Category: New Testament

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)

 

Why I Don’t Like “He Lives.”

Is this really a good hymn for Easter (Or any other time)? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The day after Easter, I posted on Facebook the little safe flag meme with the message of that I was marked safe from singing “He Lives” at church yesterday. Some people were surprised by that. Why would you not like this song? You hold to the resurrection, don’t you?

Of course, I do. That’s why I don’t care for the song. I think the view that it gives is not a biblical view of the resurrection but honestly, more of a Mormon view. You can meet plenty of New Testament scholars who can say Jesus was risen in some spiritual sense. The way it could be described could match just fine with the song.

We have reached an age of subjectivism in the world today of Christianity. There is less emphasis on the Bible and more emphasis on our personal experience. We have views that we consider to be “traditional” in that we are to ask God what He would have us to do and listen for His voice. This is the exact opposite of the stewardship that we are told to do in that God puts matters under our responsibility and expects us to make the wise decision.

Unfortunately, people rarely even question this idea. When I hear a sermon where the speaker starts talking about God speaking to you and leading you and matters like this, I just shake my head. I find it so amazing that those who like me are Protestants and supposed to be people all about Scripture have it more about what we feel and that is supposedly what God is telling us.

Sorry. My feelings aren’t that trustworthy. I don’t want to base a major decision on my feelings. If you do that, then when the feeling dies, you are more likely to change your mind. (I do think that contributes to divorce in our culture today as the culture has a similar epistemology.)

Hence, when I hear that He walks with me and talks with me, well sorry. I have never had a conversation with Jesus where we had a back-and-forth. Also, I am told to walk as Jesus walked. It means the way I live.

Yet the worst part for me is asking how someone knows He lives. He lives within my heart. Tou can say your dead loved ones live in your heart just as much. When I make a claim that Jesus lives, it’s not that He lives within my heart. It’s that He lives at the right hand of God the Father.

When Mormons want to tell me how they know Mormonism is true, they point to a testimony in their heart. We have to have better than that. Jesus did not leave a testimony in the hearts of people alone. He also appeared to many people. He left behind an empty tomb. If you ask me how I know Jesus lives today, I won’t point to an experience floating in the air. I will point to the historical evidence for the resurrection.

When we go out into the world, we need to have this knowledge. If you go to a Kingdom Hall, the Jehovah’s Witnesses in their services train. Now picture your average Witness against your average Christian in a debate. I hate to say it, but my money is on the Witness getting the upper hand. They know better how to defend and propagate a false doctrine than Christians do a true one. Heck, most Christians will even describe the Trinity in modalistic terms.

Hence, if I was at a church and heard this song, I would definitely not stand and sing at all. I miss the older hymns that taught really good theology. (Holy, Holy, Holy anyone?) We need better hymns and we need better sermons and we need better teaching.

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

 

Good Friday and Evil

What has Good Friday to do with evil? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Imagine if the Democratic National Committee got together every November and remembered the day when John Kennedy was murdered and called that Good Friday. It wouldn’t make sense to us. One would think most Democrats would see this day as a tragedy. Heck. Many Republicans who would not support Kennedy would still say the president being assassinated as a tragedy.

However, every year Christians get together and think about the day that Jesus was crucified and call that Good Friday. Of course, one could say that Jesus did rise again, yet that is a reason why one would call the day of resurrection good. That makes sense. Why call this day good? Wouldn’t it make more sense to call it Dark Friday or Black Friday or something of that sort?

Many people reject Christianity because of the problem of evil. On an emotional level, one can understand why this is troublesome. Most of us do what we can to avoid suffering. It’s easy in suffering to ask where God is, yet one could ask why do we do that? God never promised us everything would be perfect.

It could be often we have an entitlement idea in our minds. We are owed a good life aren’t we? When I talk about the problem of evil, I do bring up something like this. The first point I want to ask about is “Does God owe use anything?” If anything is owed us, it is justice for what we have done.

It’s not like we gave God any special benefits when we showed up on the scene. One can say the devil was the first sinner and rightfully so, and yes, we listened to the temptation, but we still did the wrong in the end and we bear the responsibility and we have all been suffering the effects of that since then and the creation God made has suffered.

So yeah, we were given a great gift and we committed treason against the giver and decided to take it for ourselves.

Still want to talk about what we deserve?

God could have left us alone in that. He could have abandoned everything and still had immense joy within Himself for all eternity. We don’t better Him. We don’t bring Him more joy.

We were owed nothing, after all. He could have done this. No one could charge Him with doing anything wrong.

This is not what happened. God somehow chose to enter into our suffering. God chose to live a life where He came as a baby who had to pass through the birth canal and came out bloody and needing to be cleaned regularly and would poop his diapers and wet Himself and everything. He would be absolutely helpless and dependent on His parents.

In fantasy, we can easily understand the concept of a deity or deities coming to live in the world. Having them come as a baby is not how we normally picture it. They come in power and glory or if they do come in a weakened state, they’re at least capable of fighting right at the start and build themselves up with acts of glory defeating their villains.

The closest we get to Jesus as a fighter is Him making a whip and even then, He’s not taking on gangs of Pharisees at that point.

Jesus came in a way no one would notice who He was immediately and lived an ordinary life, a life that would still have suffering. Isaiah 53 describes Him as a man of sorrow, familiar with suffering, hardly the way you would want to describe the coming of your deity. This is just the beginning.

Jesus came to die and came to die not just a death, but the worst possible death at the time. It was not just a death, but a shameful and painful and enduring death. It was public and everyone would know about it. It would be unable to be separated from the Christian account, hardly the best motivator to get people to join your movement.

What is amazing about this and evil is that somehow, God entered the suffering we went in. No. I’m not talking about the idea of Patripassianism where somehow, God the Father suffered on the cross. There is no doubt that God the Son suffered. How this works entirely, I will not claim to understand.

What is known is that Jesus didn’t remain aloof from evil. He entered into it. He lived it. He took it on when He had no requirement to do so. It was an act of love.

It’s odd to say that evil is an objection to Christianity. Evil is part and parcel of the story. If there is no evil, there is no crucifixion and there is no resurrection.

Good Friday is good then because this is where the battle took place and Jesus took on the suffering and justice for us. Jesus demonstrated the love He has for the creation. At the same time, He demonstrated the love He has for the Father which in turn shows how the Father loves us.

It is sad to think about what happened on this day. It is a great evil that was done that day. What we learn from Christianity is that this evil was reversed. The promise is also that all evils will be reversed someday. Arguing against Christianity because of evil is a way of really removing hope of overcoming evil while still keeping the evil. It doesn’t make sense.

Today, we celebrate Good Friday. We mourn the evil that we have done, but we celebrate the love God has for us. We look forward to the resurrection on Sunday, and we look forward to the resurrection of all creation in the end.

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

Book Plunge: Armageddon Part 5

Why is the book of Revelation so violent? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at Ehrman’s latest book talking about the violence in the book. At the start, he does say a statement about the Old Testament that is worth repeating.

Many Christians admit they are just not that interested in the Old Testament because its teachings have been surpassed and even superseded by the coming of Jesus and because, well, they find it boring. I wonder what its author would say about that.

There is a lot of truth here. We need to remember the Old Testament is just as much Scripture as is the new. It was the Scripture of the original church and it’s still our Scripture today.

But to the Old Testament we go to talk about the violence. if you expect interaction with people like Flannagan and Copan, you will be disappointed. Walton is not mentioned either. If you want to see Ehrman interact with the other side, it’s not here.

Ehrman paints the picture as if the Israelites were going to these cities and they were just peacefully living out their lives and the Israelites show up and say “God wills it!” and destroy everyone involved. He uses the example of Jericho, which is fitting since this is the most graphic, but it is also not representative. It needs to be established what Jericho was.

For one thing, it could not be that big since Israel could walk around it seven times in one day. Most of these cities were not cities but forts. These would be where the military would be and not the places of women and children. Also, from Rahab, we see that the people knew what had happened and this wasn’t exactly a sneak attack. They encamped outside the city for a week. Anyone could leave if they wanted.

He also brings up the account of the Moabites and the Midianites. In this, the Moabite women come and seduce Israel into sexual immorality. Moses responds by having the leaders of the people killed. Ehrman depicts this as human sacrifice, but this is not what it is. Even if it is done to stop the wrath of God, it is done out of justice in that the people who did the wrongs are put to death for what they did in accordance with the Law.

We are told 24,000 Israelites die and not just those who did the wrong but the innocent. The problem is the text doesn’t say that. It just says 24,000 died. It doesn’t say who they were. Even if they did not participate, this is a collectivist society and each person was responsible not just for himself, but for his neighbor as well. The sin of one could be seen as the sin of all.

Ehrman also speaks with horror about the way that Phineas put a spear through Zimri and Kosbi. What is left out is that this is after judgment had started and the people were weeping. This wasn’t done in private, but was done publicly as the man brought her with him publicly and the text is unclear at least in English, but it looks like they went into the Tent of Meeting, which is a holy place. This is an act of open defiance. Phineas is praised for killing both of them with one thrust of a spear while they were having sex. Violent? Yes, but sin is violent and destructive.

Ehrman is one who complains about evil, but when God does something about evil, he complains about that as well.

Of course, this gets to Numbers 31. I have already written about that here and here.

He also talks about the wrath of God in Hosea and how infants will be dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped open. Why is God doing this?

Answer: He isn’t. God has laid out the stipulations of the covenant with His people. If they do not obey His covenant, He removes His protection. What happens then? Their enemies have their way and this is what their enemies do. Is God supposed to overrule them somehow so they can do everything else but that? Should the children be made invincible and the pregnant women’s stomachs be indestructible? Ehrman doesn’t answer such questions. Outrage is enough.

Ehrman tells us that when people read the Bible, they tend to see what they want to see. This is true, but it includes Ehrman as well. He wants to depict God as violent. Easy to do. Just cherry-pick some passages and ignore everything to the contrary. It would be just as easy to do the opposite.

He says this is true of laypeople, but it is also true of Christian scholars who see nothing wrong with God destroying people forever in a lake of fire.

Well, it’s Ehrman’s responsibility to show this. Outrage is not enough. Now I don’t think the lake of fire is literal, but is it wrong for God to judge and take life? Why? On what basis? What is the moral code that God is obligated to follow? I can also assure Ehrman that Christian scholars have wrestled with these issues. Unfortunately, we can’t say if Ehrman is aware of these claims since he never cites them. Has he considered Jerry Walls’s dissertation on Hell, for instance?

God is above our understanding of ethics and right and wrong. Whatever he does is right by definition. It would certainly not be right for my next-door neighbor to inject scorpion venom into someone’s veins and allow them to suffer in anguish for five months, refusing to put them out of their misery when they begged to die. And no one could justify a tyrant who chose to torture his people and then throw them into a vat of burning sulfur. But God is not my next-door neighbor or an earthly tyrant, and so he cannot be judged by human standards. If God does such things in the book of Revelation, who are we, mere mortals, to object? We simply cannot judge the Almighty.

But this is an important distinction. We are moral agents put in a universe where we have rules of right and wrong to follow. God is not. There are things God can do that I cannot do. God owes no one life and has all right to take it if He wants to. I do not.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that Ehrman regularly says we shouldn’t read Revelation in a literalistic fashion, but when he wants to depict God as violent, that’s exactly what He does.

It is somewhat ironic that so many readers of Revelation think, as I did, that the God portrayed there is above all human sense of right and wrong. Most of these same readers also believe that our own sense of right and wrong has been given to us by God. This , as you probably know, is a commonly invoked “proof” that God exists. According to this argument, if there were no superior moral being who created us, we could not explain why we have such an innate knowledge of what is good and bad behavior. Our morality, it is argued, must be rooted in the character of God, given to us as creatures made in his image, whether we choose to follow our God-given sense of morality or not.

It is worth pointing out that first off, Ehrman speaks of this as a “proof” of God, but He never shows where it is wrong. He never shows where our ideas of good and evil come from. I also want to say that is not the way I make the argument. I do not say a superior moral being made us. I said a superior good being made us. God is good, but He is not moral. Morality is doing what you ought to do, but God has no ought. God just does what is good. If something is moral, it is good, but just because something is good, that does not mean you have an obligation to do it. It might be good to sell all you have and give it all to the poor (Or it might be foolish), but that doesn’t mean you are morally obligated to do it. It might be good to leave a generous tip that is double what the waitress served you, but you are not morally obligated to do it. It might be good to pay the widow’s electric bill, but you are not morally obligated to.

But if our own sense of right and wrong reveals the character of God, what if God’s moral code requires him to torture and destroy those he disapproves of, those who refuse to become his slaves? (“Torture” is not too strong a word here: Remember those locusts.) 7 If God is like that, and we are told to be “godly” people — told to imitate God in our lives — then surely it follows that we should imitate him in how we treat others. If God hates those who refuse to be his slaves and hurts and then destroys them, shouldn’t we do so as well? Are we to act “godly” or not? And what does it mean to be Christlike if Christ’s wrath leads to the destruction of nearly the entire human race? Are we really to be “imitators of Christ”? Should we, too, force our enemies to suffer excruciating pain and death?

It’s amazing how wrong someone can be in an argument. For one thing, God does not have a moral code. Ehrman will never define what is meant by good and evil. Good then simply becomes that which Ehrman likes and evil, that which Ehrman doesn’t like.

However, I also want to know what is the context in which we are told to be godly and Christlike. I can be told to be godly, but surely I am not supposed to be able to create a universe. I can be told to be Christlike, but that doesn’t mean that I can claim divine prerogatives for myself. I can say I have a mentor I want to be like, but I would not be justified in sleeping with his wife and raising his children.

He also says Jesus is seeking vengeance on those who had nothing to do with his death, but this is embracing the futurist paradigm that Ehrman said is NOT the way to read Revelation. In my Preterist understanding, this took place as judgment on the Roman Empire and especially Jerusalem in 70 AD, which were involved in the death of Jesus and had not repented. Of course, Ehrman has no inkling shown that he is aware of such a view.

In the end, I find this still confusing. Ehrman condemns a futuristic reading of the text and treating it literalistically, but when he wants to condemn the text, that is exactly what he goes to. Ehrman still gives us the sound of one hand clapping. He presents a strong case, but rather a largely emotional one, but shows no indication he has interacted with the best of his critics.

We will continue next time.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest — 7.1

What was the devil’s plan to corrupt Scripture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I hear people, especially pastors, talk about how God gave them a sermon or God led them to do something or what God was doing in Heaven that is not revealed in Scripture, I inwardly cringe. What makes these people think they have insight into what’s going on in the Heavens like this? I do the same when people talk about the devil this way too. So let’s continue with KJV-only craziness that can be found here.

To attack God’s true Word, Satan had to come up with a corruption. The history goes as follows:

Yes. That obviously was the way. It couldn’t be that you can just attack doctrine like Porphyry did in early church history.

Around the year 200 A.D. a man named Clement:

“… founded the ‘Catechetical School’ at Alexandria. He brought the wisdom of the world into the teachings of the Christian faith and began to collect a group of corrupt manuscripts” [S7P8]. “Clement expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy” [S2P191].

Unfortunately, we are not told where Clement said this. I can find two possible places in his work, The Instructor, and both of them put such an idea in a light that is quite sensible and what we use today. First, there is chapter 12 of book 1. Also, there is chapter 4 of book 5, which I consider more likely.

Clement compares what He is doing to Christ speaking in parables to express hidden truths. C.S. Lewis would refer to the idea as sneaking past watchful dragons. The idea was a way to sneak truth into the minds of those who would reject it or to explain to people the truth of Scripture using concepts they already understand.

These ‘historically early’ changes to God’s Word were also verified by Colwell who found that: “… as early as A.D. 200 scribes were altering manuscripts, changing them from a Majority-type text to a minority type” [S3P484] ).

These changes to the Word of God took place at Alexandria, Egypt.

This could be so, but Johnson needs to give us a reason beyond “Colwell says so.” He needs to provide the evidence. Now if Colwell is who I think it is, then he is a scholar indeed, but we still want his reasons.

READER NOTE: “… it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the base of Christian operations” [S1P51]. Thus, Antioch was good.

Jerusalem was the place where God’s name would dwell, thus Jerusalem is good. Also, in Jerusalem….

But, we must remember that Egypt was bad. In the Word, God says Egypt is: “… the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Egypt is: “… the iron furnace” (Deuteronomy 4:20).

Nineveh was also bad, and yet God sought to redeem it.

It was the Egyptians whom Abraham thought would kill him after seeing he had a beautiful wife (Genesis 12:2). It was in Egypt that Joseph was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:36). It was in Egypt that Israel had taskmasters set over them to afflict them with burdens (Exodus 1:11). It was about Egypt that God said to Israel: “Ye shall henceforth return no more that way” (Deuteronomy 17:16). And, it was in Jeremiah 46:25 that God promises to bring punishment onto Egypt.

Thus, Egypt is a type of this world, it is evil. And, as for Alexandria, Egypt; it was a: “… pagan city known for its education and philosophy …” [S1P51].

I wonder why Johnson doesn’t go into detail on the history of the people of Israel following this kind of logic….

Now, back to the story:

“… The best known graduate of this Alexandrian School was Origen who followed Clement as the head of the school. He became the most influential leader of his generation. He edited a six column Bible called the ‘Hexapla’. Each of the columns had a different version of the Bible. He continually changed Bible verses that did not agree with his liberal ideas. He spiritualized God’s Word. He believed Christ to be a created being just as Jehovah’s Witnesses teach today” [S7P8].

I was having no problem with this until I got to the part about changing verses immediately and saying Christ was a created being. He would need to show where this was. This is not to say that Origen did not hold some crazy ideas. There is a lot of truth that he did spiritualize and allegorize a lot, but I have no basis for thinking his Christology was Arian.

Also:

“Origin did not believe that Jesus lived physically on earth!” [S5P65]. We know: “Origin was the first person to teach purgatory” [S1P75] and that Origin was quoted to say: “The laws of men appear more excellent and reasonable than the laws of God” [S3P527]. And, we also know that: “Origin was baptized as an infant, and he gave no indication that he was spiritually saved” [S4P112].

The first part is nonsense. The second part I would need to see evidence of. For the third, I want to see where this is, but note that he says “appear.” That could well be describing what a non-Christian audience would think, and today even that is true. As for the last, the guy spent his entire life in service of God. What does he mean by no indication?

In her book “New Age Bible Versions” [S3P529] G.A. Riplinger tells us the church rejected Origin because of his heretical beliefs. For example, Origin believed (against scripture) that:

Excuse gag reflex at the mention of Riplinger. Also, the guy’s name is “Origen” and not “Origin.”

1) The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.

Origen did believe in preexistence, but he needs to show where the idea of Jesus taking on such a soul exists.

2) There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.

I consider both of these ideas nonsense. Show where Origen taught this.

3) Hell is non existent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.

Again. Show it.

4) All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.

Yes. He did teach this.

5) The sun, moon, and stars are living creatures.

Show it.

6) Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for, for males.

The idea he did this is doubtful. The second needs to be shown.

Origin was also the author of the ‘Septuagint’. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text which Jesus quoted when he walked the earth. And, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text that has been verified.

The Septuagint was around at the time of Jesus……

Yet, some ‘modern textual critics’ use the Greek Septuagint to determine the wording of ‘new versions’. Instead of using the proven Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Text, some translators admitted they used Origin’s Septuagint. For instance; the NIV translators said they used the Old Testament Text that was: “standardized early in the third century by Origin” [S3P537].

Thus, we see that Origin was a key participant in the corruption of God’s Word.

“It is clear that Origin is not a safe guide in textual criticism any more than in theology” [S7P8]. “Origin, though once exalted by modern day Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy …”

No. What is clear is that Johnson doesn’t know a thing about Origen or church history. There is no reason to take him seriously on anything.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.3

How did we get the New Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So today, we’re going to see what Jeff Johnson has to say about the New Testament. Of course, we expect no scholars of textual criticism to be cited here. If you want the source material, you can go here.

“The books which make up the Bible were written over a period of 1700 years from 1650 B.C. to 90 A.D. by men who were directly inspired by God” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments).

As to the New Testament:

“The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament” [S4P94].

The information about John is possible. We don’t really know how or when a lot of the apostles died. Sean McDowell’s book is the go-to on this one. Also, I don’t know of any evidence we have that John gathered these writings.

“John the Apostle was said to be about the only writer of the New Testament who did not die a violent death as a martyr. Then, following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those supposed to be ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out the cruel deeds of martyrdom” [S4P96].

Again, it would have been nice to have some sources for what history reveals. The problem here with Johnson is not so much the passing on of these ideas, but that he accepts them uncritically, just like many of us, myself in the past included, do so with the deaths of the apostles. We should always check into our claims to the best of our ability.

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

This number on agreement could be right as far as percentages go, though I wonder how you get a 100% text from a 95% set of documents. The number of manuscripts could be accurate depending on when this was written, but that date is not known.

Later, we will discuss the 5-10% of the manuscripts and why they are different.

And we hope some textual scholars will be cited, but we are not holding our breath.

Because the King James New Testament agrees with the majority of these 5,000 manuscripts, it is called the ‘Majority Text’. It has also been referred to as the ‘Traditional Text’ and it is also called ‘The Textus Receptus’.

The New Testament of the KJV got its name ‘Textus Receptus’ because; in 1624 the Elzevir brothers printed, in the preface of their 1624 edition of the Greek New Testament, the following words (translated into English):

“Therefore thou hastthe text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. From Textum Receptum came the words we now use as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text” [S4P96].

So the King James Bible is called the ‘Majority Text’, the ‘Traditional Text’, the ‘Textus Receptus’ and the ‘Received Text’. All of these names refer to the SAME Greek New Testament Text. All of these names refer to the King James Bible.

Nothing really problematic here.

For this report I will be use the term ‘Traditional Majority Text’ to describe the text which underlies the King James Bible.

And, I will use the term ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ to describe the substitute text used in ‘modern’ versions.

Nothing like poisoning the well for an argument.

Now, let’s trace the history of both the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ and the ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ and their translations into various languages.

And I am sure it will be full of scholarly and accurate information!

We’ll continue next time.

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

We Have Two Swords

What is meant by this passage in Luke? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I was talking with someone yesterday who was curious what I thought of the passage in Luke 22:36-38. I figured I wouldn’t have time for a sit-down conversation so I would write a blog on it. If you don’t know, this is the passage.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

Often times, this passage is brought up in the context of answering questions about pacifism or self-defense. The problem is this is a really difficult passage to understand for many what is going on. Usually if you want to argue for a position, you start with passages that are more clear.

So at the start, I do not hold to a pacifist interpretation. I think Jesus is more often talking about private situations and these are situations involving personal insults. He’s not talking about how a government should be run.

I also contend that if you see someone in danger and you are capable of doing something, if that means physical confrontation, then you do that. If you can’t, you at least alert those who can, such as by calling the police. (And really since I don’t want to encourage us all becoming vigilantes, generally if you have time always try to call the police first.)

So what is going on in this passage?

Jesus is getting ready to go to the cross and He knows from this point on that it’s going to be much harder for His apostles, and indeed it is. Persecution will be coming. Thus, he tells them to sell their cloak and buy a sword.

The sword here is not exactly first-rate military gear. It’s said to be a small sword as distinguished by a large sword. It could be used for cutting animals and a number of Jews typically carried one around. Hence, it is not surprising to hear that in the Gospels, the apostles do have at least two of them.

Despite that, it is not likely that Jesus meant this to be taken in a literal sense. After all, if they were trying to defend themselves, two swords are not going to be enough to defend twelve people. Jesus’s exasperation then would be because His disciples were again misunderstanding Him. Jesus has a recurring theme when He is taken literalistically when He doesn’t mean to be.

So in the end, what this is saying is simply Jesus knows hard times are coming and some changes are going to take place. Like the advice given to a scout troop, they need to be prepared.

We still need that advice today.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-5

Ready to wrap up comparisons with the NKJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yeah. You all know the drill by now. We’re still dealing with KJV-onlyism and the link to the source material can be found here.

KJV: “DUNG”

NKJV: “rubbish”

COMMENT: I have rubbish on the top of my office desk, but I don’t want ‘dung’ there!!!

First off, clean off your office desk, dude.

Second, I do think the KJV is closer in this in the word is skubalon and it could best be translated as an expletive. However, I don’t think it’s fair to say the NKJV gives a bad idea here of what Paul is saying and the argument of “I want one on my office desk and not the other” is hardly a persuader.

1 Tim 6:10

KJV: “For the love of money is THE root of all evil …”

NKJV: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil …”

COMMENT: There is a big difference between the NKJV’s “a” root and the correct KJV reading of “THE” root.

Yes. There is. For one thing, the KJV is wrong. Let’s ask a few simple questions. Did the devil rebel against God for the money? Did Cain kill his brother for money? There are plenty of evils that are done for money. The NKJV has this one right. (Also, there is no article before root in the Greek so that’s another reason to not say “the”.)

1 Tim 6:20

KJV: “… oppositions of science falsely so called”

NKJV: “… contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge”

I have no idea what the issue is with this one and Johnson doesn’t say.

2 Tim 2:15

KJV: “STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God …”

NKJV: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God…”

COMMENT: We are supposed to STUDY the Word of God.

Note that the passage doesn’t even say study the Word of God. It just says study. Johnson is adding that part in. However, the word there is best translated as be diligent and that works better everywhere else it is used in the NT. There is only one place where the KJV translates this as study. Here it does it differently.

Jude 15

KJV: “… and of all their hard SPEECHES which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

NKJV: “… and of all the harsh things which …”

COMMENT: There is a difference between speeches and things.

Go look this one up on BlueLetterBible.com and you will see that it has speeches in brackets. Why? The word isn’t there in the original. The term harsh is which tells me it’s likely an adjective that plays the role of a noun too. (The good, the bad, and the ugly.) Johnson could have, you know, looked this up, but I guess he didn’t want to. After all, he had the inspired KJV.

And yes, speeches and things are different. You can say many unkind and harsh things to someone that are not speeches.

Next the KJV will be compared to the Living Bible.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 6

Ready for more crazy adventures in KJV-Only land? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The book I am replying to can be read online here. We know the drill by now. Let’s begin.

Bible Question #11: After our new birth, how are we supposed to relate to God?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once we are born again we have a new standard for our lives; it is Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us how we are to relate to him. Please turn to Ephesians 5:1 . In a ‘new’ version it says:

“… be imitators of God …”

Compare this to the Authorized King James:

“Be ye therefore FOLLOWERS of God …”

Even though we are born again; can we possibly imitate God? Can we be the judge of the Universe? Can we be at all places at the same time? No way. We have a new nature, sure; but we are still only men.

Think about it: only Satan tries to imitate God! Ever since the garden of Eden, Satan has tried to direct worship toward HIMSELF. We, as men, could NEVER imitate God. We are only men. We can only FOLLOW God!

Publishers of ‘new’, ‘more up to date’ versions are encouraging us to be like Satan! (i.e. to think of ourselves as God).

Sigh.

It’s amazing what you can learn just by a simple word search. I go to BlueLetterBible.com and what do I see when I go to the verse? Well, the Greek word is mimetes. Already, this is a problem since it sure looks like mimic. So what do I see listed under usage.

an imitatorNothing else is listed.Also, the KJV still has Matthew 5:48, be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. Maybe its just me, but that sounds like imitation.

The whole idea of imitation often times is that you’re not going to hit the mark, but you have something to aim for and why not aim for the best? A young man wanting to be a basketball player could want to imitate Michael Jordan or LeBron James. Will he ever reach that level? Probably not, but he can still aim for the best.

Let’s turn to 1st John 4:3 . A ‘modern’ version says:

“and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”

Again, in ‘modern’ versions, key pieces of scripture are left out. Compare this same verse with the FULL reading in the King James. In the KJV it says:

“And every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

Remember, evil spirits did confess Jesus. In Luke 4:34 (and in Mark 1:24) a man having a “spirit of an unclean devil” said to Jesus:

“… Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, [thou] JESUS of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.”

Contrary to what ‘modern’ versions would tell you, the antichrist DOES KNOW who Jesus is. But, what the antichrist CAN NOT say, is that: “JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH“.

Modern versions not only need to get their gospel straight; they also need to correctly quote the true test for the antichrist.

Also, take a look at this: Compare 1st John 4:3 again between a ‘modern’ version and the King James Bible. Look one more time at what the ‘new’ version says:

“… which does not confess Jesus is …”

But, in the King James it says:

“… that confesseth not that Jesus CHRIST is …”

Besides the doctrinal error, these ‘modern’ versions continually assault the Lordship and Deity of Jesus Christ. If the King James says: “Jesus Christ”, many times the modern versions will only say: “Jesus”. If the King James says: “Lord Jesus Christ, “many times the ‘modern’ versions will only say: “Lord” or will only say: “Jesus”.

Again, this is an absurd argument. Is it as if a demon in the Gospels would not say Jesus has a body? We are talking about different situations. The spirits in the epistles would be referring to those teaching Gnostic and/or Docetic doctrines that denied that Jesus had a real physical body.

Why do modern translations translate 1 John 4:3 the way they do? Because of the manuscripts they are translating from.

By the way, let’s look at 2 John 7 in a modern translation.

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Yep. Major cover-up going on there.

Bible Question #13: In the wilderness, when Satan tempted Jesus to turn a stone into bread for food; what was Jesus’ response?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Turn to Luke 4:4 . In a ‘modern’ version it reads: “… man shall not live by bread alone”.

Well, that’s true and that’s part of it. But, what about the rest of the verse? Notice: words have been LEFT OUT in these ‘modern versions’.

The Authorized (King James) Bible has the correct and full reading. In Luke 4:4 it says:

“… man shall not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD“.

The fact that we are nourished by bread is true, but that is only part of the story. Our lives are sustained by the Word of God. We need bread to sustain our bodies; but, these ‘modern’ versions leave out our need for the life sustaining Word of God.

Again, we have the same situation going on here. For a cover-up, it seems strange that the parallel passage in Matthew 4 does indeed have the passage that we are told modern passages eliminate. It makes sense for Luke to leave it out since he’s writing more to a Gentile audience and Matthew to leave it in his since his audience is thoroughly Jewish. It all depends on what the manuscripts say.

Enough ridiculousness for today. More coming next time.

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

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 5

What has been removed? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re continuing our look at KJV-Onlyism. Let’s see what we have today. Again, source material is here.

Bible Question #9: After we repent, and are born again (come to saving grace), what else does Jesus command us to do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are many changes that come in our new birth/in our new nature, but the answer I’m looking for is this: We are to make a public profession of faith. Then we are to be baptized, by immersion, in water.

Let’s look in Acts chapter 8, verses 35-37. In Acts 8:35 Philip, the Apostle, preached Jesus Christ to the eunuch. In verse 36 the eunuch realized his need to be baptized. The eunuch then asks if he can be baptized.

Now, take a look at Acts 8:37 in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible. Many (but not all) ‘modern’ versions go from Acts chapter 8 verse 35, to verse 36, then to 38. 38?! Where is verse 37 you ask? And, what did verse 37 say?

This key verse, properly included in the King James Bible, tells us whom should be baptized. It says:

“… IF THOU BELIEVEST WITH ALL THINE HEART, THOU MAYEST.” And he [the eunuch] answered and said: “… I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.”

Numbering verses 35, 36, and then 38 is NOT the new math!

These ‘modern’ versions, which leave out verse 37, are omitting the deity of Jesus Christ. Also, they are missing the key point: We must make a PUBLIC profession of faith. We must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If we do not know, believe, and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our baptism only ‘gets us wet’. Leaving out verse 37 omits a major portion of Christian doctrine.

Omissions of doctrine and corruptions of doctrine are bad news. In both cases, the reader is NOT getting the correct information he/she needs to know.

The cute thing about KJV-Onlyists is how they push the panic button over every supposed change. Now if you’re going to say a verse was removed, then you have to assume the text that you’re using to translate from is the one that is accurate. You have to establish that without a question-begging standard. KJV-onlyists look at how the translations differ and say “Well, we have the correct translation, so obviously the problem is on the other end.”

If you started with the other translations as the perfect standard, you would reach the opposite conclusion. Would it not be just as much a problem to add to Scripture? One could say that the KJV is older though, but that’s not the point. The point is the starting place is determining the conclusion.

Again, the solution is simple. These verses aren’t in the manuscripts modern translations are using. It is not a conspiracy to leave out key doctrine. What is left out supposedly is shown in other places in modern translations.

Bible Question #10: Can you recite the Lord’s prayer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord’s prayer, taught to us by Jesus, and recorded in Luke 11:2-4 of the KJV, is as follows:

“… Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”

Now turn to Luke 11:2-4 in a ‘modern’ version and re-read the Lord’s prayer. The wording will be similar to:

“… Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation”.

Note this modern version states “Father” but then leaves out “… WHICH ART IN HEAVEN …”. You don’t know who you are praying to, your Father in heaven, or to Satan!

It also leaves out “our” as in OUR father. We were created by God who is “OUR” father. Satan is a father, but he is not “OUR” father. Satan is the “father” of lies.

And this ‘modern’ version leaves out “THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH“. By leaving out the fact that we are praying to our Father WHOSE WILL IS DONE IN HEAVEN, this ‘modern’ version is re-directing your prayer away from God and toward someone or something else (in another place).

Lastly, there is a major omission in the last half of verse 4. Verse 4 states: “And lead us not into temptation”. But this verse then leaves out: “… BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL …”

Personally, I want to be delivered from evil! How about you?

I think the reader will agree: This ‘modern version’ is NOT the “Lord’s Prayer” you want to be praying! Think about it.

As I read through this, I am just thinking this has to be one of the most bizarre arguments from the KJV-Only position ever.

So Jesus’s disciples ask Him to teach them how to pray. In this scenario, He begins.

Jesus: Father…..

Peter: Whoa! Lord! You just said Father and nothing else! Are you praying to God or to Satan?

Jesus: I said Father…..

Satan is called the father of lies, but saying that this has to be specified would be like asking Jesus if He was praying to Joseph. As for the statement about which art in Heaven, well where else would a Jew think God would be? Now you might need this spelled out if you’re an ignorant KJV-Onlyist who has no clue how to read an ancient document, but not if you’re someone who is a Jew at the time and has half a brain.

That’s really just how dumb this argument is.

So why is this not in there? The same situation. This is not found in the oldest manuscripts.

That’s enough ridiculousness for this time. We’ll continue next time.

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