same state, organizing the Third Baptist Church of Groton. In my "note," I referred to information about "John Gano," but it has been called to my attention that I was mistaken in my "note," since the "John Gano" in the above paragraph was actually a reference to "John Gano Wightman," who evidently was "named-after" the John Gano who lived in the 1700's and baptized George Washington. In checking on this in some of the historical sources, I also came across some rather interesting material in regard to the burning of Edward Wightman during the reign of King James; those of you who are interested in Christian history might like to read the following. Of particulate interest is the presentation of the martyrdom of Edward Wightman, written by David Benedict, the well-known Baptist historian of the early 1800's, who spent about two years traveling nearly seven thousand miles in the eastern and southern states of this continent, collecting materials for his historical work. Here is what Benedict wrote about the burning of Wightman and other persecution against the "non-conformists" who differed with the "Church of England" during the reign of King James: The last man who was put to death in England for religion was a Baptist. His name was Edward Wightman, and is supposed to be the progenitor of a large family of that name in America, many of whom have been members of different Baptist churches in Rhode Island, and the neighboring States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, and not a few of them worthy ministers in our churches. Mr. Wightman was of the town of Burton upon Trent, he was convicted of divers heresies before the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, and being delivered over to the secular power, was burnt at Litchfield, April 11th, 1612. This poor man was accused by his persecutors with Arianism, Anabaptism, and almost every other heretical ism, that ever infected the Christian world. He was condemned for holding the wicked heresies of the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Valentinians, Arians, Macedonians, of Simon Magus, Manes, Manicheus, Photinus, and of the Anabaptists, and of other heretical, execrable, and unheard of opinions. "If," says [Thomas] Crosby, " Wightman really held all the opinions laid to his charge, he must have been either an idiot or a madman, and ought to have had the prayers of his persecutors rather than been put to a cruel death." From the death of William Sawtre, who was burnt in London, to the time that Edward Wightman perished in the flames at Litchfield, was a period of two hundred and twelve years. We have very good grounds for believing that Sawtre was a Baptist, we are sure that Wightman was, and thus it appears that the Baptists have had the honour of leading the van, and bringing up the rear, of that part of the noble army of English martyrs, who have laid down their lives at the stake. It is now about two hundred years [published in 1813] since Wightman, with his enormous load of heresies, was committed to the purifying flames. Almost half of this time, the Baptists in England were, for the most part, in an uncertain state; what earthly enjoyments they possessed were held by a precarious tenure, and persecution and distress were their common lot. They had indeed some short intervals of repose, but these were succeeded by tempestuous seasons, and the cup of affliction was dealt out to them by their enemies in plenteous measure. We have observed that Edward Wightman was the last man who suffered death for religion in England. But this statement needs some qualification. He was indeed the last who suffered death for conscience's sake by a direct course of law; but multitudes since him, both Baptists and others, have died in prisons, and came by their ends by the various methods of legal persecutions, and lawless outrage, with which implacable adversaries pursued them. Thousands have suffered by fines, scourging, and imprisonment, been driven to exile, starvation, and wretchedness, by a protestant power, which professed to have separated from the mother of harlots, and to have renounced the works of darkness. Of many of these sufferers we have obtained some information, but the history of many others must remain unknown, until that tremendous day, when the righteous Judge of the universe shall make INQUISITION FOR BLOOD. [A General History of the Baptist Denomination by David Benedict, Vol. 1, pages 196, 197]. In view of both the martyrdom of Wightman and the other physical persecutions enacted during the reign of King James, it is incredible that people such as Stephen Coston, Peter Ruckman, Larry Phillips, Gail Riplinger, and Tracy Broadhurst, are involved in a "campaign" to in effect "beatify" King James. Despite James' record as "Head" of the Church-State in England, in which position he ordered the burning of men at the stake and approved other acts of cruelty against the "non-conformists" for nothing more "criminal" than holding religious views ["heresies"] which conflicted with the views of the "Church of England," the estranged "daughter" of the Roman Catholic Church, these modern "defenders" of James seem to think that they embellish the "King James Bible" by embellishing James himself. For more see our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. The following website refutes the modern day King James Only heresy - www.KJVOnly.org. Matthew 7:15
The guest is wrong on one point: Burgon was not a bishop. He was a cathedral dean. But, as the guest points out, Burgon did acknowledge errors in both the TR and the KJV.
The name “Easter” is never mentioned in the original Scriptures. However, one English translation of the Bible does use the word. The King James Version chose to translate Acts 12:4 like this:
“And when he [Herod Agrippa, the King] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
The book of Acts was originally written in the Greek language by the Christian Gentile and physician Luke. The Greek word that the King James Version translates as “Easter” is most certainly not the word “Easter.” It is actually the word “Pascha” (Hebrew: Pesach) which means “Passover”-and this is how all accurate translations show it. For example, the New King James Version says,
“So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.”
It was during an annual Passover celebration that Jesus was crucified at Jerusalem. Passover is an annual Jewish religious celebration instituted by God (Leviticus 23:5). It dates from the time of Moses when God delivered the Israelites from bondage and spared their first-borns when all first-borns in Egypt died (Exodus 12:11f; Numbers 9:2f; Deuteronomy 16:1f; 2 Kings 23:21f).
The King James Bible
Why did the translators of the King James Bible translate as Passover all 28 other occurrences of pascha in the New Testament except for this one verse, Acts 12:4, where they translated it Easter? Why didn’t they translate it as Passover here too?
Many scholars in researching this puzzling question conclude that it must have been an oversight, and that it would have been changed if it had been caught prior to printing. Nearly every scholar today understands that the early New Testament Church kept the Passover and not the modern holiday observance of Easter.
Albert Barnes wrote in his commentary: “There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover, meta to pasca [μετα το πάσχα]. The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honour of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that; nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles.
“The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of love, or the Venus of the North, in honour of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). As this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honour of the resurrection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term Easter is used frequently to translate the word Passover. In the translation by Wicliffe [Wycliffe], the word paske, i.e., passover, is used. But Tindal [Tyndale] and Coverdale used the word Easter, and hence it has very improperly crept into our [King James Version] translation” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 1798-1870, comments on Acts 12:4).
New King James Version
The New King James Version of the Bible was translated over a period of seven years and was completed in 1982. The publishers wanted to preserve the beauty and literary style of the original King James Version. But the NKJV translators wanted to make necessary corrections in vocabulary and grammar too. They and most other modern translators recognize that “Easter” was an inaccurate translation of pascha in Acts 12:4, and they use the word Passover instead.
Rather than supporting the Christian observance of Easter, Acts 12:4 corroborates the other 28 uses of the word pascha in the New Testament to show us that the early Church of God observed the Passover. The 29 references cover the span from Christ’s death through the later writing of the apostle Paul. It is abundantly clear that the New Testament Church of God observed the Passover-not Easter!
See our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. See the website that refutes the heresies of King James Onlyism at www.KJVOnly.org.
I shall take your advise. Thank you and God Bless.
At 9:15 this gets very interesting because I know alot about the SDA church and how much it works with the catholic church.
I keep sabbath, so I don't hate them for keeping sabbath. I say this so SDAs know what I am about to say has nothing to do with them keeping sabbath.
But as much as the SDA church SEEMS to be against the Papacy, I found much proof they seem to secretly be aligned with them.
So the part at 9:15 about the SDA church is very interesting and backs up another suspicion I had.
Questions for KJV Only idolators:
Do we have freedom in USA read other Bible versions?
Are you forcing people read KJV Only? Is that legalism?
Show me in your KJV Bible that God or Jesus said "Read KJV only or go to hell"
Which KJV Bible was God's perfectly preserved translation in
English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638,
1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please
specify which one.
What was God's perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.
If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before
1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first
one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these
details.
If there was no perfectly preserved translation in
English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly
preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these
details.
Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly
preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English
translation? Please give specific verses with proper exegesis and
hermeneutics.
Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or
why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all
else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than
the KJV has been)
Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"?
Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion
of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it "the word of
God")
Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?
Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ,
even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with
printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to
have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be
lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing
errors were all found, and all properly fixed?)
Who publishes the
uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan,
one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do
they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?
If passages
like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt 5:18 are about the KJV, what did these
passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the
original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English
translation of scripture?
When you encounter an archaic term or
phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on
fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?
Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define
"preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the
KJV-only position?
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE "BIG 2" QUESTIONS
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority", the
"preserved word of God" in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from
it, and how was it "final" if the KJV replaced it? Explain.
If
scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then
by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism?
Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not
then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing
a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only
one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?
Yes I too would like to obtain a copy of the booklet written by Mr. Kutilek.
What affronts me, as a native German speaker, the most about the KJV-only position is that from this position, of the KJV being perfect, it would have to follow logically that God's words are not perfect in any other language translation. What is so special about English speakers?
Frauke Schmidt Very good point! King James Onlyism makes no sense at all especially when one realizes that the writers of the original scripture did not know or speak English to begin with. The apostle Paul never had a 1611 King James translation to use so does that mean he was of the devil according to King James Onlyites?!
I have started randomly collating Scripture passage where the Luther 1545 translation disagrees with the KJV. No, he did not have exactly the same textual basis, I think he just used Erasmus. And here's one for starters: the "Comma Johanneum" is not in any edition of Luther's translation published during his lifetime...
you are so spot on. I grew up in Europe on the mission field. Guess my French and German and Italian bibles were not kjv.
S bannoura And when the Holy Spirit first empowered the apostles at Pentecost he used a miracle of tongues, so that the Jews who were gathered in Jerusalem from all the nations would understand Peter's message.
Our LORD never restricted himself to just certain written or spoken languages. Translations.The NT texts were translated into other common languages very early on, with the gospel spreading quickly.
Who knows, if Luther hadn't translated the Bible into German, you may not even have the KJV. ;)
S bannoura "The KJV was not translated from the german language, it was translated from the received text" You are treating me like I'm stupid.
The Lord is using Bible translations in all kinds of languages.
If the Scriptures weren't available in German my family and I wouldn't have become Christians. So as far as I'm concerned the Lord uses whichever language people speak/read. Though there is still many languages into which the Scriptures are yet to be translated.
Thanks for a sensible treatment of this issue
My Pastor and my church is king James only. What can I say to my pastor to give him good logic why we can also include other translations. To tell you the truth im a bit scared of what ive been told about some of the other translations and the manuscripts they come from. When i got saved I started reading the NIV. Is this a good translation.
If you “fear” a translation” you’ve fallen victim to fear-mongering & bullying. Don’t give in to fear (Satan)
For starters watch all our King James Only videos on our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 and read all the articles on the website www.KJVOnly.org. Next you need to get a copy of James White's book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" at www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436552035&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+only+controversy&pebp=1436552047942&perid=0D27KWWCHVDRTF6TS1XT and read it. Next you need to listen to all of James White's "Dividing Line" shows on RUclips at ruclips.net/user/AominOrg & select the shows where you can tell he is talking about KJV only issues. Do the same with his KJV only shows on his other RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/DrOakley1689.
1 John 5:13 (KJV) - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13 (NASB) - "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." The earlier & better manuscripts prove that the NASB rendering is the more authentic rendering since the KJV did not have access to those earlier & better manuscripts at the time it was put together. The research needed is in the references above which will prove that clearly. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
Here's more questions to ask cultic "King James Only" heretics & idolaters:
If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language? If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers? Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates! If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it? Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."? When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct? If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary? In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible? Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation) Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation? Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.) Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.) Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"? Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition) Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God? Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is? If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14) Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist? Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.) How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"? How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse) How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated? Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"? Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16] WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18? Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation? Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed? Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from? Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611? Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"? What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist]. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604? Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible? If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23] If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement? Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"? Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah --34:16--? Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles --33:19--? Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"? Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850? Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser - "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias] Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69] Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader? Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV? Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV? Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also." Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe? Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!] Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek] Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10] Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."] Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."? Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17] Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6] Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]
May the Lord bless you & yours,
Larry Wessels
www.BibleQuery.org www.HistoryCart.com www.MuslimHope.com
RUclips Channel: ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV
SermonAudio Channel with Transcripts: www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Larry_Wessels
1 Peter 3:15 (for an excellent exposition of this verse hear Dr. James White's message "The Defense of Our Faith" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=7415173271)
For more on how the King James translation was put together hear Dr. James White "The KJV Bible at 400 Years Old" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1028111950342. King James Onlyites make an insidious issue against other Bible translations with the question - 'Who Killed Goliath?' “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (2 Samuel 21:19). “And there was again war with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (1 Chronicles 20:5). The record of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) clearly speaks of the defeat of the giant of Gath by the shepherd boy. This story is used to emphasize faith and faithfulness to the young from their earliest ages. However, some have alleged a discrepancy between the account in 1 Samuel and two other passages (2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5). According to 2 Samuel 21:19, it appears that Elhanan killed Goliah; yet 1 Chronicles 20:5 states that Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The question, then, is who did Elhanan kill? First, we must recognize who Elhanan was not. According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, Elhanan was the son of Jair. This was not the same man as Elhanan the Bethlehemite, son of Dodo (2 Samuel 23:24; Keil and Delitzsch, 1996, 2:681). Furthermore, it appears that Jair and Jaareoregim actually are the same person (Barnes, 1998, 2:120). Barnes, as well as the editors of The Pulpit Commentary, noted that the difficulty may have begun when oregim, the Hebrew word translated “weaver” in this passage, ended up being placed on the wrong line by a copyist-something that has been known to happen in several instances (see Spence and Exell, 1978, 4:514). Therefore, Jair, combined with oregim, became Jaare-oregim in order to make it fit with proper Hebrew grammar (Spence and Exell, 4:514). Second, the phrase “Lahmi the brother of” is absent in 2 Samuel 21:19. The King James Version inserts the phrase “the brother of” between “Bethlehemite” and “ Goliath.” Furthermore, in the Hebrew, eth Lachmi (a combination of “Lahmi” and the term “brother”) appears to have been changed into beith hallachmi (Beth- lehemite). With this simple correction, the two texts would be in clear agreement (Clarke, n.d., p. 369). In other words, “the brother of” and the name “Lahmi” likely were combined by a copyist to form what is translated in English as “Beth-lehemite” in 2 Samuel 21:19. This, however, caused the difficulty when the passage was paralleled with 1 Chronicles 20:5. In his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer used the same scenario mentioned above to explain this difficulty, and then summed up the situation by noting: “In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5” (1982, p. 179). A fair, in-depth examination of the alleged difficulty shows that there actually is no contradiction at all, but simply a copyist’s mistake. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Barnes, Albert (1998 reprint), Barnes’ Notes: Exodus to Esther (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Clarke, Adam (no date), Commentary and Critical Notes on the Old Testament: Joshua to Esther (New York, NY: Abingdon). Keil, C.F., and F. Delitzsch (1996), Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Spence, H.D.M., and Joseph S. Exell, Eds. (1978), The Pulpit Commentary: Ruth, I & II Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). We may have an inaccuracy in our existing copies of the original Hebrew manuscripts of 2 Samuel. After all, the parallel passage of this verse in 1 Chronicles 20:5 tells us, “In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.” Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath, not Goliath himself. First Chronicles 20:5 is apparently the correct reading, and 2 Samuel 21:19 is apparently missing ‘brother of.’ This should not be taken to mean that you should not trust your Bible. You can! Through the science of textual criticism, scholars have been able to examine the thousands of biblical manuscripts, each of which have minor differenced between them, and come to a near certainty as to what the original text must have said. The more early biblical manuscripts we discover, the more minor discrepancies are cleared up. Second Samuel is a good example. Note that, strictly speaking, only the original manuscripts are inspired and inerrant. Manuscript copies are inspired and inerrant to the extent that they reflect the original documents. Source(s): Rhodes, Ron. Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses. Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 2008. 63. Print. The following comment is made by Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas / Christian Debater, RUclips Channel: ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV, websites: www.BibleQuery.org, www.HistoryCart.com & www.MuslimHope.com: "King James Onlyists, failing either to understand the proper science of textual criticism or either choosing to ignore it for their own purposes due to their blind devotion to their idol the 1611 King James translation & its numerous revisions that came afterward (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version; for a kinder & gentler approach to KJV advocates hear "The King James Only Debate" at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=the+king+james+only+debate&selectsearch= ) have played fast & loose with textual variations in the manuscript evidence to foster conspiracy theories against any Bible translation besides their "sacred & inspired" King James translation (although the KJV translators themselves never saw it that way, see "The Translators To The Readers Preface to the King James Version 1611 written by the King James Translators" at www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_appendix_a.html). The nonsense KJV Only advocates come up with to attack other Bible translations is incredible & ridiculous on a vast scale. KJV Only apologetics is simply very insulting to common sense & rational intelligence. To prove this point beyond a shadow of a doubt please read the information provided at www.KJVOnly.org which refutes the many errors & heresies of King James Onlyites. It is very difficult to reason with such brainwashed Bible translation idolaters (keep in mind I am not talking about people who simply prefer a KJV over other translations & do not spend their time recklessly attacking other Bible translations & Christians who use them). Fanatical KJV Onlyists attack the Biblical gospel itself by insisting that the King James translation is necessary for salvation (for more on this hear "King James Onlyism" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=414151925346) & thus they cross the line of Galatians 1:6-9 into "another gospel." Since KJV Onlyists constantly attack other Bible translations as "Satanic" they focus on variants in preserved manuscripts (such as "Who killed Goliath?") to mislead unprepared hearers to believe in their perverted view of the KJV. Dr. James White (www.AOMin.org) has done a fine job, not only with his book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" at www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429806117&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+only+controversy+james+white, but in his analysis on Biblical textual criticism which, when properly understood, crushes the bogus arguments made by KJV Onlyites. For a great in depth study of Biblical textual criticism hear Dr. White's series on this subject at "Can I Trust My Bible?" at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=immanuelbc&keyword=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F&keyworddesc=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F which includes "Textual Criticism: Reliability, Answering Critics, Bible Versions & Sufficiency of Scripture." For further study see our playlist " Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 where all our videos on King James Onlyism are located, including videos we have made with Dr. White. Hardcore King James Onlyites are dangerous false prophets causing division & strife within the Body of Christ so beware of them as Christ warned in Matthew 7:15."
“Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” -Luke 13:23-24 Do you understand the question in the above Scripture? “Lord, are there few that be saved?” Someone came to Jesus and wanted to know if “few” people were saved. It's interesting that the person didn't ask if “many” people were saved. Evidently the person had been listening to Jesus' preaching and became convinced that few people were really saved. When the Bible speaks of being “saved,” it means saved from God's wrath upon Christ-rejecting sinners in Hell (for more on hell see our playlist "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 30 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E & "Eternal Punishment, Part 1" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, Part 2" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607143539). Romans 5:9, “Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” All Christ-rejecters go to Hell if they die in their sins. If a person is “saved,” then they are going to Heaven when they die. Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” We are saved from the eternal consequences of sin, which is punishment in hellfire. To be saved is synonymous with being “born again.” When a person becomes a born-again child of God, they are saved eternally. EVERY human being MUST to be saved (i.e., born again) to enter into Heaven. John 3:3, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” If a person dies in their sins without believing on Jesus as the Savior, the Son of God, they will burn in Hell forever (Revelation 20:11-15).Just as the disciple who asked Jesus the question in Luke 13:23, I myself often wonder how few are truly born again believers. I dare say not many. Let's consider the question again...“Lord, are there few that be saved?” There are over one billion Catholics in the world who errantly believe that the Catholic Church is going to save them. Roman Catholics do not trust Jesus Christ alone; but rather, rely upon manmade traditions and self-righteous works to save them. According to the Word of God, genuine Catholics are hellbound in their sins because they are trusting in self-righteousness (Romans 3:20; 10:3-4; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5, see our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 129 videos & counting at ruclips.net/p/PLFFA8D69D1B914715). There are over one billion Islamic Muslims in the world who deny that Jesus Christ ever died upon a cross for our sins (see our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 67 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL1C7F68B548009FDD). According to the Bible, they are antichrists and liars on their way to Hell (1st John 2:22-23). There are over 183,000 cults in Japan alone that deny Jesus Christ as the only Savior of the world. Other false religions include Scientology, Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Seventh Day Adventism, Zoroastrianism, Greek Orthodox, Judaism, Jehovah Witness, Mormonism, Freemasonry, and many more (see our RUclips channel CAnswersTV at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV with over 615 videos covering most of these anti Christian religions in detail). Why do I call them “false religions”? It's simply because they all corrupt the Biblical teaching of salvation, i.e., the gospel (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 48 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL9931642C7C8FFEAB). Most false religions ADD works to faith. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses DENY the deity of Jesus Christ (i.e., that He is Almighty God) - see our playlists "Dealing with Mormonism, the Religion of Mitt Romney & Utah" with 20 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL11CD0EE613306BB5 & "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40. Seventh Day Adventists falsely and deceitfully redefine faith to mean works (see our playlist, "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" with 23 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL5316CC6F66F24283). There are hundreds of millions of followers of Hinduism who deny Jesus as the Savior, the Son of God (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Christ Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 42 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL69A3047B3497590A). Judaism denies that Jesus is the Messiah. The same Pharisaical Jews who crucified Jesus 2,000 years ago are crucifying Him today. The Campbellite Church of Christ deceitfully speaks of faith in Christ, but also requires water baptism and living the Christian life to be saved. That is works salvation, which is a lie of the Devil (Romans 3:20; Romans 4:5-6, see our playlist "Dealing with "Saved by Works & Baptism", "Church of Christ" with 72 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLBD55090718DA6D3D). Every Catholic claims not to worship Mary, but the second commandment (Exodus 20:3-5) forbids even bowing to Mary (which every Catholic does, for more on the Roman Catholic installation of the worship of saints, images, & polytheism in church history hear "Perseverance of the Saints & the Worship of Saints (Historical Theology Vol. 1, #17)" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=14101149112 & "The Worship of Images & Civil Authorities (Historical Theology Vol. 1, #18)" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=15101057200). There are hundreds of millions of so-called Charismatic & Pentecostal "Christians" who trade the Word of God for their own wild emotional experiences & replace the Biblical gospel for a gospel of "heath & wealth" despite 1 Timothy 6:10 saying, "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" - see our two video series on this: "Blasphemous Charismatic & Pentecostal Mayhem #1: Mad Delusional Experiences Replace Scripture Alone" at ruclips.net/video/Kbv7YsyMf0I/видео.html begins one series while "AGONY OF THE PHONY WORD-FAITH TV PREACHERS #1: MIND SCIENCE ORIGINS OF KENNETH HAGIN & HIS DISCIPLES" at ruclips.net/video/VwQ5BLrYD_U/видео.html begins another series. Even secular humanism, atheism & agnosticism can be considered faith based religions due to the fact that atheists & humanists have a faith that God does not exist while agnostics are willingly ignorant concerning God (see our playlist "Dealing with "God Hating" Atheists, Agnostics, Know-It-Alls" with 20 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL640E505B96CD6B39). Many animistic religions exist throughout the world as well which are described in Romans 1:18-32, see our video "FOREIGN MISSIONS FOR CHRIST: PREACHING TO CANNIBALS, WITCH DOCTORS & TRIBAL NATIVES" at ruclips.net/video/ACnDLyXa9H0/видео.html. All of the religions I have just mentioned account for well over seven eighths of the earth's population or more. Keep in mind, besides all of this, Jesus said, "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24). Who are considered "rich people"? It's not just millionaires & world leaders but many lesser wealthy persons who exceed the vast majority of mankind in money & possessions (Luke16:19-31 is a good example of this in the parable of the rich man & Lazarus). See the video "It is Difficult for Americans to Enter Heaven - Tim Conway" at ruclips.net/video/bDwNGXciNCQ/видео.html. Statistics provided in this video show that even the poorest Americans living in the United States have a better net income than most of the world. For instance, according to Forbes magazine, June 1, 2013, the bottom 5% of United States citizens are richer than 68% of people living throughout the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $50,000 a year are richer than 99.69% of the people in the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $20,000 a year are richer than 96% of the people in the rest of the world, U.S. citizens who make $10,000 a year are richer than 84% of the people in the rest of the world; U.S. citizens who make $100,000 a year are in a category that only 8 out of every 10,000 people achieve in the entire world. Will it be difficult for rich Americans who don't think they're rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven? Jesus already gave the answer. For more on this hear "Those Whom God Hates He Is Often Pleased To Give Plenty Of Earthly Things To, Edwards" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=427121150346 by the well known theologian Jonathan Edwards who also preached the most famous sermon on North American soil called, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=770213541. If you don't like what I am telling you then get mad at God because He wrote the Bible. If you take the Bible at FACE VALUE, you can only interpret it one way. The best way to interpret the Bible is with the Bible. God said what He meant and meant what He said. Let the Bible speak for itself. Jesus answered the question in Luke 13:24 with the following words...“...for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Most of the people in this world are going straight to Hell when they die because they have not been born again (hear "Few Saved From A Burning Hell" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3514145121). Lies and deception are everywhere! Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses claim to be born-again but they are NOT. You can't get born-again by doing good works, confessing your sins to a priest, getting water baptized, joining a church or keeping the Sabbath Day. Salvation is NOT found in any religion; but rather, in a Person-The Lord Jesus Christ! Most people today have churchianity without Christianity, and they are all going to Hell if they don't repent toward God of their unbelief (for more on this see our video "TRUE BELIEVERS & NON BELIEVERS ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF THE REFORMATION: WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?" at ruclips.net/video/3_dN0oC57Rk/видео.html). The vast majority of so-called "Evangelical Christians" in the world today do not know what the Biblical gospel is or what "justification by faith alone" is (see our video "SAD STATE OF THE CHURCH: 87% OF EVANGELICAL "CHRISTIANS" DON'T KNOW WHAT GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION IS" at ruclips.net/video/im4ozy_EiR4/видео.html. There are only two types of religions in the world: DO and DONE. Either you believe that you have to DO something to go to Heaven; or else you believe that it is DONE, paid for by Jesus' precious blood. Jesus said in Luke 13:24 that “many” will seek to enter into Heaven but will not be able. That is quite startling. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 7:21-23 . . . “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” The reason why these religious people were not allowed into Heaven was because they attempted to enter Heaven through their own self-righteousness. In Matthew 5:20 Jesus spake concerning the religious leaders of His time . . . “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Most of the religious churchgoers in the world today are as lost as can be, still hellbound in their wickedness. They have not done the will of God concerning salvation, which is to BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST (John 6:40; Acts 16:30-31). Jesus provides two contrasts in Luke 13:24, the contrast between seeking to enter and striving to enter and the contrast between seeking to enter through the narrow door and seeking to enter by any other means. Let’s now focus on the second contrast. Look at verses 25-27:"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.' 26 "Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets'; 27 and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.' (Luke 13:25 NAU) Jesus’ statement at the end of 25 and the middle of 27 is translated well in the NIV: “I don't know you or where you come from.” In effect, He is saying, “I don’t know you at all! You may think that you are mine, but I have nothing to do with you - I don’t even know your family, your village” So what does Jesus mean by the narrow door? What is His intended contrast with other methods of entering? Again, let’s begin by considering what the narrow door is not: The narrow door is NOT being in a church, reading the Bible, listening to sermons, looking to others like a Christian. This is clear from verse 26: these evildoers looked just like believers who had been with Jesus. They had listened to His preaching. But He does not know them, and they stand condemned.The narrow door is NOT being prominent in this life. Jesus says in verse 30 that some who are presently first will be last. Prominence now is no guarantee of one’s entering through the narrow door.The narrow door is NOT being a descendant of a great believer. See verse 28. Remember, Jesus is speaking to descendants of Abraham and Jacob. I sometimes like to use the expression, “God has no grandchildren.” Each of us must come to Jesus on our own, not through our parents, our grandparents, or other ancestors. Then what does Jesus mean by the narrow door? Elsewhere, Jesus says He Himself is the door: I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. (John 10:9) In what sense is this door narrow? In two ways. First, the door is narrow in the sense that no one comes to the Father any other way (John 14:6). No religious activities - Christian or non-Christian - bring us into the Kingdom. Sincere beliefs do not bring us in. Good works do not bring us in. Good feelings about our relationship with Christ do not bring us in. Though in our pluralistic society this message is despised, we must preach, teach, and live out this truth: There is only one door, and that narrow door is Jesus. The Lake of Fire is waiting for "many" when they die. Jesus' disciple asked Him if few people are going to Heaven. Jesus replied that many people will attempt, but fail. When the floods came in Noah's day, many people tried to get on the ark, but it was too late once the door was closed. When the bridegroom came in Matthew 25:1-13, the five foolish virgins were left behind because they were gone buying oil at the last moment. Do not likewise make the mistake of delaying salvation, for you will be sorry when it is too late. Few souls are going to Heaven. Jesus said, "Only those who find that strait gate and narrow way that leadeth unto life (Matthew 7:13-15), which is the righteousness of Jesus Christ will make it to heaven. So many churchgoers have religion, but they have never truly been born of the spirit of God, which is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9, hear "Why Are So Few People Saved?" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=111710103558). Salvation happens when a person acknowledges their guilt of sin unto God in repentance; believing on Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, to be forgiven (this is a supernatural action caused by God in the heart of a repentant sinner in 2 Timothy 2:24-26; see also "SUPERNATURAL BIBLE PROPHECY CONCERNING JESUS THE JEWISH MESSIAH (PART #1)" at ruclips.net/video/DVByqkjwChs/видео.html). We are SINNERS and Jesus is the wonderful SAVIOR! Acts 10:43, “To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” Salvation is given to those "few" who have been ordained to eternal life by God Himself (Acts 13:48). And who are those "few"? Jesus answers that question in John chapter 6:37,39,44,63 & 65: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." " It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." For more on this see our video "The Sovereignty of God Versus Man-Made Religions, Hollywood Movies & Petty Emotionalism" - ruclips.net/video/1UQABR_9gGI/видео.html. Keep in mind that God works with relatively few numbers throughout world history (remember how Elijah thought he was the last prophet of God left in Israel in 1 Kings 19:13-18 & the Lord had to correct Elijah about the number but still the number God told Elijah was small). The God of the Bible has always had His way of operating His plan in this world & it has always been consistently with small numbers (1 Corinthians 1:26-29, "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence." For an excellent message concerning the small numbers God has historically employed please hear the outstanding theologian Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his sermon "Sermon 113 - Three-score and Fifteen Souls" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=99217141430450. We also have a video along these lines called " Biblical Predestination #6: God Only Chooses a FEW for Salvation (Many Called/Few Chosen)" - ruclips.net/video/veCdGzYsc70/видео.html. See also our video "Strive To Enter - But Many Will Not Be Able To - Greg Van Court - Dayspring Fellowship, Austin, TX" at ruclips.net/video/qr2Rn-7o4RA/видео.html. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"
For starters watch all our King James Only videos on our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 and read all the articles on the website www.KJVOnly.org. Next you need to get a copy of James White's book "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?" at www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436552035&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+only+controversy&pebp=1436552047942&perid=0D27KWWCHVDRTF6TS1XT and read it. Next you need to listen to all of James White's "Dividing Line" shows on RUclips at ruclips.net/user/AominOrg & select the shows where you can tell he is talking about KJV only issues. Do the same with his KJV only shows on his other RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/DrOakley1689.
1 John 5:13 (KJV) - "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." 1 John 5:13 (NASB) - "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." The earlier & better manuscripts prove that the NASB rendering is the more authentic rendering since the KJV did not have access to those earlier & better manuscripts at the time it was put together. The research needed is in the references above which will prove that clearly. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
Here's more questions to ask cultic "King James Only" heretics & idolaters:
If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language? If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers? Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates! If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it? Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."? When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct? If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary? In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading? Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible? Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation) Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation? Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.) Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.) Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"? Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition) Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God? Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is? If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14) Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist? Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.) How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"? How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse) How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"? Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
Both the NASB and the KJV Bibles are very accurate literal translations, of excellent scholarship, using the best copies of the original languages which were available to them. Both works clearly and accurately represent the Word of God. Literary quality is excellent for both works, and style is identical. In many places the NASB reads exactly or nearly the same as the KJV. When choosing between these two versions, there are various areas of contrast which I have listed in order of significance.
1. Readability - NASB. The New American Standard Bible uses contemporary language and punctuation, the King James version does not, being written almost 400 years ago, and virtually unchanged for about 120 years. The crux of the matter of readability is the difficulty of the Elizabethan English of the KJV, which is laborious to read even for those who are well educated and familiar with the texts, when compared to reading the same texts in the clearly written NASB in it's familiar modern format and natural vocabulary. Other readability issues include the use of quotations and poetic stanzas, small caps for Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, and capitalization of pronouns referring to deity. The NASB also recognizes Greek translations of Hebrew names and translates the names consistently, as opposed to the KJV which gives us multiple names for the same person; for example, the KJV calls Judah, the son of Israel, "Judas" in Matthew 1:2, because that's how it is in Greek. The NASB simply calls him Judah in both the Old and New Testaments; this is simpler to understand and just as accurate.
2. Quality of language translation - NASB. The King James version is excellent, but we have since learned a great deal about both ancient Greek and Hebrew. Our understanding of Greek has grown significantly, particularly with the discovery that the Greek Bible was in common Greek, but our understanding of Hebrew has vastly improved since the 17th century, during which time the ancient Hebrew was very poorly understood. The NASB clearly benefits from a better understanding of the languages, and presents not only closer translations, but provides notes for certain aspects of translation, as discussed above. When the NASB and KJV differ on the rendering of a text, which is not based on variance in the manuscripts, the NASB is usually more favorable to the original languages. Also, slight variations in words chosen and sentance forms used throughout the NASB reflect our current understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, which has improved dramatically in 400 years.
3. Quality of manuscripts - NASB. The KJV was based on the manuscripts which were few in number, local in geography, and late in date. Archeology has, since the KJV, made almost all important manuscript discoveries - everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls back to the Rosetta Stone, all occur after the KJV. These new manuscripts can be found in conclusive families, based on history and geography, with standardized variations of content and recognizable progression of modifications. Today's critical texts are very broad based and careful reconstructions of the original writings, and cannot be reasonably discounted out-of-hand, nor can the published arguments of those who would demand the exclusive use of the Textus Receptus be validated, or even accepted as reasonable. To suppose that the much older, much more widely distributed manuscripts, in many languages, which have been discovered over the last 390 years are all corrupted and inferior to the sources for the KJV is incredible, to say the least.
4. Quality of Notes - NASB. While almost all KJV Bibles are published with some kind of notes, none are version inclusive. The NASB does include a particular set of notes with the text which pertain directly to the rendering. The first example of these notes is the notation of the literal translation in those instances where a word or phrase is not literal. A second set of notations identify certain passages as being included or excluded in various manuscripts, or giving readings found in alternate mss. Other advantages of text notes include the use of the small-capitals font when the New Testament is quoting the Old Testament, the marking of the Greek historical presents tense, and the capitalization of personal pronouns which refer to deity. The fact of the matter is that the English Bible is a translation, and as such, justifiably calls for adequate translation notes, notes which are bountiful in the NASB and completely absent from the KJV.
See our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. See also www.kjvonly.org/ & www. isawthelightministries.com/ kjv.html. 2 Timothy 2:15
To those who wish to discuss issues brought up in our video posted here to a greater extent please know that you can email one of our ministry volunteers at certainandsecure@gmail.com. Also realize that we may have an entire playlist of videos on this subject on our RUclips channel at ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV. Besides that know that we have three websites to answer additional questions at www.BibleQuery.org (answers over 8500 questions on the Bible & refutes critics of the Bible), www.HistoryCart.com (this website deals with an in depth analysis of early Christian church history) and www.MuslimHope.com (this website is a documented refutation of Islam, a false religious & political ideology of warlike jihad against all unbelievers invented by Muhammad while he was in Medina for the last 9 years of his life where he averaged one offensive military jihad of pillage, rape & slavery every month to six weeks against his neighbors which eventually led to conquering all of Saudi Arabia- see also www.politicalislam.com/, www.answeringmuslims.com/, answering-islam.org/, www.jihadwatch.org/ & our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 71 videos & counting at ruclips.net/p/PL1C7F68B548009FDD). 1 Peter 3:15
As Moses and his family were travelling in their way to Egypt, at an inn where they stopped for the refreshment of themselves and cattle, or in order to lodge all night: so it was, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him; not the uncircumcised son of Moses, as some think, but Moses himself, who had neglected the circumcision of his son; that from the context, and the fact of Zipporah, after related, seems to be the reason of the divine displeasure, and not his bringing his family with him.
According to my references for Acts 2:27, NIV says. "because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay." while the ESV says "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption" while the NASB says "BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY." while the KJV says "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." The "grave" is not "Hades" & the KJV mistranslated "hades" here as "hell." "Hades" should be the word used here in this verse. The Pulpit Commentary says, "Verse 27. - Hades for hell, A.V.; give thy Holy One for suffer thine Holy One, A.V., surely not so good a rendering. Hades. The "hell" of the A.V. is the exact English representative of ᾅδης. The article in the Creed, "He descended into hell," is based upon this text especially, the other two alleged in support of it (Ephesians 4:9; 1 Peter 3:18, 19) being less conclusive (see Pearson on the Creed, art. 5.). It is a pity to lose the word "hell" in its true meaning. Corruption; Greek διαφθρόραν, Hebrew שַׁחַת. The Hebrew word always means a pit (from שׁוּחַ); but the LXX. here render it διαφθορά, as if from שָׁחַת (in Pihel, to destroy, waste; in Hophal and Niphal, to be corrupted, spoilt, to rot). In the A.V. it is rendered corruption, here and in Job 17:14, where it answers to "the worms," in the parallel clause. It is very probable that the LXX. are right. Nothing is more common than for Hebrew verbs to take the meaning of verbs with similar radicals. Holy One. So the LXX. and the Keri of the Hebrew text. But the Cethib has Holy Ones in the plural. It is obvious that the singular, Holy One, agrees far better with the singulars which precede and follow it - my heart, my glory, my flesh, my soul, thou wilt show me - than the plural, which is entirely out of place. The two clauses taken together show the full liberation of Christ from the dominion of death - that of his human soul from hell, and that of his body from the grave before it saw corruption (comp. Acts 13:34-37). Now let's get into a little more detail by becoming familiar with some Hebrew and Greek words that are key to understanding this topic. Sheol (Hebrew) - It is the non-permanent place or temporary address of the disembodied souls of dead. It is not the grave or sepulcher, nor is it the eternal location of the souls of the dead. It is the same as the Greek word "Hades", which we will look at in a moment. Prior to Jesus Christ's resurrection, both the souls of the evil and the righteous went there after death. It is translated "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times in King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. Sheol (or Hades) has two separate halves. One side was and is reserved for the torment of the evil, while the other side, called "Abraham's Bosom" in Luke 16:22, was for the comfort of the righteous. There is and impassable canyon, or gulf, between the two halves. When Christ was resurrected, he led the righteous out of Sheol to Heaven. Many (probably not all) of the Old Testament saints were resurrected into their immortal bodies at that time (Matthew 27:51-53). Since then, the souls of all of the saved people go directly to Heaven when their bodies die. The lost people still go to Sheol and join the lost people of the Old Testament in torment on one side of the canyon when they die. The other side of Sheol formerly known as Abraham's Bosom has been vacant since Jesus Christ led the saints within it to heaven after His resurrection. Sheol (or Hades) is described as being "in the heart of the earth" in Matthew 12:40 and is said to be below, down, or beneath in passages such as Deuteronomy 32:22, Isaiah 14:9, and Ezekiel 31:16. The English word "Hell" refers to a place of eternal punishment for the wicked. Its meaning does not distinguish between the two separate places for the wicked to be punished, one temporary for the soul, and the other, the Lake of Fire, permanent for the soul and body. Nor does its meaning include the place of comfort for saints prior to Christ's resurrection. In normal English conversation, "Hell" is used only in the negative sense, with no saved people ever going there. This caused some inadequate translations of "Sheol" and "Hades". Often these words are translated "Hell", which, as just explained, is rather ambiguous and non-descriptive. In many other places "Sheol" and "Hades" are translated as "grave", but the grave is only the place for the body after death, not the place for the soul. This confusion often occurs when the verse refers to a righteous man going to "Sheol", such as men like Jacob, Joseph, (Genesis 37:35) and Job (Job 14:13). Of course, these men did not go to a place of torment, but to the comfort side of Sheol (Hades), called Abraham's Bosom. Hades (Greek) - It is identical to Sheol (Hebrew). It is the non-permanent place or temporary address of the disembodied souls of dead. It is not the grave or sepulcher, nor is it the eternal location of the souls of the dead. Hades is translated "Hell" 10 times and "grave" once by KJV. It is the place for the soul, not the body. Gehenna (Greek, but originally from a Hebrew name) - translated "Hell" all 12 times in KJV It is the permanent place for destruction of the "... soul and body ..." (Matthew 10:28). It is a place of "... fire that never shall be quenched" (Mark 9:45). In most of the references, it is clear from the context that those who enter Gehenna, do so in their bodies, not merely as bodiless souls. For this to happen, it must occur after the resurrection of the damned at the great white throne of judgment. Therefore, Gehenna is the Lake of Fire described in Revelation 19 and 20. It is presently uninhabited, but the Beast and the False Prophet will be cast into it at the end of the tribulation (Revelation 19:20). One thousand years later, Satan will be cast into it (Revelation 20:10) and will be followed shortly by the lost people of all previous time periods (Revelation 20:15). They will all enter Gehenna together, in there resurrected bodies, where they will remain in torment for all eternity. This Revelation 20 passage makes it clear that Hades and the Lake of Fire are not the same place. At the great white throne judgement at the end of the 1000 year kingdom, those in Hades will be removed from Hades, as Revelation 20:13 says, "... hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them ...." And those which were in Hades will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14-15). Note that the timing of this relocation of the lost occurs just before where Revelation 21:1 says, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." Hades, which will be emptied in Revelation 20:13, apparently will them be destroyed, since it is in the heart of the first earth. The future destruction of the wicked is symbolized by the Valley of Hinnom to which Gehenna refers. It is a place south of Jerusalem where the bodies of dead animals and rubbish were taken to be burned. The Valley of Hinnom was also the site of much human sacrifice to the pagan god Molech (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 33:6, Jeremiah 32:35). The fire burned constantly in the valley since additional fuel was frequently being cast into it. "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place" (Jeremiah 7:31-32). Here we see that in the Valley of Hinnom is a place called "Tophet" whose name means "place of fire". "For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it" (Isaiah 30:33). limne pur (Greek) - "lake of fire" occurs 4 times, all in Revelation 19 and 20. This is Gehenna, into which the resurrected damned are cast. Limne means "lake" and is translated as such all 10 times it occurs by the KJV. Pur means "fire" and is translated so 73 times by the KJV while being translated "fiery" once. Other key terms tartaroo (Greek) - Refers to "Tartarus" and only occurs once in 2 Peter 2:4 where it is translated "hell" "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment ...." This is probably a separate place from Hades, and may be a place only for fallen angels. There are no Biblical references to people going there. grave (English) - The place for the fleshly body after death, sepulcher. It is not the abode of the soul or spirit. abussos (Greek) - Abyss. It is translated "bottomless pit" 5 times, "deep" twice, and "bottomless" twice by KJV. It is where Satan will be locked up for the 1000 years of Christ's reign on earth (Revelation 20:1-3). This Abyss is also where the Legion of devils begged Jesus not to send them in Luke 8:30-31. And this Abyss is the bottomless pit that will be opened at the fifth trumpet judgment of Revelation 9:1-11. The beast that will come out of it at the fifth trumpet is mentioned in Revelation 11:7 and 17:8. This Abyss is thought by many to be the same as the impassable gulf described in Luke 16:26. chasma (Greek) - a gaping opening, chasm, or gulf. It is translated "gulf" in its only occurrence in Luke 16:26, where it is the canyon separating the torment and comfort sides of Hades. Abraam kolpos (Greek) - Abraham's Bosom (Luke 16:22). Abraam is translated "Abraham" all 73 times. Kolpos is translated bosom 5 times and creek once (Acts 27:39). paradeisos - Paradise. It is translated "paradise" all 3 times by the KJV. "Paradise" is not the English translation of any other Greek word in scripture. First we hear the words of the thief and Jesus Christ on their crosses in Luke 23:42-43, "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." In 2 Corinthians 12:4, Paul tells how he was "... caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." In Revelation 2:7, Jesus told the church of Ephesus "... To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God." The tree of life is also mentioned in Revelation 22:2, in the new heaven and new earth, where it appears to be not just one tree, but a type of tree of which there are more than one. Since the three references show paradise to be in different places, then either paradise has been relocated once and will yet be relocated again, or it is a general term. Summary Sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) are the temporary place of torment for the souls of the wicked dead. Prior to Christ's resurrection, saints were kept and comforted in the now vacant half of Hades, known as Abraham's Bosom. Gehenna (Greek, but from a Hebrew name) is the Lake of Fire for the permanent place of torment of the souls of the wicked dead in their resurrected bodies. Hell is a rather general and inadequate term that is often used to refer to either Gehenna or the torment side of Hades, both by those who know the basic difference between these two specific places and by those who do not. "Hades" is the Greek term widely used to denote the deity of the underworld and the abode of the dead. The New Testament use of Hades (hades [ᾅδης]) builds on its Hebrew parallel, Sheol (se'ol), which was the preferred translation in the Septuagint. The Old Testament. Sheol refers primarily to death and the abode of the dead, both godly and ungodly (Gen 37:25; Psalm 16:10; 88:10-12; Isa 14:9). These conscious souls face a lethargic existence, apparently without reward or retribution (Job 10:21; Eccl 9:10; Isa 14:10). Since death is not a natural occurrence but invaded creation through the fall and Satan's destructive work (Gen. 2-3), the Old Testament personifies Sheol as the power of Satan and his demonic hosts (Job 18:14; Psalm 18:4-5; Isa 28:15; Jer 9:21). While an antagonist, Sheol ultimately exists at Yahweh's service (1 Sam 2:6; Psalm 55:23; 139:8). The Old Testament confidently awaits God's victory over Sheol (Psalm 98; Isa 25:8; Hosea 13:14). But the precise expectation of a bodily resurrection for the wicked and the related conception of Sheol as an intermediate state is late (Dan 12:2). The New Testament. This indeterminate picture of Sheol and its Greek translation, Hades, allowed varying interpretations by intertestamental Jews. In the New Testament Christ's revelation and salvific work decisively shape this term. For Christ has established authority over all powers (Eph 1:20-23), even the one who "holds the power of death" (Heb 2:14; 2 Tim 1:10). He is the "Lord of both the dead and the living" (Rom 14:9). Hades is the state in which all the dead exist. In the New Testament a descent to Hades may simply refer to someone's death and disembodied existence. In this sense even Jesus enters Hades. Following David's prophecy in Psalm 16:10, Peter interprets the resurrection as God delivering Jesus from Hades (Acts 2:27,31). Similarly, Jesus prophesies that the Son of Man will be delivered from the heart of the earth, just as God delivered Jonah from Hades (Matt 12:40). In both instances, Hades refers to a disembodied existence. The New Testament does not explore Jesus' precise residence or activity while in Hades, unlike the later church traditions of the "harrowing of hell" or a "Hades Gospel." It is widely accepted that the proclamation in 1 Peter 3:19 occurs after rather than before his resurrection (v. 18, "made alive by the Spirit"), and that the dead in 1 Peter 4:6 are deceased believers who heard the gospel while alive. However, Jesus' descent to Hades is theologically important. This is the path of the Old Testament righteous (Isa 53). Furthermore, this descent confirms that God assumed human nature and even our sinful destiny, death (2 Col 5:14, 21; Heb 2:14). Finally, Jesus' deliverance from Hades establishes the new life for humanity (1 Cor 15). Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus portrays additional features of this state (Luke 16:19-31). An unbridgeable chasm separates the wicked and the righteous dead. Death has fixed the human's destiny without further opportunity for repentance. The rich man recalls his fate and that of his family, and cries out in distress for Abraham to send them a sign and relieve his punishment, but to no avail. Usually the details of parables should not be pressed to teach doctrine. In this case Jesus' vivid description of the basic conditions of the godly and ungodly dead is indispensable to the parable's point. Other Scriptures also portray the requests of the dead and the fixity of their future (2 Col 5:10; Heb 9:27; Rev 6:9-10). Hades is the place where the wicked dead reside and are punished. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man experiences torment in Hades. This is the intermediate state, for the bodily resurrection and the final judgment are still future. Jesus' point is that Hades foreshadows the rich man's final judgment. Similarly, Lazarus rests at Abraham's side, connoting the joyous abode of the righteous dead (Luke 16:23). This differentiation between the wicked and the righteous dead continues throughout the New Testament. The righteous dead are "at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8), "in paradise" (Luke 23:43), or in the presence of God (Rev 6:9; 7:9; 14:3). The unrighteous are held in punishment and wicked angels are imprisoned in Tartarus, a Greek term designating the lowest part of Hades (1 Peter 3:19; 2 Peter 2:4, 9; Jude 6 ). Jesus' woe to unrepentant Capernaum that it will be brought down to Hades is not simply a prophecy of its earthly demise, but its judgment (Luke 10:15). For some commentations these references to Hades and the dead are problematic and contradict the Old Testament. G. Vos resolves these problems by distinguishing between Hades as a disembodied state for all the dead and the specific abode of the ungodly. As he astutely notes, only the ungodly reside in a punitive place called Hades. The godly dead are with Jesus in a disembodied state also called Hades. The New Testament does significantly modify the Old Testament concept of Hades as a shadowy abode of all the dead. This further development, however, concurs with Jesus' lordship over the living and the dead. Hades' power is conquered. Like the Old Testament, the New Testament personifies Hades and associated terms, such as death, abyss, and Abaddon, as the demonic forces behind sin and ruin (Acts 2:24; Rom 5:14, 17; 1 Cor 15:25-26; Rev 6:8; 9:1-11; 20:14). When Jesus promises that the "gates of Hades" will never overcome the church (Matt 16:18), this phrase parallels Old Testament expressions tied to evil's power and persecution (Psalm 9:13; 107:17-20). Jesus' reference to the future in Matthew 16:18 concurs with Revelation's vision of Satan's final attack on God's people (19:19; 20:7-9). Jesus has promised that he will conquer Hades so that it will not defeat the church. Indeed, his resurrection establishes that this evil empire is already broken. Christ now holds the keys, the authority over death and Hades (Rev 1:18)! The end of Hades. Jesus is the conqueror of all powers, the exalted One, and as such he has graced his church (Eph 4:7-10). With Hades vanquished (Rev 1:18) believers know that nothing, not even death, cannot separate them from Christ (Rom 8:39). They still await the next act in the history of salvation, when Jesus consummates his kingdom. Then Hades will release its dead for the final resurrection and judgment (Rev 20:13). Thereafter Hades, Satan, and the reprobate will be thrown into Gehenna, the place of God's final retributive punishment. (Hades has only a limited existence; Gehenna or hell is the final place of judgment for the wicked. Many English versions foster confusion by translating both terms as "hell.") In summary, the New Testament affirms that Christ has conquered Hades. While dead believers exist in this state, they are also "with the Lord." Hades also denotes the vanquished stronghold of Satan's forces whose end is certain and the intermediate place of punishment for the wicked dead until the final judgment. See also Abraham's Bosom; Death, Mortality; Grave; Hell; Sheol Bibliography. J. W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting; W. J. Dalton, Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of I Peter 3:18-4:6; M. J. Harris, Themelios11 (1986): 47-52; R. L. Harris, TWOT, 2:892-93; A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; J. Jeremias, TDNT, 1:146-49, 657-58; 6:924-28; T. J. Lewis, ABD, 2:101-5; G. Vos, ISBE, 2:1314-15. "Grave" is the place where the physical remains of a deceased person are interred. It is "the place appointed for all living" ( Job 30:23 ). It is where all go, even animals ( Eccl 3:19-20 ). It is a place with no class distinctions ( Job 3:14-19 ). In Old Testament times, a person who touched a grave was unclean ( Num 19:16-18 ). Thus almost all burials took place outside the city except for certain kings. Ezekiel prophesies that Judah will never again defile God's name with the corpses of their kings. The grave became a metaphor for human depravity. Paul quotes Psalm 5:9 ("their throat is an open grave") as part of his scriptural basis that all people are under sin ( Romans 3:9 Romans 3:13 ). Jesus compares some people in his day to whitewashed tombs that are beautiful on the outside but "full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" on the inside ( Matt 23:27 ). They are only outwardly righteous. A grave could be a symbol of pride. Absalom followed the practice of ancient Near Eastern kings when he built himself a monument ( 2 Sam 18:18 ). Isaiah proclaimed that no one had the right to build such arrogant structures. Shebna, the royal steward, was told that he would be hurled out of the country for chiseling out a resting place for himself on the high rock ( Isa 22:15-19 ). A grave might be a symbol of respect. Nehemiah remembered Jerusalem as the place of his father's grave ( Neh 2:5 ). Jacob set up a pillar to mark Rachel's tomb ( Gen 35:20 ). Not being interred in the family tomb was considered unthinkable. The anonymous prophet was punished in this way ( 1 Kings 13:22 ). Josiah did not desecrate this tomb out of respect for him ( 2 Kings 23:15-18 ). Jeroboam's baby was the only one good enough to deserve a burial ( 1 Kings 14:13 ). To show disrespect for idolaters the dust of broken cult symbols was scattered over their graves ( 2 Ch 34:4 ). Josiah broke into the tombs at Bethel and burned the bones of the idolatrous priests upon the altar there to defile it ( 2 Kings 23:15-17 ). In Revelation 11:9 men do not bury the two witnesses to show contempt for them. Graves at times symbolized hopelessness. The Gadarene demoniac made his home among the tombs ( Mark 5:2 ). It is a place of no return, where there is gloom, deep shadow, and disorder ( Job 10:21-22 ). There is no activity there ( Psalms 88:5 Psalms 88:16 ; Eccl 9:10 ). But it is not necessarily a final resting place. Human beings will lie there until the heavens are no more ( Job 14:12 ). The tomb is not an "eternal home" but a "dark house" ( Eccl 12:5 ). A grave is also a symbol of hope, however. With the resurrection of Christ tombs in Jerusalem were opened and the dead came out ( Matt 27:52 ). When people threw a body into Elisha's grave, it came back to life ( 2 Kings 13:21 ). David's tomb reminded Peter of his prophecy that says, "You will not abandon me to the grave" ( Acts 2:27-29 ). Jesus said that "all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out" ( John 5:28-29 ). Christianity is still best represented by the empty grave ( John 20:1-9 ). See also Burial; Death; Funeral; Hell Bibliography. W. Coleman, Today's Handbook of Bible Times and Customs; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, vol. 1; N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World; H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament; R. Youngblood, A Tribute to Gleason Archer. "Hell" is the place of God's final retributive punishment. Scripture progressively develops this destiny of the wicked: the Old Testament outlines the framework, while the New Testament elaborates on it. Jesus, however, is most responsible for defining hell. The Old Testament. In the Old Testament Sheol denotes the abode of the dead; conscious souls face a shadowy existence in this "land of oblivion" ( Job 10:21 ; Psalm 88:12 ; Eccl 9:10 ; Isa 14:10 ). Since death is not a natural occurrence but issues from the fall, the Old Testament confidently awaits God's demonstration of his lordship over Sheol by raising the righteous to life (Gen. 2-3; Psalm 16:10 ; 49:15 ; Isa 25:8 ; Hosea 13:14 ). While God's kingship also has implications for the wicked, here the Old Testament is more reserved. The Old Testament infrequently suggests a bodily resurrection for the wicked ( Dan 12:2 ), a final judgment and retribution for evil deeds ( Psalm 21:10 ; 140:10 ; Mal 4:1-2 ). Nevertheless, the contemptible and horrible destiny of the wicked, irretrievably isolated from the righteous, is clear ( Psalm 9:17 ; 34:15-16 ). The Intertestamental Period. The intertestamental literature constructed divergent scenarios for the wicked dead, including annihilation (4 Ezra 7:61; 2 Apoc Bar 82:3ff.; 1 Enoch 48:9; 99:12; 1QS iv. 11-14 ) and endless torment (Jub 36:11; 1 Enoch 27:1-3; 103:8; T Gad 7:5). Sheol frequently became an interim location for the dead, distinguished from the place of final punishment (1 Enoch 18:9-16; 51:1). This final punishment was usually located in a valley south of Jerusalem, known in Hebrew as Gen Hinnom or the Valley of Hinnom (2 Apoc Bar 59:10; 4 Ezra 7:36), and in Greek as gehenna [gevenna] (2 Esdr 2:29). This valley had a long history as a place of infamy. Notorious for the child sacrifices offered to Molech during the reigns of Ahaz and Manasseh ( 2 Kings 16:3 ; 2 Chron 28:3 ; 33:6 ; Jer 7:31-34 ; 19:6 ), this valley was further desecrated when Josiah used it as Jerusalem's refuse dump ( 2 Kings 23:10 ) and it was prophesied as the place of God's future fiery judgment ( Isa 30:33 ; 66:24 ; Jer 7:31-32 ). While some intertestamental writings equate hell with the "lake of fire" in this "accursed valley" of Hinnom (1 Enoch 90:26, 27; 54:1, 2), others use it to denote a place in the underworld (Sib Or 4:1184-86). In addition, the respective scenarios for the wicked, whether annihilation or eternal torment, shaped images of God's judgment. For instance, at times fire consumes the wicked (1 Enoch 99:12); in other texts fire and worms torment their victim to a useless existence (Judith 16:17). The New Testament. In the New Testament hell is where the reprobate exist after the resurrection from Hades and the final judgment. In this lake of fire God punishes the wicked, along with Satan and his henchmen ( Matt 25:41 ), bringing an end to evil's free ways. Gehenna [gevenna] is the standard term for hell in the New Testament. Related phrases include "punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7), "lake of fire" ( Rev 19:29 ; 20:14-15 ), and "judgment." English versions occasionally translate hades [a&/dh"] (esp. Luke 16:23 ) and tartaroo [tartarovw] ( 2 Pe 2:4 ) as hell. However, these terms appear to denote the intermediate state, not the final destiny of the wicked. Jesus says more about hell than any other biblical figure. His warnings of the eschatological judgment are liberally colored with the imagery of hell ( Matt 5:22 ; 7:19 ; 8:12 ; par. Luke 13:28-30 ; Matthew 10:15 Matthew 10:28 ; Matthew 11:22 Matthew 11:24 ; 18:8-9 ; par. Mark 9:43-49 ; Luke 17:26-29 ; John 15:6 ). He portrays this future judgment through pictures of Sodom's destruction ( Luke 17:29-30 ): fire, burning sulfur, and a fiery furnace ( Gen 19:24-25 ). These images of God's judgment were well established in the Old Testament and intertestamental literature. Important portrayals of hell are also present in Jesus' parables, including the tares ( Matt 13:40-42 ), the net ( Matt 13:50 ); the great supper ( Matt 22:13 ), the good servant and the wicked servant ( Matt 24:51 ; par. Luke 12:46-47 ), the talents ( Matt 25:30 ), and the last judgment ( Matt 25:46 ). Here "weeping and gnashing of teeth" ( Matt 13:50 ; 24:51 ; 25:30 ) and "darkness" ( Matt 22:13 ; 25:30 ) are key descriptive phrases. The New Testament conception of hell does not exceed Jesus' description. The following headings outline its essential features. 1. Sinners will occupy hell. While God created us for a loving relation with himself, at the fall humankind rebelled. God's judgment falls on all sinners, unless they have faith in Jesus. After the provisional state of Hades and the final judgment, God's wrath culminates in hell. According to the New Testament, the objects of God's wrath range from the pious hypocrites ( Matt 23:33 ) and those failing to help the poor ( Matt 25:31-46 ; Luke 16:19-31 ) to the vile and murderers ( Rev 21:8 ). Some argue that only an explicit repudiation of Jesus attracts God's eternal wrath, referencing lu 12:8-9. However, Jesus says "the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" ( Luke 19:10 ). In other words, he came offering grace to a world that was "condemned already" ( John 3:17-18 ). Since hell is not a natural fixture of creation but results from the fall and is destiny of the wicked, the New Testament occasionally personifies hell as the demonic forces behind sin. The sinful tongue is itself aroused and "set on fire by hell" ( James 3:6 ). Similarly, Jesus labels the Pharisees "sons of hell, " identifying the root of their hypocrisy ( Matt 23:15 ). 2. Hell exists for the requital and retribution of evil deeds. Hell is the place of God's final judgment. Here God, our King and Supreme Judge, finally rectifies wrongs through his retributive wrath. Here the damned will be paid back for the harm they have done ( Matt 16:27 ; Luke 12:47-48 ; 2 Peter 2:13 ; Jude 15 Rev 14:9-11 ). Wrath is not the natural consequence of evil choices in a moral uerse or the sinner's misconstrual of God's love. Rather, as Paul's use of orge shows, wrath is an emotion or feeling in the Godhead, and thus God's personal action ( Rom 1:18-32 ). By extrinsically imposing penal conditions on the sinner, God rectifies wrongs and reestablishes his righteous rule ( Matt 25:31-46 ; Rom 12:19 ; 1 Cor 15:24-25 ; 2 Col 5:10 ). 3. Hell is a final place of bondage and isolation from the righteous. After the resurrection and the final judgment, the wicked and even Hades are thrown into hell. The New Testament describes hell as a place: a furnace ( Matthew 13:42 Matthew 13:50 ), a lake of fire ( Rev 19:20 ; 20:14-15 ; 21:8 ), and a prison ( Rev 20:7 ). The wicked are imprisoned here so they cannot harm God's people ( Matt 5:25-26 ; Matthew 13:42 Matthew 13:50 ; 18:34 ; Jude 6 Rev 20:14-15 ). While the parable of Lazarus and the rich man occurs in Hades, the intermediate state, and not Gehenna, it does foreshadow the latter. Jesus says an unbridgeable spatial chasm separates these two so no one can "cross over from there" ( Luke 16:26 ). John's vision in Revelation 21 of the new city on a high mountain confirms this separation between the blessed and the damned after the day of judgment. Consequently, Scripture provides no warrant for those speculative images of the righteous rejoicing in the torture of the damned. The prophecy in Isaiah 66:24, which has been so used, does not refer to this eschatological event, for the resurrection of the body has not occurred. 4. Sinners suffer penalties in hell. Jesus repeatedly accentuates hell's dreadfulness and horror: "if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out It is better to enter life with one eye than to be thrown into the fire of hell" ( Matt 18:9 ). While Scripture remains reticent on the specific torments for the impenitent, certain dimensions are clear. At the final judgment, God will declare, "I don't know you Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire" ( Matthew 25:12 Matthew 25:41 ). The wicked in hell are excluded from God's loving presence and the "life" for which humans were originally created ( John 5:29 ). The damned are "thrown outside, into the darkness" ( Matt 8:12 ; 22:13 ). Consequently this "second death" ( Rev 21:8 ) is a useless and ruined existence ( Matt 25:30 ; Luke 9:25 ; John 3:16-18 ; 2 Thess 1:9 ; 2 Peter 2:12 ; Jude 12 ; Rev 21:8 ). Sin has thoroughly effaced every virtue. The reprobate have become obstinate in their rebellion against God, like "unreasoning animals" ( Jude 1:10 Jude 1:13 ; 2 Peter 2:12-22 ). Consequently, the doors of hell can be locked from the inside, as C. S. Lewis observes. In hell, the damned receive their due for "things done while in the body" ( 2 Col 5:10 ; 2 Peter 2:13 ; Jude 15 Rev 14:9-11 ). The "undying worm" has often been interpreted as the soul's internal torment, coveting and grieving what has been lost ( Mark 9:48 ). This regret is compounded since the reprobate are not penitent but locked into their rebellion. But the grave's worms and darkness are also common images of a contemptible fate. Scripture suggests that there are degrees of punishment in hell. The one "who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." More severe is the punishment due to the disobedient who were "entrusted with much" ( Mark 12:40 ; Luke 12:48 ). Annihilationsim and the Extent of Hell. The extent of hell has occasioned much debate in recent scholarship. There are three major points of contention. Some annihilationists have argued that the biblical imagery of a consuming fire, destruction, and perishing implies the cessation of life (Stott). However, Jesus' pictures of hell are not literal descriptions but metaphors. They are mutually exclusive, if taken literally, for the fires of hell conflict with its "utter darkness." In the intertestamental literature the metaphorical image of a fire could suggest annihilation or everlasting punishment, showing the inconclusiveness of this argument. Some annihilationists have argued that when the Greek adjective for eternal, aionios [aijwvnio"], is used with nouns of action, it refers to an occurrence with eternal results, not an eternal process (Fudge). "Eternal punishment, " it is argued, denotes a punishment that occurs once with eternal results. However, counterfactuals dispute this argument. The eternal sin ( Mark 3:29 ), for example, is not just one sin, but an action that irretrievably debilitates so one only sins. Similarly, everlasting salvation (aionios [aijwvnio"] soteria [swthriva]) does not refer solely to Christ's work long ago, and thus preclude his sustaining and preserving presence. For Scripture describes believers, even in the age to come, as existing "in Christ" ( Rom 8:1 ; Eph 1:13 ; Col 2:6-7 ; 2 Tim 2:10 ). So aionios soteria [aijwvnio"swthriva] refers to Christ's eternal (aionios [aijwvnio"]) salvation of the blessed, an action that is everlasting as well as final. In Matthew 25:46 Jesus differentiates the two futures of eternal life and eternal punishment, using the same adjective for each, aionios [aijwvnio"]. In Jesus' mind, it appears, the extent of each future is identical. If the existence of the righteous is endless, so also is the existence of the wicked. Other statements suggest the same conclusion. Jesus teaches that "whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (John 3:36). As long as God's wrath abides on them, the damned must exist. Jesus' picture of hell as a place where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48) indicates that this manifestation of God's wrath is unending. Other passages in the New Testament reiterate Jesus' dreadful warning, by describing hell as "everlasting torment." Even annihilationists admit the difficulty of such texts for their position. For a specific Biblical refutation to annihilationism & universalism & other attempts at evading eternal torment go to "Eternal Punishment, part 1" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12607145320 & "Eternal Punishment, part 2" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=12607143539. Objections to Hell. Hell is a dreadful reality. Just as Christ wept over Jerusalem, believers are similarly troubled and anguished by this destiny of the lost. Some have raised serious challenges to the reality of hell. One perennial difficulty concerns the relationship between God's love and holiness: How could a loving God reject forever the creature he loves? This question assumes that the creature is the highest intrinsic good, even for God. But the highest good for the God of Scripture is not humanity. Humanity was created for God, and cannot be defined in terms of itself; we exist to glorify God (Psalm 73:24-26; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 10:31; Col 1:16). That is why Jesus insists it is idolatrous to enlist God as humanity's servant (Luke 17:7-10). Certainly God loves the creature; creation itself reflects God's free love. But since God's love is complete in himself, even before creation, the creature cannot be presumed as his one and only end. Nor can the character of God's love be decided a priori, but only by revelation. Consequently, Jesus' warning of the wrath to come (Matt 25:31,41,46) must be accepted as an inherent possibility of God's love. Some acknowledge retribution, but question why the wicked are eternally kept in existence to suffer. At issue is the punishment due sin. Since pride conceals the sinner's true debt to God the Judge, again this question should be answered by examining Christ's priestly work of propitiation. At the cross God in Christ became our substitute to bear the punishment for our sins, so as "to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus" (Rom 3:26; cf. 2 Col 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24). The God-man propitiated our sin. This fact, that God the Judge, the "Lord of glory" himself (1 Cor 2:8), accepted the punishment due us, suggests that the penalty for sin against the Infinite is infinite. Questions will remain. But believers personally know God's love in Jesus Christ. And their response to a lost world will parallel that of their Lord, who humbled himself to our condition, suffered, and died for the wicked. See also Death, Mortality url="/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/death-mortality.html"; Eternal Punishment; Grave; Hades; Judgment; Judgment, Day of; Sheol Bibliography. D. L. Edwards and J. Stott, Evangelical Essentials; E. Fudge, The Fire that Consumes; A. A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain; S. McKnight, Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, pp. 147-57; T. R. Phillips, Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, pp. 47-59; W. G. T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment; D. F. Watson, ABD, 2:926-28.
+Rush Ron My favorite English study bible is the New American Standard Bible (NASB) & I think it does the best job overall although the ESV is very good & the NKJV has done a good job of cleaning up a lot of KJV errors. New American Standard Bible - History
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) has evolved from the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. The ASV, in turn, was the American version of the Revised Version (RV) of 1885, also called the English Revised Version (ERV). While preserving the literal accuracy of the ASV, the NASB sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention was given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. In an effort to ensure accuracy, recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament was reviewed, and some passages were updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts. The original NASB earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation. The New American Standard Bible update (1995) carried on the NASB tradition of being a true Bible translation, revealing what the original manuscripts actually say-not merely what the translator believes they mean.
New American Standard Bible - Translation Method
The New American Standard Bible is most known for its strict adherence to "formal equivalence" in its translation. The goal of the NASB is to be as literal "word-for-word" as possible. Most Bible scholars hold the NASB to be the most literal of all the modern English Bible translations. In order to make the NASB easier to read while ensuring accuracy, the following methods were used in the 1995 update:
• Archaic "thee's" and "thou's," etc., were updated to modern English.
• Words and phrases that could be misunderstood due to changes in their meaning during the past 20 years were updated to current English.
• Verses with difficult syntax or vocabulary were retranslated into smoother English. Verbs with multiple meanings were retranslated to accurately reflect the context.
• Recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament was reviewed, and some passages were updated.
The NASB 1995 update continued the NASB's tradition of literal translation of the original Greek and Hebrew without compromise. Changes in the text have been kept within the strict parameters set forth by the Lockman Foundation's Fourfold Aim-that they be true to the original manuscripts, grammatically correct, understandable, and give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him.
New American Standard Bible - Pro’s and Con’s
Probably the greatest strength of the New American Standard Bible is its literalness. More so than any other English Bible translation, the NASB seeks to take what was originally said in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and say the same thing in English. The primary downside to this method is that it sometimes results in the English not being as smooth and free-flowing as it could be. Overall, though, the New American Standard Bible is an excellent Bible translation.
New American Standard Bible - Sample Verses
John 1:1,14 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
John 8:58 - “Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Titus 2:13 - “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,”
Recommended Resources: How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions by Gordon D. Fee & Mark L. Strauss
+Rush Ron In my opinion, that would be the ESV. The ESV even corrects some of the modern Bibles. For example, Psalm 145:13 is corrected. Psalm 145:13b, "The Lord is faithful in all His words and gracious in all His actions." All the sections in the verse represent a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This part represents "nun" which is not in the KJV or some of the other modern translations. My favored Bible is the NASB and it doesn't contain this part of the verse.
Hear "Why You Can Believe The Bible" by Voddie Baucham at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91314616480 & Dr. James White concerning "Can I Trust My Bible?" at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonstopic&sourceid=immanuelbc&keyword=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F&keyworddesc=Can+I+Trust+My+Bible%3F which includes "Textual Criticism: Reliability, Answering Critics, Bible Versions & Sufficiency of Scripture."
How Do We Know the Bible is True? Is it Really the Word of God? Many critics of Christianity attack the Bible’s truthfulness. Many don’t believe it because they say it was written by man. Is the Bible really God speaking to man? Is the Bible of human origin or a direct revelation from God? The Bible The word Bible is from the root word “biblios” which is Greek for “little books.“ The Bible contains 66 books and was written by 40 authors. The books you see in most Bibles have been tried and tested and were generally accepted by the early church. For centuries the Bible was not available to the general public due to their being only hand-copied ones available. The Bible has been banned from many nations, it has been burned by others, it has been declared out of date by moderns, but it has brought salvation to untold millions. It is the unbridled truth and the unchangeable Word of God that changes those who read it. When people read it, it reads them too! It comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. What follows is conclusive evidence that we can believe that the Bible is God speaking to us and not just the words of men. Thus Says the Lord or Thus Says Man?
If the Bible were indeed a work of man, then we would expect some of the words to say, “thus says the prophet Jeremiah” or “thus says Peter an Apostle of God” but it doesn’t. From what I could count, “Thus says the Lord” is recorded 418 times. If it were of human origin, then we would read somewhere that the Bible or the message came from a certain author but we never see that anywhere. On the contrary, we read over 1,000 times where “Jesus said” and “Thus says the Lord” were written down. In fact, even the Book of Revelation is not called John’s Book of Revelation at all. In Revelation 1:1-2 we see where the words of this book came from: “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.” So John was just the recipient of the book as he just wrote down what he was told. Paul said, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). Paul clearly said that all Scripture is God-breathed…not just the New Testament or the Old Testament, but all Scripture. Peter reiterates it by writing, “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). Peter would tell you that “you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20).
God gives a very serious warning to anyone who takes away or adds to any of the words in the Bible, indicating that only He gives the words of this book and no human had better tamper with it. In Revelation 22:19 God warns that if anyone adds to or takes away any of the words of the Bible, He “…shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city (heaven or the new Jerusalem)”. This same warning is given in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 4:2.
Alleged Errors in Transcribing
When the Word of God was reproduced to make another copy, well before the printing press was invented, there were 70 scribes that worked on it with expert precision second to none. Imagine that each of the scribes had the other sixty-nine scribes check their writings for error. Each of these seventy scribes reviewed each other’s work and every written copy, letter by letter, line by line, book by book were examined meticulously. If any errors were found, the started all over again on that particular book or page. Imagine you’re one of the scribes and you have just finished a section. Now the other sixty-nine scribes check your work and compare it to the original. The amazing fact is that their methods resulted in such an accurate reproduction of scripture that only one error for every fifteen hundred words occurred and these errors were so slight that they never affected the content. This copying left absolutely no room for any private interpretation or mistranslation at all. By modern standards, the accuracy rate is superior to that of Microsoft’s Spelling and Grammar Check, which by the way is not perfect. When you consider the stringent guidelines and conditions, no one can dispute that the translation differences had any negative effect on the message of the Bible or its general context.
Manuscript Evidence
New Testament manuscripts have been preserved by the thousands and the fact is that no other ancient works in human history have such enormous documented and recorded histories as does the Bible. There are about 6,000 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and over 9,000 manuscripts in various other ancient languages. The dates of these manuscripts range from the 2nd century up to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. Nearly ever year there are more New Testament manuscripts discovered that were handwritten in the original Greek format which continues to add to the enormous collection already on hand. In 2008, 47 new Greek manuscripts were discovered in Albania. Of these, 17 of them were unknown to Western scholars.
The fact is that the amount of manuscript evidence is astounding. There are over 25,000 New Testament manuscripts of which 5,000 of these date from the first century. What that translates into for Historians is what is called a primary source. A primary source is a source that comes from eye witnesses. The nearly 6,000 Dead Sea Scrolls are so close in agreement, contextually, that there is only 0.01% in differences and the main differences are only in the differentiation of vowels. In no way do these miniscule differences affect the text or the context.
One of the greatest supportive facts is that the evidence verifies the dating of Matthew’s Gospel as far back as A.D. 60. Scholars argue that Mark wrote the first Gospel. This places the composition of Mark to within 20 years of the events that took place and were recorded in his Gospel. With the evidence that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and Luke’s second volume, Acts, were written so close to the time of the crucifixion, the record of the events of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection makes these facts indisputable. Luke and Acts was originally one book but was later separated into two books for the reader’s convenience but the content never changed. The fact that they were written within the lifetimes of those who were eyewitnesses is evidence strong enough to hold up in a court of law. Since the Old and New Testament manuscripts have been preserved by the thousands and there are no other ancient works in human history to compare to it, what we have today in the Bible is as a reliable source as any current historical account or newspaper printed today. The Bible is the Word of God, as men were moved by the Holy Spirit to write it. It is God speaking to us and it is without error and full of truth.
If God has revealed Himself in propositional form, that revelation would have certain properties due to His infinite knowledge and moral perfection:
It would be entirely true - His infinite knowledge would prevent errors and His truthfulness would keep Him from deception.
It would be a coherent unity, therefore not self- contradictory.
It would contain God's will for man, and provide the motivation to live according to that will (1).
God has revealed Himself in the Bible without error. The Bible itself claims this inerrancy (2 Timothy 3:16-17 (2); Matthew 5:18 (3); etc.). Let's look at some of the proofs for the Bible's claim to be the infallible word of God.
Archaeological evidence
The first proof we have testifying to the reliability of the Bible is the archaeological evidence. Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference." (4) The liberals made wild claims against the Bible a hundred years ago but now they are silent. This is not true of other religions. The Mormon claim for inspiration of the Book of Mormon has been categorically condemned by the Smithsonian Institute because of the fallacies shown by archaeology; this is not so with the Bible. A.N. Sherwin-White, a respected classical historian at Oxford says, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...", although, not being a Christian, he still regarded it as being "propaganda."(5)
Historicity of Jesus
A case in point is the historicity of Jesus. Although many atheists state that Jesus never lived, He is mentioned by many contemporary, non-Christian historians. Let us look at the evidence.
Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of Jesus and the Christians:
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (6)
Other Jewish rabbinical writings, including Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, talk about Jesus and his miracles. Surprisingly to many atheists, they never denied that miracles took place, but attempted to explain them as a result of evil (7). More information about Jesus in the Talmud can be found at Jesus Christ In The Talmud.
Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the first century Christians in his Annals (a history of the Roman empire):
"Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." (8)
Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote ca. 52 A.D. attempting to give a natural explanation for the earthquake and darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. Mara Bar-Seraphon wrote a letter to his son in 73 A.D. which tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." Jesus is also mentioned by Phlegon, a first-century historian, Lucian of Samosata (in The Passing Peregrinus), and Plinius Secundus, (Pliny the Younger).
Scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus ." (9) The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (10)
Even the atheist H. G. Wells spoke of Jesus, "...one is obliged to say, "Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented." (11)
Scientific evidence
Recent scientific evidence is adding to the evidence supporting the reliability of biblical chronology from the scriptures. This study demonstrated the reliability of the Biblical record regarding the Egyptian plagues and demise of Jericho.
Drs. Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht reported in the prestigious British journal, Nature (12), that the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 (+/- 13 years) B.C. (using 14C dating). This date is significant, since several archeologists have insisted that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians between 1550 and 1300 B.C. The recent study discredits the Egyptian theory, since the date is much too old.
What is even more exciting is that scientists, using 14C dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the Aegean island of Thera, which recently has been dated to 1628 B.C. (13). This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho, at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord unleashed upon Egypt. Check out Exodus 10:
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even a darkness which may be felt." So Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky, and there was thick darkness in all the land of Egypt for three days. (Exodus 10:21-22)
Even the researchers commented that the 45 years difference in events was "rather striking."
The Bible's Uniqueness and Unity
The next proof is the Bible's uniqueness and unity. The Bible was written by over 40 authors who came from just about every walk of life conceivable, including fisherman, kings, a butler, priests, and a tax collector. The 66 books of the Bible were written over a 1,500 year span in three languages on three continents with one theme and no contradictions. C.J. Sharp captures this miracle well:
"If a fragment of stone were found in Italy, another in Asia Minor, another in Greece, another in Egypt, and on and on until sixty-six fragments had been found, and if when put together they fitted perfectly together, making a perfect statue of Venus de Milo, there is not an artist or scientist but would arrive immediately at the conclusion that there was originally a sculptor who conceived and carved the statue. The very lines and perfections would probably determine which of the great ancient artists carved the statue. Not only the unity of the Scriptures, but their lines of perfection, suggest One far above any human as the real author. That could be no one but God (14)."
Prophetic evidence
Yet another reason Christians believe God is the ultimate author of the Bible is the predictive prophecies in the Bible. This aspect is unique to the world's religions because if one predicts something will happen and it does not, they are proven to be phony. The Bible is literally filled with detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy. Here is a list of 85 Messianic prophecies along with their fulfillment through the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus:
Prophecies of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah
#Prophetic ScriptureSubjectFulfilled
1
Genesis 3:15
seed of a woman
Galatians 4:4
2
Genesis 12:3, Genesis 22:18
descendant of Abraham
Matthew 1:1, Acts 3:25
3
Genesis 17:19, Genesis 21:12
descendant of Isaac
Luke 3:34, Luke 3:23-24
4
Genesis 28:14, Numbers 24:17
descendant of Jacob
Matthew 1:2, Luke 3:23-24
5
Genesis 49:10
from the tribe of Judah
Luke 3:23-24, Luke 3:33
6
Isaiah 9:6, 11:1-5, Jeremiah 23:5-6
descendant of David
Matthew 1:1, Luke 3:23-24
7
Isaiah 11:1
descendant of Jesse
Luke 3:23-24
8
Ezekiel 37:24
will shepherd His people
Matthew 2:6
9
Isaiah 9:7
heir to the throne of David
Luke 1:32-33
10
Micah 5:2
His pre-existence
Colossians 1:17
11
Isaiah 9:6, Micah 5:1
eternal existence
John 8:58, 11, 14, Ephesians 1:3-14, Colossians 1:15-19
12
Psalm 45:6-7, Psalm 102:25-27
anointed and eternal
Hebrews 1:8-12
13
Psalm 110:1
called Lord
Matthew 22:43-45
14
Isaiah 33:22
judge
John 5:30
15
Psalm 2:6
king
Matthew 27:37
16
Micah 5:2
born in Bethlehem
Matthew 2:1, Luke 2:4-5, 7
17
Daniel 9:25
time for His birth
Matthew 2:1, 16, 19, Luke 2:1-2
18
Isaiah 7:14
to be born of a virgin
Matthew 1:18, 24, 25, Luke 1:26-27, 30-31
19
Psalm 72:9
worshipped by shepherds
Luke 2:8-15
20
Psalm 72:10
honored by great kings
Matthew 2:1-11
21
Jeremiah 31:15
slaughter of children
Matthew 2:16-18
22
Hosea 11:1
flight to Egypt
Matthew 2:14-15
23
Isaiah 40:3-5
the way prepared
Matthew 3:1,2, Luke 3:3-6
24
Malachi 3:1
preceded by a forerunner
Luke 7:24, 27
25
Malachi 4:5-6
preceded by Elijah
Matthew 11:13-14
26
Psalm 2:7, Proverbs 30:4
declared the Son of God
Matthew 3:17, Luke 1:32
27
Isaiah 9:5-6, Jeremiah 23:5-6
God's name applied to Him
Romans 10:9, Philippians 2:9-11
28
Isaiah 11:2, 61:1, Psalm 45:8
anointment of Holy Spirit
Matthew 3:16, 17, John 3:34, Acts 10:38
29
Isaiah 9:1-2
Galilean ministry
Matthew 4:13-16
30
Psalm 78:2-4
speaks in parables
Matthew 13:34-35
31
Isaiah 56:7, Jeremiah 7:11
temple becomes a house of merchandise instead of prayer
Matthew 21:13
32
Psalm 69:9
zeal of Jews for the temple instead of God
John 2:17
33
Deuteronomy 18:15, 18
a prophet
Matthew 21:11, Acts 3:20, 22
34
Isaiah 29:18, Isaiah 35:5-6
blind, deaf, and lame are healed by the Messiah
Luke 7:22, Matthew 9:35, 11:3-5
35
Isaiah 40:11, 42:2-3, Isaiah 53:7
Messiah will be meek and mild
Matthew 12:18-20, Matthew 11:29, Hebrews 4:15
36
Isaiah 53:9
Be sinless and without guile
1 Peter 2:22
37
Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 49:1
will minister to Gentiles
Matthew 12:18-21Luke 2:32
38
Isaiah 61:1-2
to bind up the brokenhearted
Luke 4:18-19
39
Isaiah 53:12, Isaiah 59:16
to intercede for the people
Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25
40
Isaiah 53:3, 8:14, 28:16, 63:3, Psalms 69:6, 118:22
rejected by His own people, the Jews
John 1:11, 7:5,48, Luke 23:18, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:6-8
41
Psalm 118:22
Be rejected by the Jewish leadership
Matthew 21:42, John 7:48
42
Psalm 2:1-2
plotted against by Jews and Gentiles alike
Acts 4:27
43
Psalm 110:4
priest after the order of Melchizedek
Hebrews 5:5-6
44
Zechariah 9:9
enter Jerusalem on donkey
Mark 11:7, 9, 11, Luke 19:35-37
45
Haggai 2:7-9, Malachi 3:1
entered the temple with authority
Matthew 21:12, Luke 2:27-38
46
Psalm 8:2
adored by infants
Matthew 21:15-16
47
Isaiah 53:1
not believed
John 12:37-38
48
Zechariah 13:7
sheep of the Shepherd scattered
Matthew 26:31, Mark 14:50
49
Psalm 41:9, 55:13-15
betrayed by a close friend
Matthew 10:4, Luke 22:47-48
50
Zechariah 11:12
betrayed for thirty pieces of silver
Matthew 26:14-15
51
Zechariah 11:13
betrayal money used to buy Potter's field
Matthew 27:6-7
52
Psalm 35:11
accused by false witnesses
Mark 14:57-58
53
Isaiah 53:7
silent to accusations
Matthew 27:12, Mark 15:4-5
54
Isaiah 50:6
spat on
Matthew 26:67, 27:30
55
Isaiah 50:6
beaten
Matthew 26:67, 27:26, 30
56
Micah 4:14
struck on cheek
Matthew 27:30
57
Isaiah 49:7, Psalm 35:19, Psalm 69:4
hated without reason
John 7:48, 15:24-25
58
Isaiah 53:5
wounded and bruised
Matthew 27:26
59
Isaiah 53:5
vicarious sacrifice
John 1:29, , 3:16, Romans 5:6, 8
60
Daniel 9:24-26
cut off, but not for Himself
Matthew 2:1, Luke 3:1, 23
61
Isaiah 53:12
crucified with malefactors
Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27-28
62
Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 22:16
pierced through hands and feet
Luke 23:33, John 20:25-27
63
Psalm 22:7-8
sneered and mocked
Matthew 27:31, Luke 23:35
64
Psalm 109:24, 25
fell under the cross
Luke 23:26
65
Psalm 69:9
was reproached
Romans 15:3
66
Psalm 38:11
friends stood afar off
Luke 23:49
67
Psalm 109:25
people shook their heads
Matthew 27:39
68
Psalm 22:17
stared upon
Luke 23:35
69
Psalm 22:16, 69:21
given vinegar for His thirst
Matthew 27:34, John 19:28-29
70
Psalm 109:4, Isaiah 53:12
prayer for His enemies
Luke 23:34
71
Psalm 22:17-18
soldiers gambled for His clothing
Matthew 27:35-36, John 19:23, 24
72
Psalm 22:1
forsaken by God
Matthew 27:46
73
Psalm 31:5
committed Himself to God
Luke 23:46
74
Exodus 12:46, Psalm 34:20
no bones broken
John 19:32, 33, 36
75
Psalm 22:14
heart broken
John 19:34
76
Zechariah 12:10
His side pierced
John 19:34
77
Amos 8:9
darkness over the land
Matthew 27:45
78
Isaiah 53:9
buried with the rich
Matthew 27:57-60
79
Psalm 3:5, 16:10, 49:15
to be resurrected
Mark 16:6-7, Acts 2:31
80
Isaiah 44:3, Joel 2:28
sent the Holy Spirit
John 20:22, Acts 2:16-17
81
Isaiah 55:3-4, Jeremiah 31:31
establishes a new covenant
Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:6-10
82
Psalm 68:18, Psalm 110:1
His ascension to God's right hand
Mark 16:19, Acts 1:9, 1 Corinthians 15:4, Ephesians 4:8, Hebrews 1:3
83
Psalm 29:11, Micah 4:3
peace proclaimed by disciples
Luke 2:14, John 14:27, Acts 10:36
84
Isaiah 60:3
"Light" to Gentiles
Acts 13:47,48
85
Isaiah 11:10, 42:1, 49:1-12
the Gentiles will seek the Messiah
Romans 11:25, 15:10
Although some of these prophecies are vague and could have been deliberately fulfilled, many are very specific: 16. Place of birth (Micah 5:2). 17. Date of birth (Daniel 9:25). 18. Manner of birth (Isaiah 7:14). 62. Manner of death (Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 22:16 prophesied before the invention of crucifixion). 76. Piercing in side (Zechariah 12:10). 78. Burial (Isaiah 53:9).
The Bible made several prophecies of the complete destruction of cities. Many of the cities it said would be rebuilt and several it claimed would never be rebuilt - The Bible is 100% accurate in both categories as archeology shows. One amazing example is the city of Tyre. Ezekiel 26:3-5,7,12,14 and (15) predict:
Nebuchadnezzar will take the city.
Other nations will participate in the fulfillment.
The city is to be made flat like the top of a rock.
It is to become a place for spreading nets.
Its stones and timber are to be laid in the sea.
The old city of Tyre will never be rebuilt.
History records that Nebuchadnezzar took the adjacent mainland settlement of Ushu ("Old Tyre"), but the people escaped out to the island city. Later, Alexander the Great took the island off the coast by taking the old city's rubble and throwing it into the sea making a land-bridge (this caused the old city to look flat like a rock due to the scraping of the material). The old city is now a place for fisherman but no city has been planted there even though there is an excellent water supply to support a major city.
Shelly, Rubel. 1990. Prepare To Answer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p 92.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18)
Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, Farrar, Strauss and Cudahy, New York, 1959, p. 31.
"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less a propaganda document than the Gospels, liable to similar distortion. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd." A. N. Sherwin-White. 1978. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Baker, Grand Rapids, p. 189.
Flavius Josephus The Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1
Matthew 12:24, Mark 3:22, Luke 11:15, Flavius Josephus The Antiquities of the Jews 18:63, Talmud P. Ta'an. 65b, and the Sanhedrin 3a
Cornelius Tacitus Annals 15.44 from The Tech Classics Archive translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb
Otto Betz. 1968. What do We Know about Jesus?, SCM Press, page 9.
Encyclopedia Britannica (Article on "Jesus")
H. G. Wells, Outline Of History.
Bruins, H.J. and J. van der Plicht. 1996. The Exodus enigma. Nature 382: 213-214.
Friedrich, W.L., P. Wagner, and H. Tauber. 1990. Thera and the Aegean World III Thera Foundation, London, UK.
Kuniholm, P.I., B. Kromer, S.W. Manning, M. Newton, C.E. Latini, and M.J. Bruce. 1996. Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC. Nature 381: 780-783.
Renfrew, C. 1996. Kings, tree rings and the old world. Nature 381: 733-734.
Shelly, Rubel. 1990. Prepare To Answer. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, p 114.
therefore, thus says the Lord God,` Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord God, `and she will become spoil for the nations.'... For thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army.... Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water.... And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the Lord have spoken," declares the Lord God.... "Then all the princes of the sea will go down from their thrones, remove their robes, and strip off their embroidered garments. They will clothe themselves with trembling; they will sit on the ground, tremble every moment, and be appalled at you." (Ezekiel 26:3-5,7,12,14,16)
Is the Bible inspired?
The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed, and that it is a divine product; and because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant. The copies of those documents are not inspired. We have copies of inspired documents.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the Old Testament as being inspired. The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will. Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, we can easily see that the Old Testament Scriptures are full of statements and phrases claiming to be the Word of God.
"Thus says the Lord" occurs 418 times in the NASB, 413 in the KJV
Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My first-born.'"
1 Kings 11:31, "And he said to Jeroboam, 'Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and give you ten tribes.'"
Isaiah 7:7, "thus says the Lord God, 'It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.'"
"God said" occurs 46 times in both the NASB and the KJV
Genesis 1:3, "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."
Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you."
Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, 'I am the Lord; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.'"
God spoke through prophets
1 Kings 14:18, "And all Israel buried him and mourned for him, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke through His servant Ahijah the prophet."
2 Sam. 24:11-12, "When David arose in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, 12 'Go and speak to David, Thus the Lord says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I may do to you."'"
Zech. 7:7, "Are not these the words which the Lord proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?"
The Spirit of the Lord spoke through people
2 Sam. 23:2, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue."
1 Kings 22:24, "Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, 'How did the Spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you?'"
2 Chron. 20:14-15, "Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the Lord to you, Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's.'"
As you can see, the Old Testament Scriptures are clearly full of statements showing the inspiration of God through the writers. The Old Testament assumes and speaks from the perspective of divine inspiration. Should we do any less?
What about the New Testament?
We see that the Old Testament is repeatedly spoken of as being inspired via the numerous references cited above but what about the New Testament? Are the New Testament books inspired as well?
The Christian church has always considered the New Testament documents to be inspired. Though in the early church there were some debates on which New Testament books to include in the Bible, God worked through the Christian church to recognize those inspired works. Therefore we now have 27 inspired books for the New Testament.
In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." This means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them.
So, we can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, that Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God, and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. In addition, since the Christian Church recognizes the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired and since we see internal claims of inspiration in the New Testament, we conclude that inspiration applies to the New Testament documents as well.
Objections
Inspiration violates free will.
A. Inspiration does not violate free will. What if the person through whom God is working has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and desires to have the Lord speak through him? Would this negate the ability of God to inerrantly speak through such a person? Would it also mean that the person has no free will if he has voluntarily subjected his will to the will of God?
B. Certainly, God has the ability to work through individuals to bring them to a place where they can record inerrant statements. Cannot God manifest himself to someone, deliver to him a verbal message, and have that person record it? Would that statement not be inspired of God?
C. Proverbs. 21:1,"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever He wishes." This verse clearly states that God is able to work through an individual's "free will" to bring about what God desires.
2. What about the numerous contradictions in the Bible?
A. It is true that there are difficulties with in the Word of God. But these are due to copying errors through the centuries. As more and more historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence is uncovered, the fewer Bible difficulties there are. Nevertheless, for an examination of answers to the alleged Bible contradictions, please see www.BibleQuery.org.
3. The manuscript evidence doesn't support inerrancy of the originals.
A. This is a subjective conclusion. The more I have studied about the ancient manuscripts, the more I have concluded that the original documents were indeed inspired and inerrant.
B. The logical implication of the statements within the Bible is that they are inerrant since they claim to be offered from God. They either are or are not inspired of God. If they are not, then their claims of speaking for God are lies.
4. Inspiration applies to scripture--not people.
A. God works sovereignly through people to inspire his documents. It is the people whom God indwells with his spirit and the people who are inspired by God to write his word. If inspiration only refers to Scripture, and somehow means that people are not themselves inspired, the Scriptures are still God-breathed and necessarily inerrant.
For more see our website www.BibleQuery.org.
Larry, I can't send any messages on Bob's website. How could I obtain a copy of that booklet Kutilek wrote in response to David Otis Fuller?
I have been asked about great preachers to listen to or read . Here are my recommendations of which all can be found at www.sermonaudio.com/ (Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas speaking, RUclips channel ruclips.net/user/CAnswersTV):
Charles Haddon Spurgeon (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=C._H._Spurgeon),
John Bunyan (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Bunyan),
A.W. Pink (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=A._W._Pink),
Martyn Lloyd-Jones (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Martyn_Lloyd-Jones),
John Calvin (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Calvin),
George Whitefield (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=George_Whitefield),
Jonathan Edwards ( www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jonathan_Edwards),
Richard Baxter (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Richard_Baxter),
Isaac Ambrose (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Isaac_Ambrose),
Stephen Charnock (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Stephen_Charnock),
Cotton Mather (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Cotton_Mather),
John Knox (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Knox),
John Foxe (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Foxe),
Martin Luther (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Martin_Luther),
John Owen (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Owen),
John Gill (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Gill),
Augustus Montague Toplady (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Augustus_Toplady)
Present day preachers:
John MacArthur (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Pastor_John_MacArthur),
Phil Johnson (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Phil_Johnson),
Ian Brown (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Rev_Ian_Brown),
James White (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._James_White),
R.C. Sproul (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._R._C._Sproul),
Albert Mohler, Jr. (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._R._Albert_Mohler,_Jr.),
Voddie Baucham (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Voddie_Baucham),
John Reisinger (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=John_Reisinger),
Paul Washer (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Paul_Washer),
Matthew McMahon (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Matthew_McMahon)
Sinclair Ferguson (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Dr._Sinclair_B._Ferguson),
Tom Nettles (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Professor_Tom_Nettles),
Iain Murray (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currpage=1&keyword=Pastor%5FIain%5FMurray&SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&sortby=added)
Curt Daniel (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?currpage=1&keyword=Dr%2E%5FCurt%5FD%2E%5FDaniel&SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&AudioOnly=false&sortby=added).
For in depth church history/ historical theology lectures hear William Cunningham (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=William_Cunningham).
For a Biblical refutation of the heretical Word-Faith Movement of the phony TV preachers, the fraudulent modern day tales of trips to heaven & hell, & the spiritual delusion of the Charismatic & Pentecostal movement hear Justin Peters (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Justin_Peters).
For Biblical creation lectures contrasted to Darwin's metaphysical theory of evolution hear Ken Ham (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Ken_Ham).
For the most famous sermon ever preached on North American soil hear Jonathan's Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" ( www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11140523305).
Death can come suddenly & unexpectedly. Hear deathbed testimonies of the damned during their last days, hours & moments before going into eternity: "Horrifying & Terrifying Death Bed Scenes Of Atheists, Apostates & Reprobates" (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=horrifying&selectsearch=).
For deception in the news media hear Peter Hammond (www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5131365140).
For the importance of the local church fellowship hear Mark Dever - which includes a free transcript (www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=912071916550).
Sermon Audio featured a talk in their "Staff Picks" section of a French lady who gave her testimony about coming to faith in Christ through watching our "CAnswersTV" RUclips videos there in France - "Testimony: Camille Jolly" (www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6414192554).
Hear my own pastor Greg Van Court (www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Greg_Van_Court) who took the place of my original pastor for 30 years Jackson Boyett who was called home to be with the Lord (hear Pastor Boyett at www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Jackson_Boyett).
There are many other great preachers listed in the "Classic Speakers" & "Reformers & Puritans" section found in the "Sermons by Speaker" section of www.sermonaudio.com/. I hope that this list of outstanding Christian preachers may be of help to you in your Christian walk. 2 Timothy 4:2-5, " Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."
I grew up Jewish, went to Hebrew school, and had to read some scripture in Hebrew for my Bar Mitzvah before I ever got saved. Later, I studied Hebrew in Israel for a year, four hours a day, six days a week. We even looked at Hebrew scripture in class, which by the way, is part of the Bagrut, the Israeli college matriculation exams, comparable to our SATs. The whole argument for the perfect translation is one based on outright ignorance.
The KJV is like a black-and-white photo. The Bible in its original languages is like a color photo. Neither is trick photography, but which gives you more information? Never mind just what is translated correctly or incorrectly, but do you realize that the puns, the acrostics, and the meanings of the names and places do not get translated into English? SO MUCH gets lost in translation. No, you don't need the original languages to have a walk with Jesus Christ, just as we used to watch black-and-white TV before color TV came out. But to ignore the languages as a preacher commanded to "study to shew thyself approved unto God"? KJV-only in its extreme forms is a cultic teaching, for it subtly keeps a person from all that the scriptures teach by locking one into a translation. This teaching could not have taken root in the old days, when students in general and theologians in particular in the US were trained in language (including foreign languages), logic, and rhetoric.
"Evangelical" Christianity (see our video "ECUMENICAL CHAOS: Going to Bed With Roman Catholic False Prophets & Idolaters" at ruclips.net/video/S76Nvi6p0lw/видео.html) is awash in bad theology (via Wesley & Finney), bad leadership (like Billy Graham & TBN), & Biblical ignorance (87% don't know the Gospel or what justificaton is) thus it seems to accept anyone who claims to be a Christian (like Romanists, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists or whoever). For proof of this see the following: "Methodist Founder & Self Proclaimed Heathen John Wesley Said He Never Believed In or Loved God" (short version) at ruclips.net/video/L_bz2RyShFI/видео.html & "JOHN WESLEY, FOUNDER OF METHODISM & AN ARMINIAN, SAID HE DID NOT LOVE GOD & WAS "AN HONEST HEATHEN" (long version) at ruclips.net/video/6Vo3ljr7ccs/видео.html; BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS: CHARLES GRANDISON FINNEY - PHONY REVIVALIST & ARCH-HERETIC at ruclips.net/video/0rUbi8AJRw4/видео.html, "Exclusive Interview with Dave Hunt about the Gospel-less Mother Teresa & Compromiser Billy Graham" at ruclips.net/video/8YtX1DirDI4/видео.html, Our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128 & "SAD STATE OF THE CHURCH: 87% OF EVANGELICAL "CHRISTIANS" DON'T KNOW WHAT GOSPEL JUSTIFICATION IS" at ruclips.net/video/im4ozy_EiR4/видео.html. See our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 119 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLFFA8D69D1B914715, our playlist "Dealing with Mormonism, the Religion of Mitt Romney & Utah" with 20 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL11CD0EE613306BB5 & our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" at ruclips.net/p/PL5316CC6F66F24283. Billy Graham's false views on universal salvation & hell distort the Gospel message & is another reason he is so popular with the world (Galatians 1:6-10, see our playlist "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 30 videos at ruclips.net/p/PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E). Please reference the websites: www.BereanBeacon & www.CWRC-RZ.org. The simple Biblical fact is that few are going to be saved from the wrath of God & hell (Luke 13:23-30, Matthew 7:13-29, etc.); see our video on this: "Unpopular Bible Doctrines #2: Many "Christians" Are Not Real; God Loves Judgment; No Forgiveness" at ruclips.net/video/iJIlReP9SFw/видео.html. All the ecumenical "love" & "harmony" in the world is not going to change the fact that God still hates false religions (Deuteronomy 28:64, 32:17, 21, Leviticus 17:7, Psalm 106:37, Jeremiah 44:3, 1 Corinthians 10:20, see also biblehub.com/deuteronomy/32-17.htm) & false doctrine (Revelation 2:6,14-15, 2 Peter 2:15, etc.). Thus following the Bible alone is the only safe path to travel (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 4:2-5, 1 Timothy 1:3-11, 6:3-5, etc.; see our video "WITHOUT "SOLA SCRIPTURA" (THE BIBLE ALONE), WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH?" at ruclips.net/video/dcMnF6tgya0/видео.html). 2 Timothy 2:15
The one thing the KJV has going for it apart from eloquence is that its errors are well known and documented, making the pitfalls of the text easy to work around. Different translations are fine as long as they are accurate and that is the problem today - most are simply liberal, heretical attempts at getting around scripture by changing it. It helps to know the original languages; but, I have to side with the late Dr. Walter Martin on my selection.
1 Timothy 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." See links: "The Sheep Need Men to be Their Pastors - The Blasphemy of Women Pastors" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=112706102442, "Can Women Be Pastors?" at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=59131749272 & "Unpopular Bible Doctrines #7: God Condemns Astrology, Witchcraft, & Sin; No Women Pastors Allowed" at ruclips.net/video/Ql_obI6wA9w/видео.html).
Question: "Women pastors / preachers? Can a woman be a pastor or preacher?"
Answer: There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to them, teaching them publicly, and exercising spiritual authority over them.
There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism-therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.
Yet another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women where chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. However, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people-the church, the body of Christ-and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.
Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14.
In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9).
The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the reason why women cannot be pastors perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for,” giving the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived” (verses 13-14). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and in the church.
The fact that Eve was deceived is also given in 1 Timothy 2:14 as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This does not mean that women are gullible or that they are all more easily deceived than men. If all women are more easily deceived, why would they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? The text simply says that women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership-in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.
Women pastors - what does the Bible say?
The only way to have a productive dialogue on the women pastors issue is to discuss it biblically. Yes, undeniably, there are men whose views on the issue are clouded by chauvinism. At the same time, there are men and women on both sides of the discussion. So, it should never be assumed that one holds a particular view due to latent chauvinism. The issue should be decided based on what the Bible teaches, not on who can make the strongest ad hominem attack.
The key passage on the women pastors issue is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which reads, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." At its face, this passage is abundantly clear. Paul restricts women from teaching or having spiritual authority over men. While it is not explicitly laid out in the text, the focus seems to be on the concept of pastoring/shepherding. A pastor's duties are primarily teaching and leading. It is this shepherding role over men that God, through Paul, restricts to men.
There are several lines of argument against this interpretation of the women pastors issue in 1 Timothy 2:11-12:
(1) Women were uneducated at that time, and therefore not qualified to be teachers. The passage nowhere mentions education. Education is not mentioned as a qualification for church leadership in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 or Titus 1:6-9. If education was a requirement, few, if any, of Jesus' disciples would have been qualified.
(2) Paul was only dealing with Artemis worship at Timothy's church in Ephesus. The context, and all of 1 Timothy for that matter, nowhere mention Artemis or the prominence of women in the worship of Artemis. If there was a problem with women usurping authority over men in the church in Ephesus, Paul would have addressed it directly.
(3) Paul is referring to husbands and wives, not men and women. Wives are not to teach or have authority over their husbands. The Greek words could refer to husbands and wives, but the context indicates otherwise. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer? Are only wives to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:8-10)? The immediate context indicates that men and women in general are the subject, not husbands and wives exclusively.
(4) There are women in the Bible who served in ways that contradict this interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe are the most commonly given examples. Ultimately, Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah are meaningless to the issue, as Paul is addressing leadership in the church. Leadership in old covenant Israel is not the subject at hand. In regards to Priscilla and Phoebe, the New Testament nowhere describes them serving in a way that contradicts 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, discipled Apollos in their home (Acts 18:26). Phoebe is simply identified as a servant/deaconess of the church (Romans 16:1).
(5) Galatians 3:28 says that men and women are equal in God's eyes. Men and women are absolutely equal in God's eyes, but that is not the issue. The subject of Galatians 3:28 is equality in Christ, equal access to the salvation Christ offers. Men and women, Jews and Gentiles, slave and free are absolutely equal in this context. Church leadership is not the subject of Galatians 3:28. Further, we cannot take one verse and use it to cancel out another verse. Both Galatians 3:28 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are absolutely true. They do not contradict each other.
If education, culture, or marriage are not the reason for the restriction on women in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, what is the reason? The answer is given in the next two verses: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived" (1 Timothy 2:13-14). The order of creation and the nature of the fall impacts spiritual leadership in the church, and in the family (see Ephesians 5:22-33). Women are not to teach or have spiritual authority over men because women were created to be "helpers" to men and because Eve was deceived into sin. Through creation, and because of the Fall, God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.
So, what exactly does this mean practically? What are women restricted from doing? The clear implication is that women are not to serve in any role which involves the authoritative spiritual teaching of men. By this definition, the role of teaching pastor/shepherd is reserved for men. This is confirmed in the two passages which deal specifically with the qualifications for church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Church leaders are described as the "husband of one wife," "a man whose children believe," and "men worthy of respect."
Rather than focusing on what ministries women are restricted from, the focus should be on the multitude of ways God calls and gifts women to serve. Women are nowhere restricted from proclaiming the gospel to the lost (Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15). Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). Women are nowhere restricted from teaching children. Women seem to excel, far beyond men, in some of the spiritual gifts and fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12; Galatians 5:22-23). Women being restricted from spiritual teaching authority over men is not a punishment. Rather, it is a refocusing to the ministries, skills, and gifts God with which blesses women.
Question: "What roles can women fill in ministry?"
Answer: Women in ministry is an issue upon which Bible-believing Christians can and do disagree. The point of separation centers on the passages of Scripture that forbid women to speak in church or "assume authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34). The disagreement is whether or not those passages were relevant only to the era in which they were penned. Some contend that, since there is neither “Jew nor Greek . . . male nor female . . . but you are all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28), women are free to pursue any field of ministry open to men. Others hold that 1 Timothy 2:12 still applies today, since the basis for the command is not cultural but universal, being rooted in the order of creation (1 Timothy 2:13-14).
First Peter 5:1-4 details the qualifications for an elder. Presbuteros is the Greek word used sixty-six times in the New Testament to indicate “seasoned male overseer.” It is the masculine form of the word. The feminine form, presbutera, is never used in reference to elders or shepherds. Based on the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, the role of an elder is interchangeable with the bishop/pastor/overseer (Titus 1:6-9; 1 Peter 5:1-3). And since, according to 1 Timothy 2:12, a woman should not “teach or exercise authority over a man,” it seems clear that the position of elders and pastors-who must be equipped to teach, lead the congregation, and oversee their spiritual growth (1 Timothy 3:2)-should be reserved for men only.
However, elder/bishop/pastor appears to be the only office reserved for men. Women have always played a significant role in the growth of the church, even being among the few who witnessed the crucifixion of Christ when most of the disciples had run away (Matthew 27:55; John 19:25). The apostle Paul held women in high regard, and in many of his letters to the churches he greeted specific women by name (Romans 16:6, 12; Colossians 4:15; Philippians 4:2-3; Philemon 1:2). Paul addresses these women as "co-workers," and they clearly served the Lord to the benefit of the whole church (Philippians 4:3; Colossians 4:15).
Offices were created in the early church to fit the needs of the body. Although many modern churches interchange the positions of elder and deacon, they were not the same office. Deacons were appointed to serve in a physical capacity as the need arose (Acts 6:2-3). There is no clear prohibition against women serving in this way. In fact, Romans 16:1 may indicate that a woman named Phoebe was a respected deaconess in the church at Rome.
There is no scriptural precedent that forbids women from also serving as worship leaders, youth ministers, or children’s directors. The only restriction is that they do not assume a role of spiritual authority over adult men. Since the concern in Scripture appears to be the issue of spiritual authority rather than function, any role that does not bestow such spiritual authority over adult men is permissible.
Question: "What does the "husband of one wife" phrase in 1 Timothy 3:2 mean? Can a divorced man serve as a pastor, elder, or deacon?"
Answer: There are at least three possible interpretations of the phrase “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2. 1) It could simply be saying that a polygamist is not qualified to be an elder, a deacon or a pastor. This is the most literal interpretation of the phrase, but seems somewhat unlikely considering that polygamy was quite rare in the time that Paul was writing. 2) The phrase could also be translated “one-woman man.” This would indicate that a bishop must be absolutely loyal to the woman he is married to. This interpretation focuses more on moral purity than marital status. 3) The phrase could also be understood to declare that in order to be an elder/deacon/pastor, a man can only have been married once, other than in the case of a remarried widower.
Interpretations 2) and 3) are the most prevalent today. Interpretation 2) seems to be the strongest, primarily because Scripture seems to allow for divorce in exceptional circumstances (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:12-16). It would also be important to differentiate between a man who was divorced and remarried before he became a Christian from a man who was divorced and remarried after becoming a Christian. An otherwise qualified man should not be excluded from church leadership because of actions he took prior to coming to know the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior. Although 1 Timothy 3:2 does not necessarily exclude a divorced or remarried man from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, there are other issues to consider.
The first qualification of an elder/deacon/pastor is to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2). If the divorce and/or remarriage results in a poor testimony for the man in the church or community, it may be the “above reproach” qualification that excludes him rather than the “husband of one wife” requirement. An elder/deacon/pastor is to be a man that the church and community can look up to as an example of Christ-likeness and godly leadership. If his divorce and/or remarriage situation detracts from this purpose, perhaps he should not serve in the position of elder/deacon/pastor. It is important to remember, though, that just because a man is disqualified from serving as an elder/deacon/pastor, he is still a valuable member of the body of Christ. Every Christian possesses spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-7) and is called to participate in edifying other believers with those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:7). A man who is disqualified from the position of elder/deacon/pastor can still teach, preach, serve, pray, worship, and play an important role in the church.
Question: "What are the responsibilities of deacons in the church?"
Answer: In the New Testament, the word usually translated "serve" is the Greek word diakoneo, which literally means "through the dirt." It refers to an attendant, a waiter, or one who ministers to another. From this word we get the English word “deacon.” We first see the word "deacon" used this way in the book of Acts. “And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2). The men who were giving themselves to feeding the flock by preaching and teaching realized that it wasn’t right for them to leave those activities to wait tables, so they found some other men who were willing to serve, and put them in place to minister to the church’s physical needs while the elders or pastors ministered to their spiritual needs. It was a better use of the resources they were given, and a better use of everyone’s gifts. It also got more people involved in serving and helping one another.
Today, for the biblical church, these roles are essentially the same. Elders and pastors are to “preach the word…reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2), and deacons are to be appointed to take care of everything else. In a modern church, this might include taking on administrative or organizational tasks, ushering, being responsible for building maintenance, or volunteering to be the church treasurer. It depends on the need and the gifts of the available men.
The responsibilities of a deacon are not clearly listed or outlined; they are assumed to be everything that does not include the duties of an elder or pastor, which is to preach, teach, and exhort. But qualifications for a deacon’s character are clearly outlined in Scripture. They are to be blameless, the husband of one wife, a good household manager, respectable, honest, not addicted to alcohol and not greedy (1 Timothy 3:8-12). According to the Word, the office of deacon is an honor and a blessing. “For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 3:13).
Is God/the Bible sexist? Sexism is generally defined as one gender having dominance over another and is usually applied to men dominating women. Because the Bible includes many references to women that appear demeaning from our contemporary context, some conclude that God and/or the Bible are sexist. Is this true?
The time period of the Old Testament included a cultural system that was patriarchal. Rather than viewing men and women as created in God's image as the Bible states (Genesis 1:27), women were typically seen as less important than men in society. This is part of fallen human nature in which people lived in ways contrary to God's design. To discover and develop the view God has given for the roles of men and women in society, we must look to Scripture.
Though in Old Testament accounts many references to women appear sexist from our modern perspective, two things must be considered before making such an accusation. First, many references in the Bible that appear sexist are simply stating actions that took place without reference to whether they were right or wrong. For example, in Judges 11 Jephthah appears to have sacrificed his own daughter to keep a vow he made to the Lord. Scripture does not state that God approved this action; it only records it as a fact of history.
Second, many references to women that appear sexist based on contemporary standards were appropriate or even better than the norm of the original cultural setting. For example, 1 Timothy 2:9 says Christian women should not adorn themselves with braided hair. Why not? In that time, braided hair was associated with the practices of immoral women in the area. Further, braided hair as understood in that cultural context was a costly, extravagant luxury. However, even in a time when women's rights were different than today, there are several biblical accounts of women being treated with dignity and respect above the level of cultural norms. For example, Jesus publicly spoke with a Samaritan woman at a well, something that even she noted as uncommon (John 4:9). Jesus also allowed women to serve among His followers (including Mary and Martha and Mary Magdalene), and even appeared first to women after His resurrection rather than to men.
Far from being sexist, Scripture presents both men and women in high regard. In the beginning, woman was made in God's image, complementing man as a helper with him. She would serve as woman, wife, mother, and various other roles.
In the Old Testament, women are seen in many influential roles. In addition to Eve, the mother of all people, Scripture speaks highly of Abraham's wife Sarah, Isaac's wife Rebekah, Deborah who served as a judge in the book of Judges, the mother of Moses, Miriam the sister of Moses, Ruth the faithful Moabite, Hannah the mother of Samuel, and Queen Esther who saved the Jewish people.
In the New Testament, women served in prominent roles as well. Mary the mother of Jesus is presented as an ideal servant of God. Four women are mentioned by name in the family lineage of Jesus. Mary's relative Elizabeth obediently raised John the Baptist. Many women also served Jesus during His ministry, with Mary Magdalene in particular noted. Several women existed among the 120 first followers of Jesus in the upper room when the church began (Acts 1-2) and led in a variety of roles within the early church. While it is unlikely that women served as apostles and did not serve as elders, some women served as prophets or at least gave prophecies. Acts 21:8-9 shares, "On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied."
Further, the New Testament speaks highly in favor of strong families and discourages divorce, something that culturally hurt women greatly at the time of writing. James 1:27 is exemplary of Scripture's instructions to care for widows, those women without husbands to provide for the needs of their family.
Though some portions of the Bible may appear sexist, the overall teaching of Scripture presents a beautiful view of women that provides much insight for today.
Question: "What does the Bible say about the form of church government (polity)?"
Answer: The Lord was very clear in His Word about how He wishes His church on earth to be organized and managed. First, Christ is the head of the church and its supreme authority (Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; Colossians 1:18). Second, the local church is to be autonomous, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). Third, the church is to be governed by spiritual leadership consisting of two main offices-elders and deacons.
“Elders” were a leading body among the Israelites since the time of Moses. We find them making political decisions (2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Samuel 17:4, 15), advising the king in later history (1 Kings 20:7), and representing the people concerning spiritual matters (Exodus 7:17; 24:1, 9; Numbers 11:16, 24-25). The early Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, used the Greek word presbuteros for “elder.” This is the same Greek word used in the New Testament that is also translated “elder.”
The New Testament refers a number of times to elders who served in the role of church leadership (Acts 14:23, 15:2, 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14) and apparently each church had more than one, as the word is usually found in the plural. The only exceptions refer to cases in which one elder is being singled out for some reason (1 Timothy 5:1, 19). In the Jerusalem church, elders were part of the leadership along with the apostles (Acts 15:2-16:4).
It seems that the position of elder was equal to the position of episkopos, translated “overseer” or “bishop” (Acts 11:30; 1 Timothy 5:17). The term “elder” may refer to the dignity of the office, while the term “bishop/overseer” describes its authority and duties (1 Peter 2:25, 5:1-4). In Philippians 1:1, Paul greets the bishops and deacons but does not mention the elders, presumably because the elders are the same as the bishops. Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:2, 8 gives the qualifications of bishops and deacons but not of elders. Titus 1:5-7 seems also to tie these two terms together.
The position of “deacon,” from diakonos, meaning “through the dirt,” was one of servant leadership to the church. Deacons are separate from elders, while having qualifications that are in many ways similar to those of elders (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Deacons assist the church in whatever is needed, as recorded in Acts chapter 6.
Concerning the word poimen, translated “pastor” in reference to a human leader of a church, it is found only once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 4:11: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.” Most associate the two terms “pastors” and “teachers” as referring to a single position, a pastor-teacher. It is likely that a pastor-teacher was the spiritual shepherd of a particular local church.
It would seem from the above passages that there was always a plurality of elders, but this does not negate God’s gifting particular elders with the teaching gifts while gifting others with the gift of administration, prayer, etc. (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11). Nor does it negate God’s calling them into a ministry in which they will use those gifts (Acts 13:1). Thus, one elder may emerge as the “pastor,” another may do the majority of visiting members because he has the gift of compassion, while another may “rule” in the sense of handling the organizational details. Many churches that are organized with a pastor and deacon board perform the functions of a plurality of elders in that they share the ministry load and work together in some decision making. In Scripture there was also much congregational input into decisions. Thus, a “dictator” leader who makes the decisions (whether called elder, or bishop, or pastor) is unscriptural (Acts 1:23, 26; 6:3, 5; 15:22, 30; 2 Corinthians 8:19). So, too, is a congregation-ruled church that does not give weight to the elders’ or church leaders’ input.
In summary, the Bible teaches a leadership consisting of a plurality of elders (bishops/overseers) along with a group of deacons who serve the church. But it is not contrary to this plurality of elders to have one of the elders serving in the major “pastoral” role. God calls some as “pastor/teachers” (even as He called some to be missionaries in Acts 13) and gives them as gifts to the church (Ephesians 4:11). Thus, a church may have many elders, but not all elders are called to serve in the pastoral role. But, as one of the elders, the pastor or “teaching elder” has no more authority in decision making than does any other elder.
Some liberal theologians, cultists, New Agers & apostates have argued that the "Jezebel spirit" allows for the Christian church to have women pastors which only shows the absurdity that they will go to disobey God's straightforward & clear commands in scripture that women pastors are not allowed. The people that would use the "Jezebel spirit" argument to allow for any kind of church leadership model whatsoever have clearly demonstrated that they themselves have the very "Jezebel" spirit they claim for their authority to have women pastors, etc. What a ridiculous position to hold since they themselves are condemned by the very argument they use.
Question: "What is the Jezebel spirit?"
Answer: There is a variety of opinions about what constitutes a Jezebel spirit, everything from sexual looseness in a woman to the teaching of false doctrine-by a man or a woman. The Bible does not mention a Jezebel spirit, although it has plenty to say about Jezebel herself.
Jezebel’s story is found in 1 and 2 Kings. She was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Tyre/Sidon and priest of the cult of Baal, a cruel, sensuous and revolting false god whose worship involved sexual degradation and lewdness. Ahab, king of Israel, married Jezebel and led the nation into Baal worship (1 Kings 16:31). Ahab and Jezebel’s reign over Israel is one of the saddest chapters in the history of God’s people.
There are two incidents in the life of Jezebel which characterize her and may define what is meant by the Jezebel spirit. One trait is her obsessive passion for domineering and controlling others, especially in the spiritual realm. When she became queen, she began a relentless campaign to rid Israel of all evidences of Jehovah worship. She ordered the extermination of all the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:4, 13) and replaced their altars with those of Baal. Her strongest enemy was Elijah, who demanded a contest on Mount Carmel between the powers of Israel’s God and the powers of Jezebel and the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18). Of course, Jehovah won, but despite hearing of the miraculous powers of Jehovah, Jezebel refused to repent and swore on her gods that she would pursue Elijah relentlessly and take his life. Her stubborn refusal to see and submit to the power of the living God would lead her to a hideous end (2 Kings 9:29-37).
The second incident involves a righteous man named Naboth who refused to sell to Ahab land adjoining the palace, rightly declaring that to sell his inheritance would be against the Lord’s command (1 Kings 21:3; Leviticus 25:23). While Ahab sulked and fumed on his bed, Jezebel taunted and ridiculed him for his weakness, then proceeded to have the innocent Naboth framed and stoned to death. Naboth’s sons were also stoned to death, so there would be no heirs, and the land would revert to the possession of the king. Such a single-minded determination to have one’s way, no matter who is destroyed in the process, is a characteristic of the Jezebel spirit.
So infamous was Jezebel’s sexual immorality and idol worship that the Lord Jesus Himself refers to her in a warning to the church at Thyatira (Revelation 2:18-29). Most likely referring to a woman in the church who influenced it the same way Jezebel influenced Israel into idolatry and sexual immorality, Jesus declares to the Thyatirans that she is not to be tolerated. Whoever this woman was, like Jezebel, she refused to repent of her immorality and her false teaching, and her fate was sealed. The Lord Jesus cast her onto a sick bed, along with those who committed idolatry with her. The end for those who succumb to a Jezebel spirit is always death and destruction, both in the physical and the spiritual sense.
Perhaps the best way to define the Jezebel spirit is to say it characterizes anyone who acts in the same manner as Jezebel did, engaging in immorality, idolatry, false teaching and unrepentant sin. To go beyond that is to engage in conjecture and can possibly lead to false accusations and divisiveness within the body of Christ.
Female based religious cults such as Seventh Day Adventism (see our playlist "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess"" with 24 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL5316CC6F66F24283), Christian Science of Mary Baker Eddy & other New Age cults (see our playlist "Dealing with Anti Christ Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 42 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL69A3047B3497590A & many of today's modern Charismatic & Pentecostal TV preachers like Joyce Meyer & Paula White (see our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 26 videos at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128) promote the type of "Jezebel spirit" & "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" the scripture warns about.
Question: "Who are the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 14-15?"
Answer: The exact origin of the Nicolaitans is unclear. Some Bible commentators believe they were a heretical sect who followed the teachings of Nicolas-whose name means “one who conquers the people”-who was possibly one of the deacons of the early church mentioned in Acts 6:5. It is possible that Nicolas became an apostate, denying the true faith and became part of a group holding "the doctrine of Balaam," who taught Israel "to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality." Clement of Alexandria says, “They abandoned themselves to pleasure like goats, leading a life of self-indulgence.” Their teaching perverted grace and replaced liberty with license.
Other commentators believe that these Nicolaitans were not so called from any man, but from the Greek word Nicolah, meaning "let us eat," as they often encouraged each other to eat things offered to idols. Whichever theory is true, it is certain that the deeds of the Nicolaitans were an abomination to Christ. They, like the Gnostics and other false teachers, abused the doctrine of grace and tried to introduce licentiousness in its place (2 Peter 2:15, 19; Jude 1:4).
According to the writings of the Early Church leaders, Nicolas taught a doctrine of compromise, implying that total separation between Christianity and the practice of occult paganism was not essential. From Early Church records, it seems apparent that this Nicolas of Antioch was so immersed in occultism, Judaism, and Christianity that he had a stomach for all of it. He had no problem intermingling these belief systems in various concoctions and saw no reason why believers couldn't continue to fellowship with those still immersed in the black magic of the Roman empire and its countless mystery cults.
Occultism was a major force that warred against the Early Church. In Ephesus, the primary pagan religion was the worship of Diana (Artemis). There were many other forms of idolatry in Ephesus, but this was the primary object of occult worship in that city. In the city of Pergamos, there were numerous dark and sinister forms of occultism, causing Pergamos to be one of the most wicked cities in the history of the ancient world. In both of these cities, believers were lambasted and persecuted fiercely by adherents of pagan religions, forced to contend with paganism on a level far beyond all other cities.
It was very hard for believers to live separately from all the activities of paganism because paganism and its religions were the center of life in these cities. Slipping in and out of paganism would have been very easy for young or weak believers to do since most of their families and friends were still pagans. A converted Gentile would have found it very difficult to stay away from all pagan influence.
It is significant that the "deeds" and "doctrines" of the Nicolaitans are only mentioned in connection with the churches in these two occultic and pagan cities. It seems that the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans was that it was alright to have one foot in both worlds and that one needn't be so strict about separation from the world in order to be a Christian. This, in fact, was the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans that Jesus "hated." It led to a weak version of Christianity that was without power and without conviction - a defeated, worldly type of Christianity.
Nicolas' deep roots in paganism may have produced in him a tolerance for occultism and paganism. Growing up in this perverted spiritual environment may have caused him to view these belief systems as not so damaging or dangerous. This wrong perception would have resulted in a very liberal viewpoint that encouraged people to stay connected to the world. This is what numerous Bible scholars believe about the Nicolaitans.
This kind of teaching would result in nothing but total defeat for its followers. When believers allow sin and compromise to be in their lives, it drains away the power in the work of the Cross and the power of the Spirit that is resident in a believer's life. This is the reason the name Nicolas is so vital to this discussion. The evil fruit of Nicolas' "doctrine" encouraged worldly participation, leading people to indulge in sin and a lowered godly standard. In this way he literally conquered the people.
God wants to make sure we understand the doctrine the Nicolaitans taught, so Balaam's actions are given as an example of their doctrine and actions. Revelation 2:14,15 says, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate."
When Balaam could not successfully cure the people of God, he used another method to destroy them. He seduced them into unbridled, sensual living by dangling the prostitutes of Moab before the men of Israel. Numbers 25:1-3 tells us, "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they [the daughters of Moab] called the people [the men of Israel] unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people [the men of Israel] did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor...."
Just as the men of Israel compromised themselves with the world and false religions, now the "doctrine" of the Nicolaitans was encouraging compromise. As you are well aware, compromise with the world always results in a weakened and powerless form of Christianity. This was the reason Jesus "hated" the "doctrine" and the "deeds" of the Nicolaitans.
Jesus commends the church of Ephesus for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans as He does (Revelation 2:6). No doubt the leaders of the Ephesian church protected their flock from these destructive heresies and kept their people from committing the same evil deeds. All sin is hateful to Christ, as it should be to His followers, as we hate men’s evil deeds, not the men themselves. For the church at Pergamos, Jesus had not commendation, but censure. Unlike the Ephesians, they actually embraced the teachings of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15). Jesus warns them that unless they repent, they are in danger of the judgment that is sure to fall on those who teach false doctrine, attack His church, and destroy His people. The sword of judgment is poised over their heads, and His patience is not limitless (Revelation 2:16; 19:15).
The lesson for us is that the church of the Lord Jesus throughout the ages has been plagued by those of the Nicolaitan spirit. The only way to recognize false teaching is to be intimately familiar with truth through the diligent study of the Word of God. See our website www.BibleQuery.org which answers over 8000 bible questions. 2 Timothy 2:15
Did Jesus go to hell & get tortured by the wrath of God & the wrath of Satan & his demons? Many heretical Charismatic & Pentecostal TV preachers like Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin & Joyce Meyer (see our series on RUclips entitled "Blasphemous Charismatic & Pentecostal Mayhem" on our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 26 videos & counting at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128) are joined by King James Only advocates like Steven L. Anderson in teaching that Jesus was tortured in hell (see videos: "Steven Anderson's King James Onlyism and Outrageous Behavior" at ruclips.net/video/qwA_oN0gEYc/видео.html, "Pastor Steven Anderson Admits He Hates Gays and They All Should Be Killed" at ruclips.net/video/TCIE0vqk6Uo/видео.html, "STEVEN ANDERSON FALSE TEACHER EXPOSED" at ruclips.net/video/MR55ZPiWS_Q/видео.html (has clips of Anderson saying that he prays that President Obama would die & go to hell), "Dr. James White Full Interview 'NWO Bible Versions'" (Anderson versus Dr. James White) at ruclips.net/video/xJrptikLjq8/видео.html & "10/28/2013 The Dividing Line - Steven Anderson, Strange Fire, David Allen" at ruclips.net/video/Y9WP8bW74u4/видео.html. Why do blasphemous Word-Faith Charismatics like Copeland & company get along in doctrine on this subject with a King James Onlyite like Anderson who says Jesus was a "burnt offering" when it comes to Jesus the Lord of Glory & God in the flesh being thrown in hell & being tortured by demons (see our video "IS JESUS GOD ALMIGHTY IN THE FLESH MEANING THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY OR IS HE SOMETHING ELSE?" at ruclips.net/video/_BlPm7M7uv8/видео.html). Is it not blasphemy to say that Jesus, who is the eternal Son the God, was cast into hell where He had His "wormy spirit" as Copeland says tortured & "stomped on" by demons? Are Charismatics & King James Only advocates such as Anderson right in teaching this mockery of Christ? Question: "Did Jesus go to hell between His death and resurrection?" Answer: There is a great deal of confusion in regards to this question. The concept that Jesus went to hell after His death on the cross comes primarily from the Apostles’ Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek equivalent of sheol is hades, which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11-15 gives a clear distinction between hades and the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades, then, is a temporary place. Many people refer to both hades and the lake of fire as “hell,” and this causes confusion. Jesus did not go to a place of torment after His death, but He did go to hades. Sheol/hades was a realm with two divisions-a place of blessing and a place of judgment (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27-31). The abodes of the saved and the lost are both generally called “hades” in the Bible. The abode of the saved is also called “Abraham’s bosom” (KJV) or “Abraham’s side” (NIV) in Luke 16:22 and “paradise” in Luke 23:43. The abode of the unsaved is called “hell” (KJV) or “Hades” (NIV) in Luke 16:23. The abodes of the saved and the lost are separated by a “great chasm” (Luke 16:26). When Jesus died, He went to the blessed side of sheol and, from there, took the believers with Him to heaven (Ephesians 4:8-10). The judgment side of sheol/hades has remained unchanged. All unbelieving dead go there awaiting their final judgment in the future. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes, according to Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20. Some of the confusion has arisen from such passages as Psalm 16:10-11 as translated in the King James Version: “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. . . . Thou wilt show me the path of life.” “Hell” is not a correct translation in this verse. A correct reading would be “the grave” or “sheol.” Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43); He did not say, “I will see you in hell.” Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to be with the blessed in sheol/hades. Unfortunately, in many versions of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.” Some have the viewpoint that Jesus went to “hell” or the suffering side of sheol/hades in order to further be punished for our sins. This idea is completely unbiblical. It was the death of Jesus on the cross that sufficiently provided for our redemption. It was His shed blood that effected our own cleansing from sin (1 John 1:7-9). As He hung there on the cross, He took the sin burden of the whole human race upon Himself. He became sin for us: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This imputation of sin helps us understand Christ’s struggle in the garden of Gethsemane with the cup of sin which would be poured out upon Him on the cross. As Jesus neared death, He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). His suffering in our place was completed. His soul/spirit went to hades (the place of the dead). Jesus did not go to “hell” or the suffering side of hades; He went to “Abraham’s side” or the blessed side of hades. Jesus’ suffering ended the moment He died. The payment for sin was paid. He then awaited the resurrection of His body and His return to glory in His ascension. Did Jesus go to hell? No. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? Yes. Question: "What is paradise? Is it different than Heaven?" Answer: Paradise is a place of blessing where the righteous go after death. The word paradise is usually used as a synonym for “heaven” (Revelation 2:7). When Jesus was dying on the cross and one of the thieves being crucified with Him asked Him for mercy, Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). Jesus knew that His death was imminent and that He would soon be in heaven with His Father. Therefore, Jesus used “paradise” as a synonym for “heaven.” The apostle Paul wrote of someone (probably himself) who “was caught up to paradise” (2 Corinthians 12:4). In this context, paradise obviously refers to heaven. There has always been a separation of believers and unbelievers after death (Luke 16:19-31). The righteous have always gone to paradise; the wicked have always gone to hell. For right now, both paradise and hell are “temporary holding places” until the day when Jesus Christ comes back to judge the world based on whether or not individuals have believed in Him. The first resurrection is of believers who will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to receive rewards based on meritorious service to Him. The second resurrection will be that of unbelievers who will stand before the Great White Throne Judgment of God. At that point, all will be sent to their eternal destination-the wicked to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15), and the righteous to a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21-22). There are cases in which paradise can refer to the Garden of Eden, such in the Douay-Rheims translation of Genesis 3:8, which speaks of Adam and Eve hiding “amidst the trees of paradise.” The context of the word will determine whether it refers to heaven or Eden. Question: "What did Jesus mean when He said, ‘Today you will be with me in paradise’?" Answer: It is common knowledge that punctuation, including commas, was introduced into the biblical manuscripts centuries after the books were completed. Therefore, commas are not authoritative. However, the placement of commas can affect our understanding of a text. For example, in Luke 23, one of the thieves crucified next to Jesus says, “‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ Jesus answered him, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise’” (verses 42-43). Commas help us keep the original phrasing intact. Was Jesus saying, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me . . .” (meaning that “today” is when the thief would be in paradise)? Or was He saying, “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me . . .” (meaning that “today” is when Jesus was speaking”)? First, we note that every major Bible translation inserts the comma before the word today. Thus, the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and RSV all agree that Jesus was speaking of the time that the thief would enter paradise. The thief would be in paradise with Jesus on that very same day. Also, Jesus prefaced His response with the phrase, “I tell you the truth” (“Verily I say unto thee” in the KJV). Many scholars have noticed that Jesus uses this as a prefix phrase when He is about to say something that should be listened to with care. Seventy-six times in the New Testament, Jesus uses the phrase. Interestingly, no one but Jesus ever says it. When the Lord says “I tell you the truth,” He is affirming that what He is about to say is worthy of special attention. It was Jesus’ way of saying, “Listen up! What I’m about to say is very important and should be listened to carefully.” We’re too used to hearing the phrase to appreciate the astonishing authority it expresses and the often solemn nature of the announcement that follows. In every one of the 76 times Christ uses this introductory phrase, He simply says it and then makes a startling statement. It would be strange indeed if, in this one instance, Jesus departed from His normal way of making His signature statement by adding the word today to it. In every case where this sort of introductory phrase is used, Greek scholars add a punctuation break after the phrase in question and before the rest of the statement. So, the translators have it right. The comma in Luke 23:43 belongs where they put it. This brings us to another question. If Jesus was buried and rose after three days and then many days later ascended to heaven, how could He have been in paradise with the thief? After Christ died, it was His body that was buried in the tomb. However, Jesus’ spirit/soul was not in the tomb. Jesus’ spirit was in the Father’s presence (Luke 23:46; Ephesians 4:8). As Jesus was hanging on the cross, paying our penalty for sin, He made a promise to a dying, repentant thief. By the grace of God and the power of Christ, that promise was kept. The thief’s sins were washed away, and his death that day was his entrance to paradise. TRANSLATION ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION Since the King James Version has many translation errors within its pages the false teaching that Jesus went to hell has arisen. Of the many English Bible translations the King James Bible had the most number of cases where the word “hell” is used in the Old Testament. It translated the Hebrew word “Sheol” as “grave” 31 times, “hell” 31 times, and “pit” 3 times. Almost without exception, all the other leading Protestant Bibles didn’t have the nerve to do what the King’s translators did, that is, take the Hebrew word “Sheol” where everyone went, according to the Old Testament teachings, and divide it into “hell,” a place for the unrighteous, and “grave” or “pit,” presumably the place for the righteous. They translated this word according to their theology, and not according to the Hebrew. Most of the translations did not have the word “hell” in any part of the Old Testament. The ones that did, have mentioned it only a handfull of times, always from the Hebrew word “Sheol” which they translated the vast majority of times “grave, underworld, etc..” Those translations that use the word “hell” are so inconsistent with it, that it is impossible to determine which Scriptures clearly refers to “hell” and which refers to “grave.” Where one translation had “hell,” another had “grave.” In other words, those translations that tried to put “hell” into the Old Testament couldn’t agree with each other as to which verses spoke of “hell” and which spoke of the “grave.” The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, “This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: “When he had tarried among them more than ten days,” they inserted the following marginal note: “or, as some copies read, ‘no more than eight or ten days.'” Unfortunately notes such as these as well as much other information contained in the Original KJV have been removed to support the “Inerrancy” fraud. Enough . . . of this sad chapter of Bible translating. If I got into the personal lives of the people involved here, it would make Hollywood jealous. Often “KJV Only” writers use smear tactics to discredit other translations. They freely use character assassination as a screen to throw people off from searching things out for themselves. If we got into the personalities of the people involved in this chapter of Bible productions , we wouldn’t have to smear. The truth would shock you! But our desire is not to dishonor anyone, our purpose is to set people free of error which is holding them in bondage to false doctrines and keeping them in bondage to men and women who use the Scriptures deceitfully. Let us go on. Compare Jonah 2:2 from various translations: Original King James Version: 1611 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction vnto the LORD, and hee heard mee; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voyce. The spelling is exactly as in the original. English has changed much since 1611. The original has a note in the margins about the word “hell.” It says “or, the grave.” Later editions took the marginal readings out to conform to the mythical standard of an “inerrant Bible.” Marginal alternative renderings showed that translators were uncertain of the meaning. This did not conform to the “inerrant” idea so the marginal readings, which sometimes were more correct than the text, were taken out in later editions. Please note if Jonah was in “hell,” as the KJV has it, then Jonah escaped from a place where, according to modern theologians, there is no escape. The New American Standard Bible: 1977 and he said, “I called out of my distress to the LORD, And He answered me. I cried for help from the depth of Sheol; Thou didst hear my voice.” The New International Version: 1973 He said: “In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me. From the depthes of the grave I called for help, and you listened to my cry. The Living Bible: 1971 “In my great trouble I cried to the Lord and he answerd me; from the depths of death I called, and Lord, you heard me!” The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (Lamsa): 1957 I cried to the Lord in my distress and he answered me; out of the depths of Sheol cried I, and thou heardest my voice. Good News Bible: 1976 “In my distress, O Lord, I called to you, and you answered me. From deep in the world of the dead I cried for help, and you heard me.” The Holy Bible an American Translation: 1976 …and said: “In my distress I called to the Lord, and He answered me. From the belly of the underworld I cried, and You heard my voice.” New Catholic Liturgical Bible: 1963 Jona 2:3 Out of my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me; from the midst of the nether world I cried for help, and you heard my voice. New Revised Standard Version: 1989 …saying, “I called to the Lord out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.” The Amplified Bible: 1965 And said, I cried out of my distress to the Lord, and He heard me; out of the belly of Sheol cried I, and You heard my voice. The New King James Version: 1985 And he said: “I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction, And He answered me. Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and You heard my voice. As we can see, after 350 years of saying Jonah was in “hell,” the New King James finally admitted he wasn’t there after all. He was in Sheol, like everyone else who has died. Many people have come out of the grave. The Bible is full of examples. King James Onlyites like Steven Anderson depend & believe that every word in the King James version is translated correctly from the original Greek & Hebrew while refusing to review reliable & documented evidence to the contrary. Thus Anderson thinks his KJV is correct in its rendition of Acts 2:31 in the KJV which says, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." The question wasn't, did Jesus go to "hell," but was "hell" whatever that might mean, an accurate translation of Acts 2:31. And the answer of course is no! The idea in view was the promise that the Messiah's body would not rot nor His soul be abandoned to Hades. This view is also presented in Psalm 16:10, "For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." Sheol is used in the OT to both refer to the grave, or place where our dead bodies are placed, and for the abode of the dead, the place where our souls go after physical death. Because of the construction, referring both to the a soul being abandoned, and to the body seeing corruption or decay, the best and most accurate translation is Hades. Jesus went to Paradise with the thief on the cross which was the paradise side of Hades & there proclaimed that He was the risen Lord, and from there returned to heaven! People like Anderson can't believe this since they are stuck with their faulty translation of this verse & thus they are lead into blasphemous heresy just like the blasphemous Charismatic Word-Faith heretics (see heretic Joyce Meyer on this at ruclips.net/video/nFG7cXOLiQQ/видео.html). Thus modern translations like the New American Standard (NASB) & the English Standard Bible (ESV) get Acts 2:31 right when they render that verse as "he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of [a]the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh [b]suffer decay. (NASB) & "he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption." (ESV) which accurately refutes the Charismatic & King James Only heretics at the same time. Did Jesus descend into Hell or Hades after he died on the cross? While on the cross for three hours, after all the sins were laid upon him Jesus cried out that God forsook him (looked away, breaking fellowship). After nearly 6 hours on the cross Jesus said that He entrusted His spirit into the Fathers hands before He died. He was totally restored before He died. His Spirit was not committed into anyone’s hands, but the Father’s. So there is no possibility of him going to hell for any reason of completing the sacrifice or punishment. He did finish on the cross everything that was needed for salvation. If Jesus went to Hell this means the Father did not accept His sacrifice, but instead rejected it. While Jesus was on the cross He promised the thief on the cross next to him that he would be with Him in paradise that very day (Luke 23:43). If the thief was not in paradise with Him but would have entered into suffering with Jesus and Jesus lied. Paradise was still in the earth called Abrahams bosom until Christ raised and went to heaven (then he took those saints with him to heaven Eph.4:8). The Bible-Acts 2:27, “For you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption.” Peter repeats himself just a few verses later in Acts 2:31: “His soul was not left in Hell (actual word is Hades), nor did his flesh did see corruption.” Notice it says neither soul nor body saw corruption (decay). If he was a sinner would mean He did see corruption. The verse quoted by Peter is Psalm 16:10. Some Bible versions use the word hell; a more accurate translation would be Sheol. In Hebrew, this encompasses the place for both the righteous and unrighteous that have died. Sheol is used 65 times in the Old Testament; rarely is it used to denote a place of torment (Luke 16:23 is one of the rare scriptures in the New Testament). The customary meaning is realm of the dead, meaning the state of death or the grave (Genesis 37:35; 1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 141:7). The New Testament Greek equivalent is Hades, and gives us a more detailed explanation of the realm of the dead. It is divided into two compartments; on one side is Abraham's bosom for the righteous, on the other side is what we call hell, which Jesus said: “was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). We find in Luke 16:23, 25 that in Hades there is a place of punishment (called Hell), and a place of rest, (Abraham’s bosom), depending on which side you are on. The context should bear it out. If Jesus went to hell for any amount of time as a punishment then the cross was insufficient for our redemption. For example in 1 Cor 15:55: "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" The Greek word for both death and Hades is thanatos (properly, an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively) In Rev. 1:18 "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.” The word for death is thanatos, Hades is haides in Greek, from 1 (as negative particle) and 1492; properly, unseen, i.e. "Hades" or the place (state) of departed souls: KJV-- grave, hell. What actually did happen to Jesus’ spirit? We know He committed His spirit to God. I Peter 3:18 states, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened (made alive) by the Spirit.” Christ died in body only (put to death in the sphere of the flesh), not the spirit. And continued to exist in spirit, just as He did before He came to earth. His existence in His earthly life ended but He continued His life existing in the spirit inside the earth, in Hades, before He resurrected. It is His flesh that was made alive again, resurrected. Christ died in body only. We can prove this by 1 Peter 3:19-20: “By whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah...” This event occurred between Christ’s death and resurrection. Jesus went to those who were believers and presented his victory at the cross. He also went to those that were incarcerated from the time of the flood. The word for “preach” is Kerysso in Greek, meaning to proclaim or announce (judgment). This is different then to evangelize and proclaim the good news of reconciliation for salvation, which is used in 1 Peter 4:6. This proclamation was directed to either the fallen angels or the human souls that died in the flood or both (Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4). Announcing to them their judgment is imminent, as he had just come from the victory on the cross. Again Hades, Sheol encompasses the whole realm of the dead and the context must bear out what it says. Thus King James Onlyites are brought into gross error by the very translation of the Bible they worship. The KJV makes other translation errors as well such as the following: 1. HOLY GHOST 2. JEHOVAH 3. JUPITER & MERCURIUS 4. MOUNT SION 5. NEW TESTAMENT 6. A FALLING AWAY 7. GREAT TRIBULATION 8. ANTICHRIST 9. IN THE HAND/FOREHEAD 10. GIANTS 11. END OF THE WORLD 12. EASTER whereas the original Greek & Hebrew actually say: 1. HOLY SPIRIT 2. YHWH 3. ZEUS & HERMES 4. MOUNT ZION 5. NEW COVENANT 6. THE FALLING AWAY 7. THE GREAT TRIBULATION 8. THE ANTICHRIST 9. ON THE HAND/FOREHEAD 10. NEPHILIM 11. END OF THE AGE 12. PASSOVER. For much more information when dealing with King James Onlyists & their heresies please go to www.kjvonly.org. Titus 1:9-16
+Dave Brown Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.
The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.
Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.
When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?
Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Recommended Resources: The King James Only Controversy by James White
Before you talk to your Pastor about the "King James Only" position he holds you need to do enough research on the issue to be prepared. This will require some study. Our ministry has 494 videos posted on RUclips organized into 19 playlists listed on the right hand side of our RUclips channel CANSWERSTV going down the page. Click on the one entitled, "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" & watch all our other "KJV Only" videos found there. Also read website KJVONLY ORG.
Isaiah 14:12 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12 “How you have fallen from heaven,
O [a]star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
Footnotes:
Isaiah 14:12 Heb Helel; i.e. shining one
So here we have in their own footnote the translation of Heb Helel - shining one... They then translate it to "morning star"..
Do we translate the Original Hebrew or Greek, of say, "cow" and then again translate it to "o' eater of grass"?? Thus twisting the personage of the subject.. Jesus himself claimed to be "the bright and morning star" Yet the translation of "shining one" is not used in this.. And you will tell me, as this verse is laid out in front of you, that this is not deliberate??
See our playlist on "King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128&feature=plcp which analyzes this movement created by a Seventh-day Adventist cultist.
Different Words in Different Bibles?
A careful student of the New Testament may notice, either through notes in a reference Bible,[2] through using different translations,[3] or by reading commentaries, that there are variations in the Greek text of the New Testament. That is to say, all of the manuscripts do not have the exact same wording at every point. These variants arose during the long period when the only way to produce a copy of any document was by hand (prior to the invention of the movable-type printing press by Johann Gutenberg in 1452). People are not capable of copying a lengthy document by hand without making mistakes, as witnessed by the fact that no two of the approximately 5,400 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that have survived are identical. They all have at least minor variants from all other manuscripts.
It is easy to get an entirely wrong idea when reading about such variants. One might conclude that there are so many of them that no one today has any idea what the apostles wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is not at all the case. The first person who made a copy of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans most certainly made errors in his copy; so did the second person; so did the third. The important point is that the second person did not make the same errors as the first person, and the third person did not make the same errors as the first two. The result of this phenomenon is that the text was entirely preserved, but not in any one particular manuscript. The New Testament was copied and distributed very rapidly in the early centuries of the Church. Over a period of time, variants acquired a geographic aspect. That is to say, groups of variants were preserved in particular locations. As a result, manuscripts of the New Testament are generally classified into three families that have geographic titles. They are the Alexandrian family, the Byzantine family, and the Western family. By studying variations in the individual manuscripts in light of their family relationships, scholars are able to determine the exact text of the New Testament with a high degree of accuracy.
While biblical scholars have been aware of transcriptional errors since the early days of the Church, most laymen have had scant knowledge of their existence. Recent controversies and modern translations have created a new awareness of these blemishes. Some Christians have become very distressed over the thought that there is anything less than perfect certainly about every single word in the Bible. They have often concluded that anyone who recognizes such uncertainly does not really believe the Bible is God’s Word. Such “unbelievers” are frequently attacked with the most intemperate language. We should note that no one living today created the variants, and that they present a certain challenge to any believer who will face them honestly. There are groups of Christians who attempt to remedy the problem by simply asserting that the King James Version of the Bible is the perfect Word of God without any flaws whatsoever. It is superior to all other versions, whether Greek or English. Although they would loudly deny this, people who take such an extreme position in essence deny that God has preserved the Bible. Their position leads to the necessary conclusion that God rather restored His Word by re-inspiring[4] the translators of the King James Version. They cannot point to any text immediately prior to the publication of the KJV in 1611 and declare that text to be the perfect Word of God. The King James translators themselves provide an insurmountable obstacle to this position by the marginal notes which they placed in the Bible. They included notes which gave 2,156 alternative translations in the Old Testament and 582 in the New. Their New Testament notes also supplied 37 variant readings.[5] Few modern printings of the KJV include these notes. Many believers also do not realize that the KJV in use today differs in thousands of particulars from either of the two original printings of 1611 (which two printings differed from each other!).
In very general terms, two manuscript traditions are reflected in the body of the text of current popular printed editions of the Greek New Testament. The text which the vast majority of New Testament scholars, both conservative and liberal, believe to be the most accurate gives weight to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. Almost all modern translations of the New Testament are based upon this form of the text. The King James was not translated from this text. It was translated essentially from a form of the New Testament based upon the Byzantine family of manuscripts. King James Only advocates consistently proclaim that the Alexandrian manuscripts are vile corruptions of the Word of God. They are wrong. This can be proven without deciding which manuscript tradition is the most accurate.[6] The Alexandrian manuscripts cannot be vile in the sense indicated by KJV Only people because the Alexandrian manuscripts are not very much different from the Byzantine manuscripts. The vast majority of differences consist of minutia. The few differences that are more substantial have no impact upon the fundamental doctrinal teachings of the New Testament. All of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith are taught with equal clarity in both the Alexandrian and Byzantine families of manuscripts.
The best way to appreciate the differences between the two families is to read and compare two printed editions of the Greek New Testament, one based upon the Alexandrian family, and one based upon the Byzantine family. Obviously, most Christians are not able to do this. The second best approach is to compare two English translations, one based upon each of the two families. Unfortunately, there are not two English translations available that lend themselves to such a comparison. One would need two translations where the English text would only differ in places where the underlying Greek text differed. English translations differ much more as a result of style and philosophy of translation than as a result of differences in the Greek texts from which they were translated.
Discussions about variations between the Byzantine family of manuscripts and the Alexandrian family frequently focus upon the most significant variants. Such an approach is naturally biased in the direction of emphasizing their differences. A more balanced approach is obtained by simply choosing a passage at random and making a comparison of the passage in the two texts. The first chapter of the Book of Romans is reproduced in the following table.[7] The King James Version has been reproduced with bold type to indicate places where the Greek text used by the New American Standard Bible differs from that used by the KJV. The nature of the difference is indicated within brackets. In examining the following material, the reader should not only note the small extent of the differences between the “Byzantine” and “Alexandrian” texts in this chapter, but also the very high percentage of complete agreement.
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus], called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for [synonym] you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. 13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit [same words, order reversed] among you also, even as among other Gentiles. 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ [absent]: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also [absent] gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves [synonym]: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication [absent], wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable [absent], unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
There are differences in the two Greek texts that are not reflected in the table. These consist mainly of differences in spelling. They could be illustrated in English by the two possible spellings of “color” verses “colour”. The first is American, the second British. Such differences occur frequently in Greek, but have no impact on the meaning of the text.
Romans 1:1. There is a variation of word order in the name “Christ Jesus” verses “Jesus Christ”. Obviously there is no difference in informational content.
Romans 1:8. There is a difference in the Greek text that is lost in translation. There are two Greek synonyms in different Greek manuscripts, either one of which can be translated “for”. The word that is not in the Greek text that was used by the King James translators occurs 333 times in other places in KJV Greek text, and is frequently translated “for” (as in Luke 4:28). Both prepositions are used so widely, with such a breadth of meaning, that it would be quite difficult to establish any significance of one over the other in this context.
Romans 1:16. The Alexandrian manuscripts do not contain the descriptive clause “of Christ” after the term “gospel”. King James Only advocates often assert that the people behind modern translations, including the people who copied the Alexandrian manuscripts, hated the Lord Jesus and often sought to remove His name and titles from the Bible. The evidence for this seems weak when one considers that the NASB contains the term “Christ” 521 times. The phrase “the gospel of Christ” occurs eight other times in the NASB. Most textual scholars believe that the Byzantine family represents a later form of the text, and that later copyists tended to smooth and clarify the text by adding explanatory wording. At any rate, the Alexandrian text of Romans is quite clear that the gospel is concerning Jesus Christ (1:1-4). Those who accuse modern translators of trying to rid the Bible of the name of Jesus never explain why the New American Standard Bible includes His name in numerous references where it is not included in the King James Version (see Luke 5:34, 7:15, John 12:1, Acts 3:16, 9:22, 10:48, 16:7, 18:25, 24:24, Romans 8:34, Galatians 5:24, Ephesians 3:6, Colossians 4:12, and Jude 25.)
Romans 1:24. There are two variants in this verse. The Alexandrian text does not contain the word “also” as the third word. Two synonyms are found for “themselves” as the last word in the verse. The different words are different ways of saying the same thing.
Romans 1:29. The vice of “fornication” is not found in some Alexandrian manuscripts in this list. The printed edition of the Greek New Testament that became the basis for the King James Version was first prepared by the famous Roman Catholic scholar and priest, Desiderius Erasmus. Upon this verse he commented, “Whenever a catalog of nouns occurs, whether you consult the Greek or Latin exemplars, there are differences. This is due to the forgetfulness of the scribes, for it is difficult to remember these kinds of things.”[8] In the Greek text the word that precedes “fornication” is very similar to the word for fornication in both spelling and pronunciation.[9] In fact, each word has seven letters, and shares six of those letters with the other word. The Scriptures were often copied by a group of scribes while someone read the text to them. It is easy to imagine some scribes writing the wrong word here, especially since either word makes good sense in the context. Later scribes, confronted with different words might well include them both to be safe. In the 25 other verses where this Greek word is present in the Greek text that underlies the KJV, it is also present in the Greek text that underlies the NASB. There is every reason to believe that either the addition or deletion of this word originally occurred by accident, with no evil intent. Both the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts clearly condemn sexual immorality in many other verses where there is no dispute about the text.
Romans 1:31. The Kings James contains the vice “implacable,” which is not listed in the New American Standard. Once again, two words that are similar in both appearance and pronunciation occur next to each other in the Greek text.[10] The two words are identical in three of their four first letters, and in their last three letters. The letters that differ in the first four letters are tau verses pi. These two letters are very similar in Greek, and it is easy to see how confusion arose.
The variants found throughout the New Testament are generally similar to the ones contained in Romans 1. They give no indication of a grand conspiracy to corrupt the Word of God, as alleged by members of the King James Only movement. Rarely is there a variant where any devious theological motive can even be imagined, let alone proved.[11] There are frequently hints in the passage as to how the different readings may have arisen, and the suggested circumstances are almost always benign. There is no question but that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. There exists 100% certainty about the exact wording of most of the text, and there is a clear limitation on the uncertainty that remains. God has preserved His word so that the possibilities are clear. For example, in Romans 1:16, the correct reading is either, “the gospel,” or “the gospel of Christ.” There is no doubt but that one of these readings is the correct one.
Finally, it should be noted that the variants have a much greater impact upon the “inspiredness” of the text than they do upon the inerrancy of the text. For example, if Paul included “fornication” in the vice list in Romans 1:29, it is part of the inspired Word of God and it should be included in all copies of the New Testament, both Greek and English. But what if someone made a mistake and did not include it in a particular copy of Romans? Would that copy of Romans cease to be the Word of God? If that were the only change, would that copy of the book cease to be without error? The answer to both questions is no. The copy would contain less information, and in that sense would have lost some of its “inspiredness”, but it would still be true in all that it said, and all of the words that remained would have indeed been inspired. The point here is that it is easy to find variants that change the informational content of a passage in some minor way, but it is quite difficult to find a variant that would clearly introduce error into the text, especially in regard to doctrinal content. Ultimately our confidence in the preserved Word of God is based upon our faith in the working of God, but we also find that our faith is not contradicted by the facts of history.
Conservative, Bible believing scholars consistently recommend the King James Version as a reliable translation of God’s Holy Word. It contains some wording that is obsolete and difficult for contemporary readers to understand without help. It also contains certain words easy to misunderstand. Three more modern translations, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the New King James Version, are widely recommended for those who desire more current language. The NASB is excellent for careful study, while the NIV is smooth and easy to read. Although the NIV is conservative, the functional equivalence approach to translation makes it difficult to use for careful word studies. The NKJV retains much of the KJV in modern language. Christians should be aware that many of the other translations range from mediocre to heretical.
[1] Copyright 1998, 2006, James Richard May. This article may be reproduced in its entirety for free distribution. All other rights are retained.
[2] In the New Scofield Reference Bible such notes appear, for example, at Matthew 6:13, Mark 9:44, 16:9, John 5:3, 7:53, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7.
[3] Those who believe that Christians should not consider alternative translations are at variance with the translators of the King James Version. The preface to the original printing of the KJV contained their opinion, “Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
[4] There are many who would deny a re-inspiration for the KJV, but whose position demands some such supernatural act.
[5] F.H.A Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) (Cambridge: 1884), p. 41.
[6] Anyone with a reading knowledge of Greek can form a reasonable opinion about the extent of the differences between printed editions of the Greek New Testament. It is a much more arduous task to form a well-founded opinion about which family of manuscripts is superior. Many people who are all too willing to express an opinion have no qualifications to do so.
[7] I collated the first eight chapters of Romans in preparation for this paper, but decided that including that much material would make the paper too tiresome for its intended purpose and would over-do the illustration. The pattern of variants in chapters 2-8 is similar to what is shown in chapter 1. I did not actually choose these chapters at random, but did so because of their doctrinal content. I was not influenced by any consideration of the sampling of variants contained in the chapters.
[8] Quoted by White, p. 58.
[9] “poneria” = “unrighteousness” confused with “porneia” = “fornication”
[10] “astorgos"” = “without natural affection” confused with “aspondos"” = “implacable”
[11] See Gordon D. Fee, “A Critique of W.N. Pickering’s The Identity of The New Testament Text”, Westminster Theological Journal, 41 (1979), pp. 404-09.
Yet someone today did in fact translate "shining one" to "morning star". I thank you for your response.. I need not read of the Who, How and Where of the Majority and Minority, Hort and Westcott, human error, did this, mean that?.. as if God can not preserve his Word, because this is in fact what the entire debate has been on.. The pretense of "hath God said?" Who is the author of confusion.. It seems to me that man has been most helpful...
NKJ Lk 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
NIV Man does not live on bread alone.
NAS Man shall not live on bread alone.
NWT Man must not live by bread alone.
KJV Mk 10:24 .how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! .
NIV how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! .
NAS how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! .
NWT how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!
I could do this all week.. this goes much further than translation and confusion... Passages, verses, words, context.. changed, twisted and omitted.. The debate will go on.. "hath God Said"
"THE SPIRIT ITSELF," OR,
THE GREATEST DEFECT IN THE KING JAMES VERSION
Any honest evaluation of the King James Version of the Bible leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. Among these are places where it certainly does not follow the reading of the original manuscripts, places where its rendering violates Greek or Hebrew grammar, and places where it is simply inaccurate, unintelligible or obscure. But of these translationally related defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun "it" to refer to the Holy Spirit.
At least four times in the King James Version of the Bible, the blessed Holy Spirit, Third Person of the Trinity, is referred to by the degrading word "it"--
John 1:32 "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."
Romans 8:16 "The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."
Romans 8:26b "The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
I Peter 1:11 "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."
(Quoted according to the KJV text as found in the Old Scofield Bible; emphasis added).
In this regard--that is, calling the Holy Spirit "it" four times instead of "he" "or "himself"--the KJV is paralleled (to my knowledge) in English Bible versions currently in use only in the Jehovah's Witnesses' corrupt New World Translation, a translation deliberately falsified to exclude all references to the Deity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Jehovah's Witness translation agrees exactly with the KJV in calling the Holy Spirit "it" in all four passages.
I checked the New King James Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the Living Bible, the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English Version, Today's English Version, the New English Bible, Moffat's translation, the Revised Standard Version (1946) and the New Revised Standard Version (1990). Only the last two--the RSV and the NRSV--imitate the KJV in any of these passages, the RSV referring to the Holy Spirit as "it" in John 1:32, while the NRSV does so in both John 1:32 and I Peter 1:11. Even the 21st Century King James Version calls the Holy Spirit "it" in only the first three references (in I Peter reading "He").
So, the KJV shares this distinction only with the NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and to a lesser extent with the RSV and NRSV translations of the apostate National Council of Churches. If it were the NIV or the NASB and not the KJV which had this feature in common with these notoriously unreliable versions, it would be shouted from the rooftops by Ruckman, Waite, Riplinger, Cloud, and the rest of the KJVO rabble. But because it is the KJV, they are silent as a tomb, and are very accommodating to this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
To call any person, but especially to call one of the Persons of the Trinity by the English pronoun "it" is degrading and debasing, and is inexcusable. The correct pronoun--the ONLY correct pronoun--in such a case is "He."
This use in the KJV of the neuter pronoun "it" to refer to a Divine Person has many defenders among the King James Only extremists. They argue that the Greek noun PNEUMA-- "Spirit"--and the pronoun AUTO used in Romans 8:16, 26 are grammatically neuter and therefore the pronoun is correctly translated by the neuter English pronoun "it." (John 1:32 and I Peter 1:11 have no pronoun in Greek, so any pronoun used in the English translation is one supplied by the translator).
Such an assertion displays an ignorance of both Greek and English grammar. While Greek does have grammatical gender, English has only natural gender; and while in Greek nouns relating to persons may be neuter (such as TEKNON and PAIDION, both words for "child", just as MAEDCHEN, "girl" in German is also grammatically neuter), it does not follow that these nouns describe "its" rather than "hes" or "shes," and when translating into English, no one would sensibly translate "the child, it. . ." or "the girl, it. . ." Yet , "the Holy Spirit, it. . ." is defended!
Not only that, but in the Old Testament, the word for "Spirit" (RUACH) is often feminine in grammatical gender (Hebrew has no neuter), such as Genesis 1:2, and Judges 6:34 and many other places. Does this mean that in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit should be called "she"? Perish the thought, yet to be consistent with their defense of the KJV's fourfold "it" in the New Testament on the basis of Greek grammatical gender, KJVOers should insist that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit should be referred to as "she."
Some who proclaim the KJV to be error-free, among them David Cloud, editor of "O Timothy," have a strange reticence in defending the KJV on this point. About four years ago, Cloud and I exchanged a number of letters on the KJV issue. In four or five consecutive letters, I specifically challenged him to tell me whether he believed the KJV was correct to call the Holy Spirit "it." He never once had the courage to address the issue. I suspect that he knew deep in his inner soul that on this point at least, the KJV was very seriously in error and was completely indefensible. If he thinks otherwise, why has he no courage to state his opinion?
I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.
The fault is not in the original text, but in the translation. When Paul uses a neuter Greek pronoun AUTO, "himself," to refer to the Holy Spirit twice in Romans 8 (no pronoun is used in John 1:32 or I Peter 1:11), he does so for grammatical regularity. In Greek, as in Spanish, French, German, Latin, Romanian, and many other languages, pronouns, like adjectives and the definite article, must agree with the noun they modify in gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), number (singular, dual, or plural) and case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative). By using AUTO, the neuter, instead of the masculine form AUTOS, Paul was merely conforming to standard Greek grammar.
By way of comparison, John--a native speaker of Aramaic (a sister language to Hebrew in which the word for "spirit" is also feminine)--occasionally uses the masculine demonstrative pronoun EKEINOS when referring to the Holy Spirit (John 14:25; 15:26; 16:8); once he uses the masculine pronoun AUTON (John16:7). Of course, in each case, John is quoting Jesus, who may have been speaking in Greek, or who may have spoken in Aramaic, which John, under the Holy Spirit's unerring guidance, translated into Greek. John uses masculine pronouns ad sensum, in "violation" of standard Greek practice, to refer to the Holy Spirit, a Divine Person.
How did this practice of calling the Holy Spirit "it" enter the KJV? Emory H. Bancroft, long-time Professor of Doctrine and Systematic Theology at the Baptist Bible Seminary in Johnson City, New York, wrote what has been one of the most widely-used Bible college theology textbooks, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: SYSTEMATIC AND BIBLICAL (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1961. Revised edition]). It was, for example, one of two standard theology textbooks at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri during my student days there, as well as for many years both before and after. Bancroft directly addresses the issue of the KJV's reference to the Holy Spirit as "it" and offers some very serious criticisms of the theology of the KJV translators:
"In the Authorized Version, the personal pronoun which refers to the Holy Spirit is translated by the neuter 'it,' as an index of the trend of thought among Christian people of that time. Men prayed of the Spirit as of 'it,' an influence, an energy, proving that the Socinian teaching had chilled the zeal and enthusiasm of the Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit. A striking evidence of the revival of the truth concerning the personality of the Holy Spirit is the reintroduction into the revised version of the masculine pronoun wherever the Spirit is referred to." (pp. 147-148)
If Bancroft is correct, the charge of heresy on the part of the at least some of the KJV translators cannot be denied. This would be yet one more in the list of their heresies, false doctrines and false practices, including baptismal regeneration and salvation only in the church, the union of church and state, infant baptism, persecution of dissent, hierarchical church government, a special priest class, clerical vestments, the "real presence" of Christ in the Lord's supper, amillennialism, and more. If KJVO advocates were to judge the theology of the KJV translators (and Erasmus) as severely as they judge the theology of Westcott and Hort, they would never touch the KJV (or the textus receptus) again.
It is to be noted that the KJV was at least in part, but only in part, following the practice of earlier English versions. What follows are the results of a search of editions available to me.
In John 1:32, Tyndale's first edition (1526) read "it" but his revised edition (1534) did not, nor did the revisions of Cranmer (1539) or Coverdale (1540), which simply supplied no pronoun in translation. The Geneva New Testament of 1557 did not read "it," but the editions of 1560, 1562 and 1607 did. Likewise, the Bishops' Bible edition of 1602 had "it." The Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament of 1582 reads "he."
In Romans 8:16, Tyndale (both 1526 and 1534) has "the same sprete" [that is, spirit] as do Cranmer and Coverdale. The Geneva reads "the which selfe same Sprite" [that is, Spirit] in the 1557 edition, but "the same Spirit" in the editions of 1560, 1562, and 1607. The Bishop's edition of 1602 has "The Spirit it selfe," while the Rheims has "the Spirit him selfe."
At Romans 8:26, Tyndale (both editions) plus Cranmer and Coverdale have "the sprete." Geneva 1557 has "the Sprite," while the other three Geneva editions have "the Spirit it self(e)," as does the Bishops' Bible. Rheims reads "him self."
In I Peter 1:11, none of the versions examined offered any precedent for the KJV translation "it," all reading otherwise.
In summary, the KJV had no agreement with Tyndale 1534, Cranmer, Coverdale, Geneva 1557, and Rheims in any of the four passages (0:4); with Tyndale 1526, the agreement was only once (1:4); with the Geneva 1560, 1560, 1607, agreement was only half (2:4); with the Bishops', agreement was in three-fourths (3:4). The KJV calls the Holy Spirit "it" more than any of the translations before it.
Some might try to justify or excuse the KJV translators by saying that they were merely following their predecessors. This is hardly an excuse. In truth, fully half of these English translations examined never called the Holy Spirit "it," and another one--Tyndale's first edition--did so just once, a reading which he subsequently changed in his revised edition. Only the Bishops' Bible comes close to setting a pattern followed by the KJV. Yet, the KJV outdid even the Bishops' by adding another passage--I Peter 1:11--where the Holy Spirit is addressed by the degrading pronoun "it."
Furthermore, it was the duty and responsibility of the KJV translators to carefully examine prior translations and correct their defects. This they utterly failed to do in these passages, leaving the defective rendering of the Bishops' Bible intact in three places and introducing an error in a fourth. Whatever their predecessors did or did not read cannot excuse the KJV men on this point.
The KJV by its four-fold reference to the Holy Spirit as "it" set a precedent that had and even yet has a long and pernicious life. Error dies hard, especially once entrenched. When later scholars set to revise the KJV, they often left these four passages uncorrected. Henry Alford's mid-19th century revised English version left the KJV uncorrected in all four verses. The American Bible Union (Baptist) revised New Testament of 1865 (2nd edition, 1867) also let this old error stand uncorrected in all four verses. Even the later revision of this translation done by Henry Weston, Alvah Hovey and John Broadus (published ca. 1889) leaves "it" in John 1:32, though Romans 8:16, 26 read "himself" and I Peter 1:11 has "he."
The English Revised Version of 1881 retains the KJV's "it" in John 1:32 and I Peter 1:11, but has "himself" in both Romans 8 verses. Its American "cousin," the American Standard Version follows the same pattern, but also introduces a new error in this regard. At Acts 8:16, contrary to all previous English versions I have examined which read "he," the ASV has, "for as yet it [that is, the Holy Spirit] was fallen upon none of them." While correcting the errors in Romans 8:16, 26, the ASV introduces one here, for which it could and should be blamed. The RSV of 1946 follows the ASV at this point, as does the New World Translation.
It is only when we arrive at the twentieth century (aside from the Catholic Rheims translation of 1582) do we find English versions which consistently and correctly identify the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit of God, as "He" rather than the blatantly erroneous "it" and "itself" so-long propagated by the KJV. It is indeed a very telling fact that only the KJV and the Arian New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to disseminate this error in our day.
Those who imagine that the KJV, unlike any translation of the Bible before or since in any language, is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter: are the Arians, Socinians and Jehovah's Witnesses right? Is the Holy Spirit correctly and properly spoken of as "it" rather than "He"? Only if these heretical groups are right can the KJV be deemed infallibly correct in its translation of John 1:32, Romans 8:16, 26, and I Peter 1:11.
"King James Onlyites" & "Ruckmanites" (of Peter S. Ruckman) make a big deal about how other Bible translations are inferior or in some cases "Satanic" (as per Gail Riplinger's "New Age Bible Versions" & her supporters such as Texe Marrs - see our video response to this, copy & paste "New Age Bible Versions" & the "King James Only" Controversy - A Refutation" in the RUclips search box). But why hasn't this controversy been going on in the Christian church over the last 400 years since the KJV came out in 1611? Why does this controversy seem to be restricted only to the middle 1900s & beyond? There is a reason for this. The "King James Only" theory was started by a Seventh-Day Adventist & others then bought into it (much like any new cultic movement).
BENJAMIN WILKINSON. In the investigation of King-James-Version-Onlyism, (KJVO) just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (d.1968), and then through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, he wrote "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," a book of several hundred pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt because it was awash in a vast ocean of unmitigated error).
In that book, Wilkinson attacked the Westcott Hort Greek text, in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious ad Hominem method).
He also expresses a strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath keeping (Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27).
Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12:6,7 specifically to the KJV as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse six (when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of verse five).
Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type (all of which is demonstrably false). Thus Wilkinson, is the first generation of KJV Onlyism.
J.J. RAY. Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been had its errors died with him!), until 1955 when J.J. Ray, who is self-described as a "business manager, missionary, and Bible teacher" published a little volume, "God Wrote Only One Bible" (Ray is apparently still living, but we can find out nothing about him, and he refuses to reply to certified letters; if anyone can supply specific information about this man, we would greatly appreciate it). In his book, Ray heavily plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements.
DAVID OTIS FULLER. The other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was David Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor. Fuller must be counted as part of the third generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the dedication of Counterfeit of Genuine (1975), Ray's book "God Wrote Only One Bible" were also repeatedly noted on pp. 2-4 of "Which Bible?" Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for more information; Ray directs Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson, is lead astray, then reprints Wilkinson in "Which Bible?"
In 1970, Fuller issued "Which Bible?", which was in its 5th edition by 1975 and contained 350 pages. Of those pages, almost half were taken from Wilkinson's "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," with some editing, first to conceal from view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst of his errors.
According to D.A. Waite, long associated with Fuller in KJVO matters, Fuller knew full-well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately concealed that fact from the reader, and even from the publisher [see note at end of article], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't understand." For much more see the website www.KJVONLY.ORG. See also our playlist on "King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128&feature=plcp.
Here is another video on the history and transmission of the Bible: ruclips.net/video/EAxjdWE_pEg/видео.html
the guest has some resemblance to Clarke Kent from superman in my opinion.
Try writing Bob Ross at P O Box 66, Pasadena, TX 77501. His son Mike recently passed away who ran the website & Bob's eye sight is getting bad enough where he can hardly read a computer screen. He might be able to read a letter. You can try calling his store at (713) 477-2329 as well. You could also try contacting Doug Kutilek himself through his website KJVONLY ORG (the link should be in the description text of this video - click on the "show more" to see the entire text. Blessings in Christ.
Who was King James? Was he a homosexual? Did he burn a Baptist at the stake?
According to Wikipedia: "James VI and I (19 June 1566 - 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death. The kingdoms of Scotland and England were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union.
James was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and a great-great-grandson of Henry VII, King of England and Lord of Ireland (through both his parents), uniquely positioning him to eventually accede to all three thrones. James succeeded to the Scottish throne at the age of thirteen months, after his mother Mary was compelled to abdicate in his favour. Four different regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1583. In 1603, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England and Ireland, Elizabeth I, who died without issue.[1] He continued to reign in all three kingdoms for 22 years, a period known as the Jacobean era after him, until his death in 1625 at the age of 58. After the Union of the Crowns, he based himself in England (the largest of the three realms) from 1603, only returning to Scotland once in 1617, and styled himself "King of Great Britain and Ireland".[2] He was a major advocate of a single parliament for both England and Scotland. In his reign, the Plantation of Ulster and British colonisation of the Americas began.
At 57 years and 246 days, James's reign in Scotland was longer than those of any of his predecessors. He achieved most of his aims in Scotland but faced great difficulties in England, including the Gunpowder Plot in 1605 and repeated conflicts with the English Parliament. Under James, the "Golden Age" of Elizabethan literature and drama continued, with writers such as William Shakespeare, John Donne, Ben Jonson, and Sir Francis Bacon contributing to a flourishing literary culture.[3] James himself was a talented scholar, the author of works such as Daemonologie (1597), True Law of Free Monarchies (1598), and Basilikon Doron (1599). He sponsored the translation of the Bible that was named after him: the Authorised King James Version.[4] Sir Anthony Weldon claimed that James had been termed "the wisest fool in Christendom", an epithet associated with his character ever since.[5] Since the latter half of the 20th century, historians have tended to revise James's reputation and treat him as a serious and thoughtful monarch.[6]"
For more on the homosexuality of King James see this link - www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/kingjames.htm.
"KING JAMES BURNED A BAPTIST PREACHER AT THE STAKE IN 1611!
By
Bob Ross (from www.KJVOnly.org)
RUCKMAN PAINTS KING JAMES AS "GODLY" DESPITE BURNING A BAPTIST
Someone recently sent a piece of propaganda, originating from a Pensacola, Florida fruitcake factory known as the "Bible Believers Bookstore," operated under the "Possel and Profit of the Posseltolic Faith and Order," Peter Ruckman. The item is a circular on "King James The VI of Scotland & The I of England Unjustly Accused?" and seeks to promote a book by that title which became available September 17, 1996 from "the Bookstore" (from which Ruckman "gets no royalties," and from which he claims "King James Bible believers" have been stealing for "years").
This circular is just another "example" of Ruckman's KJVO entrepeneurism, whereby he seduces money from his disciples who get their "fixes" from his palabberous materials.
A few years ago, when I read Ruckman's "Christian Handbook of Biblical Scholarship," I was surprised to read "that the people who objected to the Authorized Version were Puritans who BURNED 'HERETICS' AT THE STAKE" [see "Church History, Vol. I, page 365"] (page 169, 170).
I thought perhaps I had "missed something" in my study of English history, so I consulted Ruckman's "Church History" to see what was presented in Volume I, page 365. For the life of me, I could not even find the word "Puritan" on the page! Neither could I find anything about "heretics" being burned, nor about someone's "objecting" to the AV! When I was at the 1995 Christian Booksellers Convention, I asked Bob Neidlinger, who was in-charge of Ruckman's booth, about this matter, but he couldn't find any more than I found. Bob suggested it might have been a "typographical error."
But the problem with Bob's suggestion is this: the ONLY PERSON who had "authority" in England to burn anyone in the early 1600's was KING JAMES! The Puritans couldn't have burned anyone if they had wanted to! Ruckman's reference contained nothing about Puritans' burning anyone because he had nothing he could write. It was simply a "ploy" to make his reader think he had elsewhere "documented" the charge.
Not only did James have the only authority to burn people, he did that very thing. In 1611, the year the "King James Version of the Bible" was published, King James burned a BAPTIST by the name of EDWARD WIGHTMAN at Litchfield. This fact of history is recorded in many Baptist histories, the first being that of THOMAS CROSBY, who authored the first history of English Baptists. Crosby was a member of John Gill's church, the church later pastored in the latter 1800's by C. H. Spurgeon.
I herewith quote from Crosby: "The other one [burned] was Edward Wightman, A BAPTIST, of the town of Burton upon Trent, who on the 14th day of December [1610] was convicted of diverse heresies before the bishop of Coventry and Litchfield; and being delivered up to the secular power, was BURNT at Litchfield the 11th of April following." (Vol. 1, pages 108, 109).
This is the King who is the subject of the book which Ruckman is now peddling at his "Bookstore," and it was written in defense of King James' "Godly character," a stated in the circular. I see nothing in the folder which indicates that the author, Stephen A. Coston Sr., offers a defense of the King's burning a Baptist yet still is able to sustain his "Godly character."
Not only this, history says those "Puritans" were chased out of England, and the King bragged about his doing it. They went to Holland, and from there many of them came to settle in what is now New England. I also see no reference to this "godly" action by King James in Ruckman's circular.
From time to time, I have read Ruckman's embellishments of King James, but I have yet to read anything from him about the King's burning of Baptists and others during his reign. Ruckman does say in one of his books that King James was "more spiritual than any Pope" -- whatever that amounts to! ("Church History," Vol. II, p. 396).
I am not mentioning King James' burning people to reflect on the King James Bible; I am simply demonstrating that an effort to accredit the King James Bible by embellishing King James is a "non sequitur," or simply wasted effort. In fact, it might be more favorable to the KJV to never mention the "character" of King James. We have it on "good authority" (even Ruckman himself) that "A man who would burn a man at the stake for disagreeing with him doctrinally is not a man to be emulated or followed or admired" ("Hyper-Calvinism," p. 1).
Ruckman said that about John Calvin, and if Ruckman says that about Calvin, why wouldn't it also apply to King James?
***********************************************************************
No. 214
BAPTIST MARTYR, BURNED BY KING JAMES, REMEMBERED ON ANNIVERSARY
I just received the following "forwarded message" from a well-known minister who is on my list, and this item is especially appropriate at this time -- especially in the light of the fact that a "Baptist" church in North Carolina is having Stephen Coston speak at a Conference in an effort to embellish the name of King James I of England to naive Baptists, as if to enhance the King James Bible. Coston has a despicable article on a website, and he lists all of the allegations made against EDWARD WIGHTMAN -- every single one of them purely of a "religious" nature, and not a single one of them being truly "criminal." Wightman was burned for not endorsing the religion of King James and the Pedobaptist State-Church of England. Despite this act of intolerance, Coston defends King James as a man of "godly character," and a Baptist church in Mt. Airy, North Carolina is having Coston to present his embellishment of James at an upcoming Bible Conference.
After reading the following article, the "Baptist" church in North Carolina should repent in sackcloth and ashes for embellishing the King who burned a Baptist at the stake.
__________________________________________
Subj: Saturday, April 11, 1612
Date: 98-04-11 12:04:33 EDT
From: whitmanf@ats.it(Frederick Whitman)
To: info@bmm.org(Baptist Mid-Missions)
Dear E-mail Prayer-warriors,
Today, Saturday April 11 is a very special one in my family history and I want to share it with you. It won't make the front pages of today's newspapers and I know that it is no reason to be proud because as Paul said, "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised...to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." I Corinthians 1:27-29
In 17th century England, there was a tailor by the name of Edward Wightman, of whom I am a direct descendent, who converted from the Anglican Church [Church of England] to faith in Christ and the Anabaptist Movement. The first of March 1611, he was brought before King James I [Head of the Church of England], not for an autographed copy of the original KJV Bible, but to defend his faith as an Anabaptist.
He was then arrested and condemned as a heretic for, among other things, being an Anabaptist. The death sentence was read in the Litchfield Cathedral on the 14th of December. He was condemned to the stake, to be burned alive.
The day of his execution, "Market Square" was full of spectators as Wightman was brought from the prison and chained to the stake. While his religious murderers were gathering burning embers around his feet, the silence of such a solemn moment was pierced by a blood-curdling cry.
The condemned heretic was pleading mercy and pledging to recant, to deny his Anabaptist position, to deny his faith, if only they would get him out of the flames! He had previously stated very eloquently that the baptism of babies was an abominable act and that Baptism and the Lord's Table should not be practiced as done by the Anglican Church. However, in this terrible moment he was ready to deny it all.
The penitent heretic was pulled out of the flames, with those who freed him actually being burned by the flames too, and then led back to the prison. After two weeks Wightman was brought again before the court to sign his denial papers. This time, however, having spent two weeks in the anguished soul-searching of the Apostle Peter, he was ready to stand firm for his faith, refusing to sign the denial. The court secretary wrote that he actually was "more blasphemous and audacious" than before.
Wightman's condemnation was renewed and he was taken again to "Market Square", where he was again chained to the stake. This time there wasn't a hint of wanting to recant. Edward Wightman was burned alive on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter, April 11, 1612.
The martyr left his widow, Frances, with four children, Priscilla, 15, John, 13, Anna, 3 and Samuel who was 8 months old. The family then moved to London and the next generation left for the American colonies.
Valentine Wightman started the first Baptist church in Connecticut as well as in New York. Valentine's son Timothy followed in his dad's footsteps pastoring churches in Connecticut, organizing the second Baptist Church in that colony. Valentine's grandson John Gano* [see note] pastored in the same state, organizing the Third Baptist Church of Groton.
May God grant each of us the courage to leave an inheritance like this to our children and the children of our children. Have a great Easter as you celebrate our Lord's Resurrection. There is reason to rejoice!
*************************************
Yours for Christ in Italy,
*************************************
Fred & Rachel Whitman
Jonathan, Jeremy, Joshua & Elizabeth
*************************************
Baptist Mid-Missions, Italy
C.P. 34
06132 San Sisto (PG)
Italy
*************************************
Ph./Fx. -- (075) 528-9287
E-Mail -- whitmanf@ats.it
*************************************
No. 220
MORE ABOUT THE BURNING OF EDWARD WIGHTMAN BY KING JAMES
In an article which was sent to me as a "forward," and which I forwarded to my own list on April 18, the following statement was made: Valentine Wightman started the first Baptist church in Connecticut as well as in New York. Valentine's son Timothy followed in his dad's footsteps pastoring churches in Connecticut, organizing the second Baptist Church in that colony. Valentine's grandson John Gano* [see note] pastored in the same state, organizing the Third Baptist Church of Groton.
In my "note," I referred to information about "John Gano," but it has been called to my attention that I was mistaken in my "note," since the "John Gano" in the above paragraph was actually a reference to "John Gano Wightman," who evidently was "named-after" the John Gano who lived in the 1700's and baptized George Washington. In checking on this in some of the historical sources, I also came across some rather interesting material in regard to the burning of Edward Wightman during the reign of King James; those of you who are interested in Christian history might like to read the following.
Of particulate interest is the presentation of the martyrdom of Edward Wightman, written by David Benedict, the well-known Baptist historian of the early 1800's, who spent about two years traveling nearly seven thousand miles in the eastern and southern states of this continent, collecting materials for his historical work. Here is what Benedict wrote about the burning of Wightman and other persecution against the "non-conformists" who differed with the "Church of England" during the reign of King James:
The last man who was put to death in England for religion was a Baptist. His name was Edward Wightman, and is supposed to be the progenitor of a large family of that name in America, many of whom have been members of different Baptist churches in Rhode Island, and the neighboring States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, and not a few of them worthy ministers in our churches.
Mr. Wightman was of the town of Burton upon Trent, he was convicted of divers heresies before the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, and being delivered over to the secular power, was burnt at Litchfield, April 11th, 1612.
This poor man was accused by his persecutors with Arianism, Anabaptism, and almost every other heretical ism, that ever infected the Christian world. He was condemned for holding the wicked heresies of the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Valentinians, Arians, Macedonians, of Simon Magus, Manes, Manicheus, Photinus, and of the Anabaptists, and of other heretical, execrable, and unheard of opinions.
"If," says [Thomas] Crosby, " Wightman really held all the opinions laid to his charge, he must have been either an idiot or a madman, and ought to have had the prayers of his persecutors rather than been put to a cruel death."
From the death of William Sawtre, who was burnt in London, to the time that Edward Wightman perished in the flames at Litchfield, was a period of two hundred and twelve years. We have very good grounds for believing that Sawtre was a Baptist, we are sure that Wightman was, and thus it appears that the Baptists have had the honour of leading the van, and bringing up the rear, of that part of the noble army of English martyrs, who have laid down their lives at the stake.
It is now about two hundred years [published in 1813] since Wightman, with his enormous load of heresies, was committed to the purifying flames. Almost half of this time, the Baptists in England were, for the most part, in an uncertain state; what earthly enjoyments they possessed were held by a precarious tenure, and persecution and distress were their common lot. They had indeed some short intervals of repose, but these were succeeded by tempestuous seasons, and the cup of affliction was dealt out to them by their enemies in plenteous measure.
We have observed that Edward Wightman was the last man who suffered death for religion in England. But this statement needs some qualification. He was indeed the last who suffered death for conscience's sake by a direct course of law; but multitudes since him, both Baptists and others, have died in prisons, and came by their ends by the various methods of legal persecutions, and lawless outrage, with which implacable adversaries pursued them. Thousands have suffered by fines, scourging, and imprisonment, been driven to exile, starvation, and wretchedness, by a protestant power, which professed to have separated from the mother of harlots, and to have renounced the works of darkness. Of many of these sufferers we have obtained
some information, but the history of many others must remain unknown, until that tremendous day, when the righteous Judge of the universe shall make INQUISITION FOR BLOOD. [A General History of the Baptist Denomination by David Benedict, Vol. 1, pages 196, 197].
In view of both the martyrdom of Wightman and the other physical persecutions enacted during the reign of King James, it is incredible that people such as Stephen Coston, Peter Ruckman, Larry Phillips, Gail Riplinger, and Tracy Broadhurst, are involved in a "campaign" to in effect "beatify" King James. Despite James' record as "Head" of the Church-State in England, in which position he ordered the burning of men at the stake and approved other acts of cruelty against the "non-conformists" for nothing more "criminal" than holding religious views ["heresies"] which conflicted with the views of the "Church of England," the estranged "daughter" of the Roman Catholic Church, these modern "defenders" of James seem to think that they embellish the "King James Bible" by embellishing James himself.
For more see our playlist "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" at ruclips.net/p/PL2CDA855486B09128. The following website refutes the modern day King James Only heresy - www.KJVOnly.org.
Matthew 7:15
Like