Month: May 2023

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 20.2

What about Sinaiticus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re returning to this one today. The second great codex to discuss is Sinaiticus. As always, the source material can be found here.

“The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr. Tichendorf” [S5P61].

“Mr. Tischendorf.” No mention from Johnson that Tischendorf was a great scholar in his day. From this writing, you’d think someone just wandering through found it. Tischendorf was on a search for manuscripts.

“The date of its writing is placed at around 340 A.D. …” [S4P20].

“The Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable, proven by examining the manuscript itself. John Burgon spent years examining every available manuscript of the New Testament” [S5P61]. He writes about Sinaiticus:

“On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while … a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause proceeding, [this] occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament” [S5P61].

Even if this is granted, it does not prove it is unreliable. This happens with many copies we have of various parts of the New Testament. This was in an age when copyists could be done by non-professionals as well and there were no erasers to erase mistakes.

“On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions done by TEN different people” [S5P61].

Dr. Scrivener agrees with John Burgon. Dr. Scrivener says (of Codex Sinaiticus):

“… it is clear that this document was corrected by ten different scribes at different periods”. He tells of “the occurrence of so many different styles of handwriting, apparently due to penmen removed from each other by centuries, which deform by their corrections every page of this venerable looking document” [S2P307-308].

Yet somehow the rest of the scholarly world still considers it valuable. Of course, Johnson never gives us their side of the case. Johnson is the less informed counterpart to Bart Ehrman sadly.

And Dr. M. Reynolds tells us:

“Tischendorf, the discoverer of the Sinaiticus manuscript noted at least 12,000 changes which had been made … by OTHERS than the original copyist” [S17P3].

It would be good to know where Tischendorf said on this himself, but under no circumstances will Johnson cite primary sources.

G.A. Riplinger cites some ‘advanced’ analysis of Sinaiticus:

“[With] more recent detailed scrutiny of the manuscript … by the use of [the] ultra-violet lamp, Milne and Skeat discovered that the original reading in the manuscript was erased … [in places]” [S3P552].

In Sinaiticus: “There are about 9,000 changes from … the Majority … Text, amounting to one difference in every verse. It omits some 4,000 words from the Gospels, adds 1,000, repositions 2,000 and alters another 1,000. It has approximately 1,500 readings that DO NOT APPEAR IN ANY OTHER MANUSCRIPT …” [S3P552-553].

I still have no reason to take Riplinger seriously in anything she says and it is a shame that Johnson does.

“Philip Mauro was a brilliant lawyer who was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in April 1892. He wrote a book called ‘Which Version’ in the early 1900’s” [S5P61]. He writes concerning Sinaiticus …

“From these facts, therefore, we deduce: … the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in every part of it, was fully recognized by those who were best acquainted with it, and … it was finally cast aside as WORTHLESS for any practical purpose” [S5P61].

Except it wasn’t. It was used by scholars then. It is used by them now. All of this still assumes that there is a perfect manuscript also. Thus, any differences from the KJV manuscripts show the other manuscripts are in error.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Why The Gospel?

What do I think of Matthew Bates’s newest book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Matthew Bates is a friend of mine and when he got in touch with me about his newest book, I was happy to help out. Something I really like about Bates is that I see him as a scholar for the people. He is writing books that many people see as directly relevant to their own lives. He takes the work that is done in the academy and breaks it down for the average person in the pew.

In this one, he’s talking about why people should come to the gospel. It’s a question many of us don’t think about and if we do, we give the usual answer. The forgiveness of sins. That is the good news. Right?

When I hear people doing evangelism, I hear this kind of thing often. What’s the goal of Christianity? To get to Heaven. I remember a pastor who used to say the same prayer at the conclusion of every sermon so much that I had it memorized.

“Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and without you, I cannot get to Heaven, so come into my heart and be Lord of my life from this day forward. Thank you for my salvation. Amen.”

Nothing about repentance. Nothing about the resurrection. If anything, this is just saying Jesus is my ticket to Heaven so God, do this for me.

Definitely, nothing about Jesus being a king.

As I read that again I thought, imagine asking someone out and using something similar. Approach them and tell them you want them to be with you for all the things they can do for you. Imagine going to a job interview and telling them they should hire you for all the things you want them to do for you. Wouldn’t really work would it?

Bates’s contention is that we have to have Jesus as a king. On location 164 (All future references with a number will assume location from now on) of the Kindle form, he says we should never think of Christ as a name. It is not. This is something Islam and Mormonism miss as well seeing as they regularly say Jesus is the Messiah, but they don’t grasp His being a king. When we say Jesus is the Christ, we mean Jesus is the king.

He says on 385 that faith is not just mental acceptance, but it has an outward focus as well. It is to be lived out in allegiance to the one. Thus, when we say Paul says we are saved by faith and James says faith without works is dead, who is right? Answer: Both of them. Faith is that which saves us and works are those which show where our allegiance lies.

This also means that the idea that internet atheists have of blind faith would make sense whatsoever to the biblical writers. Faith wasn’t just something in the head. It was lived. Commitments like that were serious. Christians knew they were signing up to something serious when they became Christians.

At 1264, he warns us that the gospel is not just all about the cross. This might sound scandalous to some, but it shouldn’t. Jesus tells us early on in Mark to repent and believe the good news. (gospel.) There was no cross yet. People were still expected to believe.

If we just say the cross is all that matters, then the resurrection can be an add-on. If all of it was to show the deity of Jesus, then why not have Him stay on Earth to show that? No. Jesus is taken to Heaven instead. Why?

If it’s to show He’s the king, you see why. He has to rule. He has to go to His throne. He has to sit at the right hand of God.

Of course, the cross and resurrection are important. The cross was the intention of man to shut down Jesus. it was the place of utter shame for Him, but it was also where He went to pay the price for sins as well, fighting the enemy of His people head-on. The resurrection is God’s vindication. It is God saying “Yes. This is the King.”

Bates urges us to put kingship before forgiveness. If we don’t, Jesus becomes mainly a means to an end for us, a means of forgiveness. That’s backward. If anything, we are the means to the end of the glory of God. God has inherent glory that cannot be changed, but He also has ascribed glory that can be seen as His reputation in the world and we can affect that. That doesn’t change the nature of God for those concerned, but it does change how the world perceives Him.

If we start with Jesus as king, we come to realize that we need forgiveness because we are all guilty of divine treason against this king. We have sought to be the king instead and we need to change our allegiance and say we are on the side of Jesus.

I also like his idea that we should go with goodness, truth, and beauty to show the work of the king, even to those who don’t think God exists. (A great look at this kind of approach I started recently is Rembrandt in the Wind) In my own works of video games and theology, I regularly point to this along with the impact of a story on people.

Aside from content also, this book was meant to be read by groups. The chapters are short enough that people can read them in a week’s time and meet together and discuss the questions together. Would that more people would do this. I would encourage anyone wanting to do evangelism to read this book. Frankly, I would encourage you to read anything by Bates. You won’t be disappointed.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christians and Conspiracy Theories

What do I think of Mike Duran’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There was a time and age when someone with a conspiracy theory on the internet was looked at as nuts. To be fair, some theories are crazy. However, lately, it has seemed that more and more people who claim something against the prevailing narrative are right.

There was a time to say COVID was a lab leak was false. Now it’s acceptable news. The Biden laptop was seen as Russian disinformation. Not anymore. You used to be a villain if you opposed wearing a mask or lockdowns. Now it looks like those didn’t really do any significant good if any.

It looks like more and more that if you want to go and see what today’s news is, just look at the conspiracy theories from 2-3 years ago.

Yet I did say some such theories are crazy. Jesus Mythicism comes to mind. How is a Christian to know what to think? How does one investigate a claim to see if it is true?

I saw that Mike Duran had written a book on this and I decided since this was an area of interest to me, I would get it and check it out. There are a number of benefits to this book. For one, there is a generally good guide to how one should go about studying these claims.

There are general rules to check a source, for example. He mentions that Politifact will often say a story that is largely true but comes from a Republican source as mostly false. This is not to say conservatives like myself don’t have a bias, but it is certain that today, the fact-checkers have a bias as well and we should all watch ours.

He also does talk about levels of skepticism that one can have. You can be completely certain a claim is false or agnostic to it or just skeptical of it. On the surface, there are a lot of claims for any conspiracy theory likely that many a layman won’t be able to answer let alone sometimes an expert not due to them being difficult, but to them going on a highly technical point. Many New Testament scholars don’t bother interacting with arguments of Jesus mythicists and more laymen like myself can usually be better equipped. We can all be sure that the moon landing was not faked, but that doesn’t mean that all of us could easily answer arguments from moon mythicists.

Duran guides the reader through the process and explores how he comes to conclusions on various matters. All of this is good and helpful. Christians should be people of truth and we shouldn’t believe everything, nor should we dismiss everything.

That being said, I have some criticisms. The first one is a minor one.

There is good information here, but I wish that it had been broken down into smaller bits. Normally, I go through multiple books on my Kindle at a time and read a chapter a day of each. I couldn’t do that here as chapters could be unusually long.

However, my main problem was Duran frequently puts his eschatology at the center so what happens when there is a fellow Christian that doesn’t share that eschatology? For instance, on page 191 he writes:

This present age will culminate in a period of great deception and turmoil, concluding in the bodily return of Jesus Christ and the final judgment of the wicked and the righteous. (Matt. 24) All of these claims are elements of biblical epistemology. They are foundational, axiomatic, to the Christian’s knowledge of the world around us.

I find this language problematic. It treats the idea that Matthew 24 is our future as something necessary to a Christian worldview. There is a part where Duran says he knows not every Christian holds to this eschatology (see below), but if you don’t, then where do you fit? Do you deny something that is a claim of biblical epistemology, that is foundational, and that is axiomatic?

I hold to a view of orthodox Preterism. If you tell me that Matthew 24 is about the bodily return of Jesus, I will thoroughly disagree. Thus, when Duran regularly tied his understanding of the world to his eschatology, I could not go along. It’s similar to a preacher I hear on the radio every Sunday as I’m heading to church telling me “Jesus is coming soon. The signs are all around us!”

Which has been being said for how long?

Also on page 202:

Despite the assertion of many possible futures, Christians believe the Scripture reveals a rather specific unfolding redemptive plan. While it could involve technology, nuclear war, and even non-terrestrial entities, the biblical timeline envisions our world culminating in global cataclysm, war, spiritual deception, persecution of Christians, the appearance of the Antichrist, Armageddon, the Second Coming of Christ , and the Final Judgement. Yes, there are different branches of eschatology. But the Church has historically believed that most of these aforementioned elements will constitute the End Times.

However, the church has not historically held to all forms of futurism either, such as dispensational futurism. I can definitely say I hold to the return of Christ and the final judgment, but others like war and spiritual deception and persecution I hold not because of biblical prophecies, but because if you look at the history of humanity, well, let’s just say the odds are on the side of those not ceasing any time soon.

Unfortunately, what about those other Christians is not really explained.

And finally on 202:

One such belief often concerns a New World Order (NWO). The idea of a one-world government is commonly seen in the books of Daniel and Revelation. This geo-political end-times empire emerges after the rise of a confederation of ten nations or regions (Rev. 13:1; Dan. 2:41-42, 7: 16–24). One member of this confederacy (the Antichrist) displaces three of the other members and rules over this alliance. Some see this confederation as the United Nations. Others have associated it with the European Common Market, and even speculate that Brexit plays a part in this unfolding biblical prophecy.

We all know of many futurist predictions of what the Bible says that have been proven to be false. When I meet other futurists, I tell them they interpret the text differently I am sure, but how is their hermeneutic any different?

However, I find it odd to point to Daniel as a fulfillment of One World government. Let’s look at the passage in Daniel 2 entirely. These are the verses Duran cites above:

41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.

But if we look at the passage as a whole.

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Now if you look, Nebuchadnezzar is the gold part. The next kingdom is the Medo-Persian empire. The third kingdom is the Greek kingdom which through Alexander the Great rules the Earth. The final kingdom is a brittle kingdom but one that is strong as iron and crushes everything. This is Rome. Now either in the time of Rome as the text says, a kingdom was established that will never end. Now let’s ponder this. What could be a kingdom that arose in the time of the Roman Empire that will never have any end whatsoever? We have a limited timeframe since the Roman Empire fell in 476 AD.

Could it be, and I’m just taking a wild shot here, the Kingdom of God?

If we’re talking about a one-world government that is the Kingdom of God, yeah. I’m cool with that. Note this does not mean one man claiming to rule on God’s behalf. It means Christ being the king overall. I’m fine with that one.

In Daniel 7, we see similar:

15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this.

“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’

19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

We have again four different kingdoms. How does it end in verse 26 and on? All the Kingdoms are given to God, again. If this is one-world government, I’m fine with that.

Besides this, look at all that is going on in Daniel. In this chapter, you have one kingdom after another conquering each other and then in chapter 11 you have a back and forth history of war going on between two kingdoms. How does this show a one-world government? Revelation is quite similar. See what’s going on in there. You have war taking place constantly. The Beast and the Harlot don’t even work together ultimately.

Duran has a lot of good material here, but I wish he hadn’t made his eschatology central to that. If your eschatology is wrong and you read modern day events in light of that, you could do a great harm and ultimately miss the meaning of the text.

Christians need to think about conspiracy theories. This one is a good start to go to. Put aside the eschatology and there’s plenty of good to get.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 20.1

What about the manuscripts the KJV didn’t use? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re going to skip a brief introduction here as there’s not much to say. This time we start looking at the other manuscripts that weren’t used by the KJV translators. The link to the source material can be found here.

Vaticanus: ” … was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 A.D.” [S5P60]

In spite of being in excellent condition:

“This Codex omits portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1 – Genesis 46:28, Psalms 106 – 138, Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastorial Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14” [S1P72]. “These parts were probably left out on purpose” [S5P60].

I couldn’t find anything about this, but I will grant it for the sake of argument. What I want to know though is about the last part at least. How is it known these were left out on purpose? Johnson doesn’t say.

“Moreover having been found in the Vatican library, the suspicion was all the more compounded. We must recall that the Renaissance was lifting the great curtain hiding medieval superstition and forged documents, allowing the light to shine in …” [S6P135].

Ah yes. Anything Catholic must be bad. Strange the Reformers never seemed to question the manuscripts that way that I know of at least.

“According to authorities the date of its writing is placed within the years 325 A.D. to 350 A.D.” [S4P20].

This could be true, but what authorities? Johnson doesn’t tell us. Did he do any research on his own?

“Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. Dr. Martin declares, ‘B’ exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession” [S1P72].

Which wouldn’t be a problem anyway. We could recognize that easily. This is a common scribal issue.

“Besides all that – in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the SAME words in the SAME places, the SAME clauses in the SAME places and the SAME sentences in the SAME places” [S5P60].

I have looked over this a few times and I am still not sure what he’s arguing.

“It seems suspicious indeed that a MSS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the ‘mass’ as totally useless. (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The ‘mass’ in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand in hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!” [S1P72].

Yet somehow when the Catholics produced their own translation they left in that portion of Hebrews. Odd.

G.A Riplinger adds the following about Vaticanus (i.e. ‘B’):

“The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, recording it on magnetic tape and reproducing it by an electro-optical process, reveals that B has been altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the twelfth century … A few passages … remain to show the original appearance of the first hand. The corrector omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect” [S3P551].

Which is also a common scribal practice anyway…..

“B agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek in nearly 8,000 places, amounting to about one change per verse. It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1,000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substitutes or modifies nearly 2,000 and transposes word order in about 2,000 places. It has nearly 600 readings THAT DO NOT OCCUR IN ANY OTHER MANUSCRIPT …” [S3P551].

Considering Riplinger isn’t a scholar, I give her zero credibility here based on what I know of her, but all Johnson cares about is “Does this person agree with my conclusion?”

And: “Linguistic scholars have observed that B is reminiscent of classical and Platonic Greek, NOT the Koine [common] Greek of the New Testament …” [S3P551].

Which linguistic scholars? Name them.

“Protestant theologians question its lack of use by anyone for 1300 years-then its sudden ‘discovery’ in the Vatican in 1481” [S3P552].

Which ones?

“Its [i.e. Vaticanus’] immediate use to suppress the Reformation and its subsequent release in 1582 as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible are logical, considering the manuscripts omission of anti-Catholic sections and books (ie Hebrews 9:14 and Revelation etc.)” [S3P552].

Also, Vaticanus: “… agrees essentially with Origen’s Hexapla, omitting the deity of Christ frequently …” [S3P552].

Origen would be quite surprised to know he omitted the deity of Christ.

In summary, history records that:

“… Vaticanus was available to the King James translators but they didn’t use it because they knew it was unreliable” [S5P60].

Unfortunately, Johnson will not tell us where they said this. I tried to find it and had no luck.

We’ll continue next time.

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.3

How do we wrap up the wording of the KJV section? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Again, I am leaving a lot of stuff out that is tedious as it is just doing things like counting the number of syllables. This chapter ends with some odds and ends and we’re going to go ahead and get to those. As always, the source material can be found here.

Not only does the King James use simpler words, but it also uses a shorter vocabulary of ‘different’ words. In his book “The Majority Text”, Theodore Letis points out:

“The AV contains only about six thousand words as compared to Shakespeare’s fifteen to twenty thousand and Milton’s thirteen thousand …”

Okay. And? Even if I grant this as true, what follows from this? What is asked is not how many different words are used but how easy those words are to understand. There are times fewer words are better and there are times more words are better. It depends on the situation. For instance, we don’t want to have endless vocabulary lists to learn to say something, but meanwhile, Greek has four different words for love and we only have one to contain everything.

What about the King James’ words we don’t recognize? G.A. Riplinger responds to this question:

“The … words in the KJV, which are unfamiliar, at first glance, to dictionary shy Americans are actually simpler and more accurate than their new substitutes. A ‘stomacher’ for example (Isa. 3:24) is NOT a belt, as new versions indicate, but a chest ornament. (It seems the only ‘simpler’ words in new versions are incorrect or from a corrupt Greek text.) New versions not only do not improve the KJV’s ‘sackbut’ (Daniel 3:7), calling it a ‘trigon’, but in the same sentence change the KJV’s simple ‘harp’ to a ‘zither’

This seems like a bizarre argument. How do I know that a stomacher is a chest ornament? I went to Blue Letter Bible to look up the verse and found that it says it’s a robe. Maybe it’s right. Maybe it’s a belt. Since this is the only place the word shows up in Scripture, it’s harder to tell.

It’s hard to understand how replacing one difficult term, a sackbut, with another difficult term, a trigon, is an argument. It amounts to “Well they do it to!” This doesn’t deal with the wording of the KJV. As for harp, the word is best translated as a lyre or zither.

But supposedly Riplinger has dealt with the whole argument by citing two verses. Well done.

A second claim is that: ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thy’, and ‘thine’ are out of date. The ‘pitch’ is that these words were spoken in 1611, are archaic, and need to be eliminated.

Let’s examine this claim. In his book ‘The King James Version Defended’, Edward F. Hills gives us some interesting insight into these words. On page 218, he says:

“… the English of the King James Version is not the English of the 17th century … It is Biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style … The King James Version … owes its merit, not to 17th century English – which was very different – but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation” [S12P218].

In his book ‘The Old Is Better’, Alfred E. Levell also comments on the need for thee’s and thou’s. On page 31, he says:

“Why did the AV translators not adopt the up to date English of their time? For one reason … accuracy of translation! Whenever the Hebrew and Greek texts use the singular of the pronoun, so does the AV; and whenever those texts use the plural, so does the AV … There is a distinct loss of accuracy in translation if ‘You’ is used for singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word … Thus in Luke 22:31-32 the Lord says to Peter “Satan hath desired to have you, to sift you as wheat,” “you” here referring to Peter and the other disciples; “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not,” “thee” and “thy” referring to Peter only. Such shades in meaning are completely lost when ‘you’ is used throughout” [S13P31].

The words: ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’ are clearly needed. The Holy Spirit picked these words for a reason: It is to distinguish the ‘singular you’ from the ‘plural you’ for the purpose of clarity. Praise God!

I can easily grant this shows a lack in our language today. At the same time, that doesn’t mean we still speak in thee and thou today. (Gotta love the statement that this is what the Holy Spirit chose, something I am sure the KJV translators would not want said.) It’s one reason in my recent Greek classes we even talked about how in the South we differ between you and y’all.

Objective, analytical, data shows new versions are NOT EASIER to read, they are HARDER. Also, new versions are wordier, have more syllables per word, and use harder words.

The words God chose, for His Traditional Majority Text, are simpler. And, like the use of ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’; each word was chosen for a reason. We may or may not understand each word, but it is there for a purpose; just like you and I are here for a purpose.

Lately; Bible publishers are trying to tell Christians the King James Bible is ‘hard to understand’. Their ‘claim’ is that we need to buy a ‘new version’.

Well, if the King James Bible is ‘hard to understand’, then this is a very, very, RECENT phenomenon. Our grandparents were able to read the King James!

And, how would Bible publishers explain this supposed problem with King James ‘readability’ when we are actually MORE EDUCATED than our grandparents?

No; their claim does not make sense. Something else is wrong.

And meanwhile, our great-great-great grandparents down the line were able to read Elizabethan English. Our older ancestors were able to read languages like Greek and Latin and Hebrew. People can read different things at different times due to the changes in language.

The truth is that the King James Bible is NOT the problem.

“The real gap is one of distance between God and man, not a lapse between us and Father Time … The spiritual chasm is so vast that even those close to Jesus could not understand him. He was NOT speaking archaic Aramaic to Mary and Joseph yet, “they understood NOT the saying which he spake unto them”. Obsolete words were NOT the obstacle when he asked Peter, “Are ye also yet WITHOUT understanding?” [S3P635].

Something to think about.

And many of the great heroes in the Bible didn’t understand, including Mary and Joseph, the apostles, and others in the Old Testament. Are we to assume that all of these figures didn’t understand because they were obstinate in sin?

I am not against the KJV if one prefers it and wants to use it. I am against saying it is the only one you should use and all others are wicked translations.

But we’ll go on next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.2

How readable is the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This time, I’m not quoting everything. There is information that is just bit by bit that I find tedious. This is not hiding anything. I always link to the material here and I recommend you go and read it. Anyway, let’s answer the question of if the material is more readable or not in the KJV.

One persistent advertisement is that new versions are ‘easier to read’. If this is true, it is easily verified.

The Flesch-Kincaid research company has a formula which measures the grade level of a book. The higher the grade level the more education is required. And, the lower the grade level, the less education is required.

The Flesch-Kincaid formula is:

Grade level = (.39) times (the average number of words per sentence) + (11.8) times (the average number of syllables per word) minus (15.59)

From this formula; fewer syllables per word lowers the grade level and/or shorter sentences lowers the grade level. Both make sense.

Now, let’s compare some ‘modern’ versions to the King James Bible.

In her excellent book “New Age Bible Versions”, on page 196, G.A. Riplinger gives us the Flesch-Kincaid readability results of various ‘Bibles’. In her first analysis, she compares the average grade level required to read the first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments.

Leaving aside Kiplinger as a source, I have a few concerns here. For one thing, this could work well all things being equal if we use modern language, but what if we don’t? What if we use an ancient book still? For instance, in this case, I went to the metaphysics of Aristotle which I got here.

So what did I get?

(https://archive.org/stream/aristotlesmetaph0001aris/aristotlesmetaph0001aris_djvu.txt) has an average reading ease of about 80.6 of 100. It should be easily understood by 9 to 10 year olds.

There are PhDs who are struggling to understand this work. No. It will not be easily understood by 9 to 10 year olds.

So next I went here to the first part of the Summa of Aquinas dealing with questions of existence. Results?

(https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm) has an average reading ease of about 62.5 of 100. It should be easily understood by 14 to 15 year olds.

Again, PhDs are struggling and debating with this.

I next went to Romeo and Juliet.

That one was deemed too complicated, yet I bet many of us understand that more than we do Aristotle and Aquinas.

How about the transcript of Joe Biden’s inauguration address?

That one got the same rating as Aquinas, which means you would have a harder time understanding that address than you would understanding Aristotle.

Finally, I put in my article on the virgin birth, which I do affirm. The results are it is fitting for 10 to 11 year-olds. There you have it folks. I’m writing material that is slightly harder to understand than Aristotle. Never knew it.

So did Johnson ever bother to check on any of this? You already know the answer. The test itself could be fine, all things being equal, but there are some problems.

There is material on memorization after which Johnson says the following:

READER NOTE: The Word is “The Sword of the Spirit”. When G.A. Riplinger says that: “The memorization of scripture is a necessary self-defense against sin” and that: “simple sentence structure and single syllable words … simplify this task”; I believe she has hit on a very SUBTLE but EXTREMELY important point.

The memorization of scripture REQUIRES repetition. And, it requires hearing the SAME words again and again. When each ‘modern’ version, substitutes different words (so it can ‘sell itself’ as a ‘new’ version), it hinders and confuses the memorization of scripture.

When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, I suspect He DID NOT have scrolls of scripture with him. Nor do I think He fumbled around with which version to quote back to Satan. The only thing Jesus had was the Word, memorized! Think about it!

The problem is that if you look at the same story in different Gospels, you would find different words being used. Which is it? What you will normally find is the same idea is being expressed. Frankly, unless you’re quoting the words in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, you’re already not using the exact words that were used.

And yes, there were variants in Old Testament manuscripts. What Johnson is doing is treating the text like it’s a magic book. You have to say the words the exact right way or else the effect won’t happen.

Now I will grant that there are many passages I still remember in the KJV. John 3:16 anyone? But I do know I have many other passages memorized and even if I don’t have the exact words, I have the voice that is being used. It’s ironic that in wanting to defend a position he considers orthodox, Johnson really has a view of language that is pagan.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Self-Doubt Is Not Always Bad

Is it always bad to have self-doubt? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was talking to someone recently who was struggling with some self-doubt and as I was talking, I had a thought about it. Yes. There are dangers of self-doubt, especially if it gets to the extent that you are paralyzed emotionally with fear. That being said, that doesn’t mean that it is also always bad.

If you’re on Facebook, think of someone you interact with who at least seems to have no self-doubt ever. I think especially of internet atheists. Of course, I mean a specific type of atheist by this. These are the atheists who spout nonsense like Jesus Mythicism or think that a simple meme constitutes a powerful argument. When I respond to these arguments, I usually get the laugh emoji which tells me this is someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. We often call it the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

You know who doesn’t act like that? People who have self-doubt to some extent. People who are open to the possibility that they could be wrong and they want to make sure their positions are right. The more I look, the more it looks like the people who know the least think they know everything and the people that know the most think they don’t know anything.

At my seminary, I know of people in the PhD program who talk about impostor syndrome. These are people who are obviously highly intelligent to get in the program, and yet their fear is they will be found to be a fraud. I know before my debate with Dan Barker, I was nervous about how I would do, and so I read all that I could and I had a friend who did mock debates with me. When I got up there, I was in the zone and felt fine. (I also had this anxiety before my first and only funeral, my grandmother’s.)

For those of us with this kind of self-doubt, it pushes us to do more. We are pushed to study and work harder to make sure we are real. We are entirely open to the fact that we could be wrong on some points and we want to make sure that we are not.

I should say that a Christian who is sure they are not wrong in anything and cannot be is just as obnoxious to me if not more so than the atheist. There’s the old joke that our preachers aren’t always right, but they’re never in doubt. If only they were. I get super concerned when I meet a Christian who never doubts their faith. I rejoice when I meet one who does because I know they are taking it seriously.

The person who does not have this unfortunately has an invincible ignorance. They are making arguments that they think are humiliating to the Christian like myself. In a sense, they are, but not the way they think. I’m instead left wondering how they can argue so confidently an idea that is so dumb.

Also, I suspect this applies to any other situation. As a divorced man, I am working with a therapist in person from the counseling department of the seminary with learning social skills for dating. We all know a lot of men who have thought they were God’s gift to women only to hear the women wanting a return policy. If self-doubt pushes you to grow in an area, it can be a good thing. If it paralyzes you and keeps you from acting, that is a problem.

Doubt is not always an enemy. Sometimes, it’s a good sign. It can be a friend rather than an enemy.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Reformation Readings of Paul

What do I think of Michael Allen and Jonathan Linebaugh’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I got this book on sale on Kindle. (Pro tip. Sign up for emails that tell you when books go on sale on Kindle.) I do have some friends who are Catholic and Orthodox and I thought this would be an interesting read. A historian and a theologian look at one reformer’s work on one epistle and then each write a chapter critiquing what they have to say in light of modern scholarship.

Something definitely worthwhile to point is that sometimes, it’s tempting to think the Reformers moved us away from tradition entirely. This is not so. There were a number of decisions the church made that the Reformers agreed with, such as the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Many of them loved the writings of John Chrysostom and especially Augustine.

As is said in the book about interpretation:

For good or bad, the Protestant Reformation heritage has bequeathed to us a sense of interpretational autonomy , which has led to the idea that the sola individual is capable of being an authority on Scripture without recourse to how the church has read these texts across generations. But this is never how the reformers read the text. The reformers always read their biblical texts with ancient friends. This volume reminds us of the need to rekindle some of these friendships, lest our dementia become crippling. It is within this context, then, that I echo John Bradford’s appeal to “remember the reading and preaching of God’s prophet and true preacher Martin Bucer.”

And we should seek to do the same. It would be a mistake to say the church fathers got everything right. It would also be one to say they got everything wrong. While Scripture is the final authority, it is foolish and arrogant to think that the Holy Spirit has only aided people since the Reformation.

The book looks at Melanchthon, Luther, Calvin, Bucer, and Crammer. It goes through and then gives concluding thoughts overall. Those interested in the debates of the time and seeing them in light of what we know today will definitely enjoy this.

For my end, I have to say that while I do appreciate the work being done, and I do know how important it is, it sometimes doesn’t seem to always apply on a practical level. I do know that I am forgiven in Christ. I do not claim to understand how that fully works out with justification and sanctification.

Also, I do think a lot of times the writers are way too heavy-handed on the New Perspective on Paul. I am sure if the Reformers were here today, they would be eager to study the position and see what they thought. The last thing they would want is to have their position be the new position that dare not be challenged.

If you enjoy discussions of justification and sanctification and free-will, you will enjoy this book. If you enjoy discussions of the Reformation and Catholic/Protestant dialogue, you will enjoy this book. Either way, you will walk away being more informed than you were before.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.1

What about modern translations? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we’re about to look at modern translations. Some stuff, I’m actually going to skip because it’s just so tedious. At any rate, the source material can be found here.

In the last chapter we learned that:

“… The KJV reverberates with ETERNAL FAMILIARITY … Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH LITERATURE that the world HAS EVER SEEN … Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as ONE OF THE FINEST SAMPLES OF WRITING STYLES IN EXISTENCE … The KJV … has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the MOST BEAUTIFUL, it BEARS THE MOST FRUIT, it produces SPIRITUAL REVIVAL, it is the EASIEST TO MEMORIZE … the version of 1611 … is probably the BEST version EVER MADE … etc. etc. etc.

Actually, we just heard this asserted. One can say the KJV was a fine work for its time, but that doesn’t mean it will be the same today. If anything, this sounds eerily like the way that Muslims treat the Qur’an.

Now contrast those quotes with sales pitches for ‘modern versions’:

… the King James Bible is too hard to understand … its words are archaic … people don’t understand it … it has thee’s and thou’s …. today’s Christian needs is a ‘more readable’ version … etc. etc.

There is some validity to this. The English language has changed and we need translations that match the way of the usage of language for our time. One can say the KJV was beautiful for its time and still does maintain some great beauty today, but it is also a difficult translation to understand using words and idioms we no longer use.

These two views are diametrically opposed to one another. Only one of them is true. Either the King James Bible IS the … BEST EXAMPLE of English literature the world HAS EVER SEEN or it ISN’T.

So, should we believe:

  1. A) The ‘non-financially’ compensated comments of the first view?

or:

  1. B) Should we believe ‘salesmen’ and ‘marketing ads’ ?

We should believe what is true regardless of what the motivations are for someone saying it. I could just as well say that Johnson is a salesman for the position of KJV-onlyism so should I believe him? Of course, I can also point out that he is only giving one side of the equation.

Instead of emotionally (and philosophically) debating this question, let’s get the facts.

Sounds like a good plan, but I doubt that that will happen. To get the facts, one actually needs to consult both sides of the equation. Johnson does not have any opposing sources in his bibliography. He only quotes KJV-onlyists and then what they have to say about his opponents.

Sales pitches for new, modern, versions contain several ‘claims’. In this chapter, we will test them for truth.

And throughout this work I have been testing Johnson for truth and so far, he isn’t doing good. We’ll see if this gets any better, but I doubt that it will.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

What Are Your Children Reading?

Do you know what’s going on in your school library? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As a conservative, I like watching the channel Don’t Walk, Run on YouTube. I don’t know the religious position of the host Andrew, but I do like the material he presents. He recently asked a question about the book The Perks of Being A Wallflower and asked if it contained any sexually explicit material or not. Now I hadn’t read the book, but I went to Google Books. It’s important to know you can’t type in a search “explicitly sexual material” or “rape scene.” Thus, I put in terms that would be used in such scenes.

I am putting in the ones I thought were the worst. I was even hesitant to share these on Facebook for fear that I would get in trouble for them. If you are hesitant to put something like this on Facebook, putting it in a book geared toward children is probably not a good idea.

So let’s see some screenshots I took of my computer.

Also, this is just from one book. In Andrew’s video, he reads passages from these books to show why they are banned. Keep in mind that books that are considered classics like Huckleberry Finn are often condemned today because of “racism” but books describing rape and having explicit pornography in them are okay.

Later on his Twitter, Andrew shared a picture from A Court of Mist and Fury and said this was one of the tamer passages in the book.

Keep in mind also no one is saying ban these books outright as far as I know. If someone wants to read them, they can go to a bookstore, Amazon, or even a public library. What is being said is this does not belong in a school library and books like this should certainly not be required reading for students.

Some might say “Doesn’t the Bible contain some explicit language?” Yes. However, the Bible is also not written as if it the primary target was young hormone charged teenagers. Also, this is either shown in a marital context, such as in the Song of Songs, or else it is shown in a way to indicate the wickedness of the action.

We are living in a day and age of mass sexual confusion. Keep in mind that at every step it has been “This is all we’re asking for.” What is being asked for has always increased. At first, it was just accept homosexuals and give them freedom. Then it was to allow marriage. Now it has moved towards transgenderism where healthy girls are getting double mastectomies. We are raising up a children that will be sterile every time they go through such an operation.

Parents. Please be watching what is on your child’s syllabus and/or assigned reading list. Make sure you read anything first. I am considering for this blog getting some of these books at a library myself and letting parents know what is in them even more. This is about protecting your children more and more because in an age of confusion, they are more prone to be victimized in the name of being loving.

It’s up to you, parents, to put a stop to that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)