The Fundamental Root of Division in the United States
United States History
In 1607, English settlers landed on the East Coast of America and formed the Jamestown colony. That began a colonial period until 1776 and a Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen colonies from England. They became states of the United States of America. After those states ratified the Constitution in 1788, they seated the first Congress in 1789. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the Bill of Rights.
Before states ever united under one Constitution and Bill of Rights, division began according to ideological positions termed, federalist and anti-federalist. The Federalists were a political party and supported a strong centralized government. On the other hand, another party, the Anti-Federalists argued against expanding national power and advocated individual liberties, states rights, and localized authority.
Before the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay debated federalism versus anti-federalism in the Federalist Papers, first published in New York newspapers between October 1787 and May 1788. Division along the lines of these two general positions continued in the early history of the United States. With the addition of other issues, like slavery, this division grew and then fomented into a Civil War.
Since the Civil War
The completion of the Civil War in 1865 did not end division in the United States. That continued. Some of the disunity founded by the early disparity between Federalists and Anti-Federalists persisted. Those seeds still germinate and rise in various iterations of the original ground of division.
The United States is no kingdom of Jesus Christ under the unifying power and discipline of the words of Christ. Its form of government cannot sustain oneness like that between God the Father and the Son expressed in John 17. The superstructure of this nation doesn’t portend toward biblical unity. Discord is baked in. The United States doesn’t possess the tools or instrumentation necessary to ward off significant division, even though United is its first name.
Paul taught Timothy to pray for rulers and those in authority so that the church can live peaceably (1 Timothy 2:1-3). Peaceably stands for a manifestation of unity. The government agrees not to imprison and kill believers for merely practicing scripture. It doesn’t mean the government supports the church or its positions, just allows it to operate freely.
Greater Division
Out of the soup of Federalism and Anti-Federalism comes the present and even greater division in the United States. It stems to a certain degree from the original division, but it grew in magnitude. The founders of the United States did not, maybe would or could not, put in the necessary preventatives against massive division in the country. They compromised at the beginning to hold everything together, which meant not providing the crucial deterrents for division that first turned into a Civil War and now we’re where we are.
A popular Democrat and media talking point is that Donald Trump is the number one cause of division in the United States. Their point argues that Trump operates in conflict with established political norms, which creates chaos and a very uncomfortable environment. People will describe this situation dividing families, making for an uncomfortable time at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The Cause of the Division
Trump didn’t cause the division seen in the environment heading into election on November 5, 2024. Very often today people will call this clash a culture war. It already existed before Trump, but his rise reveals its existence. Trump embodies the division in the country, doesn’t cause it. It represents two completely diametrically opposed views of the world. Not everyone voting for Trump falls neatly into one of the two sides of this dispute. Some just like his policies better. The heatedness and underlying threat of war emanates from the fundamental root of the division.
The separation between the two major factions goes back a long ways, even preceding the time of the founding of the United States. It relates to epistemology, how that we know what we know. The printing and publication of scripture in people’s language took nations out of the dark ages. Arising from this was modern science and a return to the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26-28, especially seen in Isaac Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. True science started on a good trajectory, but splintered finally for various reasons (important ones to understand) into modernism first in Europe and then on to the United States.
Modernism arose in the United States after the Civil War parallel with the industrial revolution. Instead of God and scripture as a starting point, modernism shifted to human reason, rationalism, or “evidence.” Premoderns began with a bias toward God, what Stephen Meyer calls the “God hypothesis.” They believed in a transcendent, which is objective, basis for truth, goodness, and beauty. Modernism came into major institutions, influenced their leaders, and changed the culture.
Further Explanation
The insufficiency and inadequacy or failure of modernism finally led to a total rejection of objective truth, goodness, and beauty. This transformed the culture. Pragmatism in churches led to compromise, capitulation, and then cooperation with the cultural changes in the United States. The right side of the two major factions does not necessarily embrace the reality or necessity of objective truth, but it understands the suicide of not living or acting like it exists.
Many if not most would ask, “Why Trump?” That requires a long answer that many won’t accept even if it is the right answer. The country is divided and taking Trump out of the equation will not change that. It comes from deep philosophical and even theological differences and an unwillingness at least for now with either side to accept the other. Some still won’t vote for Trump even though they also don’t accept the other side.
Over a year ago, I called this a “slow moving car crash.” The cars have about arrived now. We’re days away.
AI Friday: Perfect Preservation of Scripture
I asked AI a couple of questions about three verses about the perfect preservation of scripture. Here’s what it wrote (I didn’t write it — AI wrote it).
Isaiah 59:21 and the Perfect Preservation of Scripture
Isaiah 59:21 states:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
Covenant Promise:
The verse begins with God declaring a covenant with His people. This indicates a solemn commitment that God will maintain His relationship with those who are redeemed. The nature of this covenant suggests that it encompasses not just spiritual blessings but also the assurance that His words will be preserved.
God’s Spirit:
The mention of “My spirit that is upon thee” implies that God’s presence and guidance through His Spirit will remain with His people. This aspect reinforces the idea that believers will have access to divine truth and understanding.
Words Not Departing:
The phrase “my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart” emphasizes that God’s words are intended to be continuously present among His people across generations. This suggests an ongoing availability and accessibility of God’s revelation to every generation.
Generational Continuity:
The reference to “nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed” indicates that this preservation extends beyond a single generation. It assures believers that God’s words will endure through their descendants, reinforcing the belief in a faithful transmission of Scripture throughout time.
Eternal Assurance:
The concluding phrase “from henceforth and for ever” underscores the eternal nature of this promise. It signifies that God’s commitment to preserve His words is not limited by time or circumstance.
In summary, Isaiah 59:21 articulates a profound assurance regarding the perfect preservation of Scripture by affirming God’s covenantal promise to keep His Spirit and His words continually accessible to all generations of believers.
Analysis of Matthew 4:4 and 5:18 Regarding Perfect Preservation of Scripture
To understand what Matthew 4:4 and 5:18 say about the perfect preservation of the words of scripture, we need to analyze each verse in its context and consider the theological implications.
Matthew 4:4 Context and Meaning
Matthew 4:4 states:
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
In this passage, Jesus is responding to Satan during his temptation in the wilderness. The quote references Deuteronomy 8:3, emphasizing that spiritual sustenance is as vital as physical nourishment. The phrase “every word that comes from the mouth of God” suggests a belief in the divine origin and authority of scripture. This implies that all words spoken by God are essential for life and should be preserved accurately.
The implication here can be interpreted as an affirmation of the importance of scripture’s integrity. If every word is necessary for spiritual life, it follows that these words must be preserved faithfully through time. This verse does not explicitly state perfect preservation but strongly supports the idea that God’s words are crucial and should remain intact.
Matthew 5:18 Context and Meaning
Matthew 5:18 states:
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
In this verse, Jesus emphasizes the enduring nature of God’s law. The reference to “not a jot” or “not a tittle” (the smallest letters in Hebrew) signifies that every part of God’s word holds significance and will remain until its purpose is fulfilled. This statement reinforces the belief in the reliability and permanence of scripture.
The assertion that nothing will pass from the Law until all is accomplished can be interpreted as a claim regarding its preservation. It suggests that God’s word will remain intact throughout history until its intended fulfillment occurs. Thus, this verse can also be seen as supporting the concept of perfect preservation.
Conclusion on Perfect Preservation
Both Matthew 4:4 and Matthew 5:18 contribute to a theological understanding regarding scripture’s preservation:
Matthew 4:4 emphasizes the necessity of every word from God for spiritual life.
Matthew 5:18 asserts that not even a small part of God’s law will be lost until its purpose is achieved.
Together, these verses imply a strong belief in both the authority and preservation of scripture throughout time. While they do not explicitly state “perfect preservation,” they provide foundational support for such a doctrine within Christian theology.
Bold Answer:
The verses Matthew 4:4 and 5:18 imply a strong belief in the necessity and enduring nature of God’s words, supporting concepts related to their perfect preservation through emphasizing their significance for spiritual life and asserting that no part will be lost until all is fulfilled.
Zeitgeist: The Divine Requirement to Discern the Spirit of the Age (Part Two)
Aesthetics, Feelings, and A Vibe
For many years, I’ve said that the content of doctrinal statements do not change or affect people close to what aesthetics do. People’s imaginations of God do not relate mainly to specific doctrinal statements. I’m not saying that’s good, but it’s just not the reality on the ground. Aesthetics affect what people imagine about God. The kind of music a church uses does more to form its understanding of God.
The spirit of the age, the zeitgeist conforms more to aesthetics than it does the content of theological statements. The world system pushes or influences people according to their feelings than it does their thinking. In fact, their thinking changes according to their feelings or experiences first.
I would contend that if a church decided to make some changes to its statement of faith, it would cause a lesser possible negative reaction than if one changed its music, dress, or programs. This point can be seen in church growth. Leaders of churches use the aesthetics, the music, dress, entertainment, social activities, and a general feeling or vibe to affect church growth and maintaining membership. This trickles down to many of the decisions made in and by churches.
“Present World”
Scripture uses the terminology, “this world,” to describe the spirit of the age or the zeitgeist. It also uses “present world” to speak of what characterizes the world in its present iteration. In 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul writes to Timothy at the church at Ephesus:
For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
Demas forsook Paul because he loved “this present world” (ton nun aiona). The same Greek expression, but translated differently in the King James Version, is seen in 1 Timothy 6:17:
Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.
This is the same nun aiona construction, “now world,” that is translated “this present world” in 2 Timothy 4:10. Lastly, Paul uses it in Titus 2:12. In this case, Paul compares the way of a believer — denying ungodliness and worldly lust, living soberly, righteously, and godly — with “this present world.” “This present world” contrasts with godliness, sobriety or self-control, and righteousness.
Friendship of the World
The world and in its contemporary iterations, this present world, clashes with God. It’s why James writes in James 4:4:
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
How does stay in good relations with the world system? It is by conforming to the spirit of the age. John calls these “the things that are in the world” (1 John 2:15). Those who love the world, John says, the love of the Father is not in them. Loving the world is loving the things that are in the world. What are the things in the world?
Instead, Fellowship with God
When I was a child, sometimes I didn’t want to identify with my parents. I felt ashamed to associate with these “old fogies.” Children might try to separate themselves from the ways of their parents. People who confess to being God’s people might separate themselves from God by not associating with His ways. Instead, they sound, look, and act like the world. This isn’t just committing sins, but watching what the world watches, listening to what the world listens to, and looking like the world looks. It does this in a number of different ways. God does not want this.
A term in scripture used to describe association with, accommodation to, and affiliation with God is “fellowship” or “communion.” A believer aligns himself in every possible way with God, so that he fellowships with God. He is close to God, so he considers all the ways he aligns with God, acts like God, walks with God, and in every way is on the same page as God. A true believer is not taking into strong consideration as to whether he fashions himself with the ways of this world.
The New Roman Woman
The Apostle Paul confronts the spirit of the age. Besides commanding, “be not conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2), Paul gets into some detail in a place like 1 Timothy 2:9:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.
Paul directly deals with some detail that represents far more than what he specifically says. In history, this woman is known as “the new Roman woman.” The contention of historians based upon literature and archaeology was a Roman world phenomena during the time of the New Testament, a type of woman in first-century Roman society who was known for her sexual libertinism and rebellion against male authority. The Apostle Paul instructs women to dress modestly and avoid excessive adornment.
Language Too
More than ever, I hear filthy communication posing as the salty, authentic speech that qualifies as Christian. Everything about the spirit of the age also affects the tongue. James addresses this especially in James 3 and ends the book to title the type of speech as “this wisdom” that “descendeth not from above.” This world produces this wisdom which in turn causes this type of speech.
Christians talked different. Now professing Christians talk the same and they’re a bit proud of it. Apparently true Christianity doesn’t have to change your mouth that much. Just the opposite, if someone speaks with a philosophical bent toward the world, he’s viewed as attractive for Christ, because he’s authentic. This is calling evil good and good evil.
The Course of This World
The Apostle Paul breaks down in other kind of detail the spirit of the age in Ephesians 2:1-3:
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Here Paul uses the language, “the course of this world.” He doesn’t say what that course is, but he characterizes it so that the audience can and will make the application. Paul emphasizes that it was how they walked, but not anymore. One should read an inherent warning concerning the continuation on “the course of this world” for those quickened, who were before dead in trespasses and sins.
The lifestyles of Ephesian believers were “in the lusts of [their] flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh” (verse 3). This isn’t guidance by the Word of God and submission to the Holy Spirit. This is allowing the flesh and its desires to lead. What is the path of least opposition? What makes it easier to live in this world and find acceptance all around?
An Example of Hairstyle
The spirit of the age affects outward appearance as seen in 1 Timothy 2 and this is conforming to this world. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15:
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Those claiming to be Christian were conforming to this world in their hair styles and in this case, their length of hair. Paul confronts hair length. Men shouldn’t have long hair. Women should have long hair. A Christian culture will follow this path, because it indicates God ordained design. God intended designed distinction between male and female to cooperate with His design.
Men rebel against God by growing long hair. And women rebel against God by cutting their hair like a man. Both men and women today, who call themselves Christians, might argue here. Instead they should be swift to hear, slow to argue, and slow to wrath (James 1:19). Hair length is a mere example of how believers correspond to the spirit of the age. Many other attitudes and practices will do this too.
Salt, Light, Identification, and Influence
Christianity should and real or true Christianity will stand out against the spirit of the age. It will not accept any of the ways that reflect, resemble, pattern, exhibit, or associate this present world. It will reject the blue or purple hair, the tattoos, male dress on women and female dress on men, the skin tight garments, all forms of godless, pagan music, all kinds of modern art, like surrealism, cubism, abstract impressionism, the overt resemblance to this world’s popular entertainment, and more.
In many ways, the point of avoiding the association and imitation of this present world, the spirit of the age, the zeitgeist is about not identifying with God and the Bible. It requires being different and set apart. People just want to fit in. They don’t have that responsibility to speak for the Lord Jesus Christ. No one knows they are a Christian. They are hiding their light under the bushel (cf. Matthew 5:13-16). These professing believers don’t have the saltiness that preserves godliness. They don’t create a barrier for the social changes encouraged by the god of this world.
Those calling themselves Christians and their churches attempt to stay relevant with this world. They walk to the world’s drum beat. God doesn’t want this. Scripture teaches against it.
Zeitgeist: The Divine Requirement to Discern the Spirit of the Age
Zeitgeist
Zeitgeist is a German or Germanic term found in books going back to the 18th century. Within a translation of the German Philosophisches Journal in 1794, the English translation reads on page 302, “Zeitgeist also works on the national spirit. Every age has its own imagination.” Zeit is the German word for “time” and geist is the German word for “spirit.” Combined it means, “spirit of the time or age.” The Oxford Learner Dictionary defines zeitgeist:
the general mood or quality of a particular period of history, as shown by the ideas, beliefs, etc. common at the time
The term was popularized in philosophical usage by the German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. On August 27, 2020, Antje Allroggen writes in DW (Deutsche Welle), which is a German public, state-owned international broadcaster:
[I]t is generally agreed that Hegel was the first philosopher to recognize and address the dimension of change, which he termed “becoming” (“Werden“), in all its fullness. He believed everything in the world was in constant motion: every individual life, nature, history, society. This results in each epoch having its own particular zeitgeist, or general spirit. One historic epoch is not randomly followed by another; instead, there is a principle of logical evolution.
The concept of zeitgeist is a scriptural concept that is in fitting with the terminology, “this world” (touto aion) or “this present world.” Aion (“world”) is “age” or “epoch,” speaking of a characteristic period or time. That’s how zeitgeist fits into the “spirit of the time.” “This world” is found 38 times in the New Testament. “Present world” is found twice, but very representative of zeitgeist in those two instances. I would contend that the philosophical thinking that arose defining zeitgeist, started with the concept which was in scripture.
God’s Requirements
God requires man, and especially genuine believers, to understand or discern the spirit of the times or age, the zeitgeist. In order to obey God, follow Him, and represent Him according to His will, one must discern the zeitgeist. This is an implication or assumption of scripture. People can and should know this. I would contend that many do, but they embrace the spirit of the age. They lap it up and luxuriate in it rather than obey the God ordained relationship to it.
Jesus first uses “this world” in scripture in Matthew 13:22, when He says:
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
The thorny ground is an unbeliever in this context of the parable of the soils. “The care of this world” chokes the word with this person. Instead of embracing God’s Word, he embraces the spirit of the age, the zeitgeist. Unsaved people choose the zeitgeist over God’s Word, will, and way.
The Opposite Happening
Many churches today offer the spirit of the age to their church goers or attenders. They lure people with the zeitgeist. They fill up a trough of the cares of this world for their church people to lap up. In church growth seminars, the leaders promote or offer to their audience this as a means of church growth. They give away thorn seed for thorny ground to ruin the soil and damn souls, all the while saying that this is God at work, deceiving these people. These church leaders promote this kingdom instead of the next and then call it the work of God.
In another parable in Luke 16:8, Jesus says:
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Children and God of This World
The Lord Jesus distinguishes the children of light from “the children of this world.” These are the children characterized by the spirit of this age, something unfortunately and diabolically that churches promote today and yet call it “light.” Jesus says in John 8:23:
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
True believers, like Jesus, are not of this world. Those “of this world” are not believers. Instead of following Jesus, they follow the “god of this world,” who is not Jesus. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul says:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Be Not Conformed to this World
A classic passage in a pivotal context in Romans, the Apostle Paul commands in Romans 12:2:
And be not conformed to this world.
This is crucial. Someone conformed to the spirit of this age is not presenting himself a living sacrifice unto God. His sacrifice is at least rejected by God. He will not receive just any offering, just like He disrespected Cain’s offering in Genesis 4:5. God will not accept something that smacks of the spirit of this age.
To not conform to the spirit of the age requires knowing what is the spirit of the age, that is, what conforms to “this world.” Genuine believers should and will know the zeitgeist and reject it. Scripture assumes we can know this.
As the Gentiles Which Know Not God
Other phrases, texts, and contexts communicate the required discernment. Paul, writing to the church at Thessalonica in his first epistle, says (1 Thessalonians 4:5):
Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God
The Thessalonians and every other church are not to obtain their life’s partners “as the Gentiles which know not God.” There is a way that the world thinks and does things that is different than what the church or godly people do. It isn’t just doing something or having “the lust of concupiscence,” which is intense fleshly lust, but a way that corresponds to that. Believers acquire their spouses in sanctification and honor. That way is vastly different than “the Gentiles which know not God.” Those two ways cannot be the same, or even close. So what’s different?
Strange or Foreign
Scripture doesn’t say what is different, but the two ways have a nature, characteristics, or attributes that believers can and should discern. True believers through history have been doing this, discerning these differences. A word that characterizes “this world” in the Old Testament is “strange.” That is a King James Version word that means “foreign.” Sometimes something on your plate doesn’t look like part of the food served. It is foreign or strange, so you don’t eat it.
Whatever is “strange” in the Old Testament doesn’t fit with God’s people. Zephaniah 1:8 says:
And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD’S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.
What are these princes or king’s children doing in this verse that God will punish? They wear strange apparel or clothing. The passage doesn’t say what it is. It assumes that someone can and should know. God requires application of such principles. This assumes that God’s people can and should know.
The Application Required
“Strange apparel” is clothing that embraces or smacks of “the spirit of the age” or “this world.” Do believers know what this is? People who profess to believe have known this through the centuries. Professing believers seem to have become unable or ignorant for discernment of these differences or issues. God will still judge and punish. This principle is throughout scripture. It has not been renounced or rescinded like some of the dietary restrictions in the Old Testament.
Do you reader understand what I’m talking about in this post? Many churches don’t get it anymore. Why? Leaders don’t teach it. They act like the spirit of the age can’t be discerned. If it isn’t spelled out in exact language, then it is ‘beyond what it is written’ (cf. 1 Cor 4:6), which it isn’t. Scripture teaches this. Someone might “play dumb,” but that game isn’t true and it won’t work in the end. God requires the discernment of the spirit of the age and to act appropriately.
More to Come
A Gender Gap In the United States, Perhaps the World
Gender Gap In Polls
Some of you are reading about the “gender gap” in the 2024 United States Presidential Election. One side gets the women’s vote and the other side get’s the men’s vote. The gap between those two is bigger than ever. This itself is a scriptural issue. The gender gap manifests itself in a greater way right now than I’ve ever seen it in the United States. It’s big enough that I believe it is the biggest issue right now in the election. I don’t think it’s the biggest issue in the country itself, but in this election it is.
One report says that the gender gap is thirty points. That is a mammoth gap. Today, the Wall Street Journal wrote:
Trump’s 5-point advantage among men in the 2020 election has widened to 10 points in The Wall Street Journal’s most recent national poll, in late August. President Biden’s 12-point edge among women in 2020 has become a 13-point lead for Harris.
In a recent Marist poll, women supported Harris by 55% to 43% for Trump, while men supported Harris by 44% and Trump by 54%. Donald Trump loses the women’s vote by a gigantic margin, and the reason he still possibly wins is that he wins the men’s vote by a similar gigantic margin to offset the women’s vote. Women right now know that they have the power to put who they want into office. Will they do it? Maybe not. Enough women do not think that way that they will not go along with it.
Abortion
Those talking about the gender gap the most say that abortion is the leading issue related to the gap. I understand that women have more than one reason to vote for someone. However, the polls say that the biggest differentiating factor for women is they want the right to abort their offspring. I’m not talking for reasons of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, because even the anti-abortion states have those exceptions.
The most recent Gallup poll on abortion in May 2024, Gallup asked women if they in general were pro-choice or pro-abortion. The poll said 63% pro-choice and 33% pro-life. Gallup asked men too and that poll said 49% pro-life to 45% pro-choice. In a recent Wall Street Journal poll of the seven battleground states, 27% of women and only 8% of men listed abortion as the defining issue of the presidency. The election is about women and about women who want legalization of murdering babies.
I’ve asked my wife about this and her understanding is that women feel way more inconvenienced than men over a pregnancy. That last statement is not scientific, but it was a woman explaining, not a man (me). It does seem rather obvious.
Historical Gap
As huge as the gap as there is this year, women have determined the presidential election winner for awhile in the United States. Democrat candidates win because they get the women’s vote. Since 1980, women have voted for every Democrat candidate by at least 4%. The 4% occurred in 1992 only because of Ross Perot running as an Independent. One difference for Donald Trump, compared to all other times, is that he gets an even larger percentage of the male vote than any other Republican candidate since 1980.
Has the gender gap changed in a substantial way through history? Yes. The vote was about even until the late 1960s and early 70s. There was no gender gap in the voting. The men and women voted in almost identical fashion. It was not a concern for a campaign. Candidates didn’t run on “women’s issues.” The modern Democrat Party runs especially on gender identity. Trump may be the first candidate to run such an obvious campaign for men, even though they have a large minority of voters.
You should understand this male readers. Men are voting for Donald Trump by a large majority. The campaign for male voters for the Harris ticket looks like a campaign for soft men. They see their number one male attraction as a new definition of masculinity.
Reassuring Weakness
I saw a recent campaign speech by the Hollywood actress, Jennifer Garner. The Denver Gazette recorded her words:
Listen, I know you’ve knocked and knocked, and I know you’ve called and called. I know you’ve given and given, and you’re worn out. But the truth is, you are, you are the front lines. This is it. I mean, I’m looking at these beautiful faces, these women and these strong men. G**, is there anything sexier than a man who is like, “Men for Kamala?” Woo!
Men for Kamala apparently need the reassurance that they are “strong men.” Do strong men really need this kind of endorsement from a woman? At this point, do they even care if a female celebrity tells them they’re “strong.” Here is a Hollywood starlet also bolstering the sex appeal of supporting Kamala. She testifies that voting for Trump will diminish male sexual allure. Yet, men might get some if they vote for the woman. Imagine someone seriously saying this to a female audience. Is there anything more demeaning to manhood than a woman speaking like Gardner did? Yet, this is the norm today for Democrat politics.
Abdication and Emasculation
Men are abdicating their position or office in the world. They don’t have to do it. Men still have the ability in this world to take male headship. They don’t need to relinquish it. Men are choosing to do so, as if they’ll be better off. What’s going on in the world that men are doing this to themselves? They are agreeing that they shouldn’t have rule or leadership in society, that women should have it or take it from them. I would guess that many men reading here themselves think it’s right for men to give women charge. They prefer or want to emasculate themselves. What’s going on?
More to Come
Genesis 2:9, Aesthetics, and Objective Beauty
When one reads the first few chapters of Genesis, he notices the simple economy of words in revealing foundational truth underlying a biblical worldview. Genesis 2 begins the history of mankind with the toledoth structure in Genesis 2:4.
Toledoth
Toledoth is the Hebrew word translated “generations” thirteen times in Genesis and divides up the early history of mankind from the perspective of God. It follows the record of the people, of mankind, with God recording what occurred. Genesis 1:1-2:3 record the creation of God, a unique period in history. The earth He created begins then bringing forth as an active partner in “making.” 2:4 heads a new section in the narrative with the first toledoth emphasizing what happened with the beautiful and perfect world that God had created. It connects what precedes with what follows, pushing forward the history with another account.
The first toledoth does not use the name of a person — there was no history of men yet. However, all the history that follows proceeded from God’s creation of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a record of creating not begetting. When we get to Genesis 2, earth is an active partner in making. It sprouts plants (2:5) and the dust of it begets man himself, the product of earthy dust.
In Genesis 2:10-14, Moses wrote a description of the surrounding geography of Eden from a present-tense perspective of a pre-flood observer. It gave the reader in that day a sense of the immensity of the original Garden of Eden. Based on the geographic parallels in a post-flood world, the Garden was 3,500 square miles. God had major possibilities available for a faithful, obedient Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2:9
The few words take on maximum importance in communicating what God wants the reader to know and how and where to focus. Genesis 2:9 says the following:
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The LORD God made out of the ground to grow every tree. These trees were the means by which the pre-sin world would live. After sin and then the flood, men would survive based on the sweat of his brow, operating according to tilling a soil with thorns and thistles.
Pleasant to the Sight
The first quality of the trees of Eden God says are “pleasant to the sight” and second, “good for food.” It was important to God that the trees and the Garden looked beautiful. In modern cooking shows, chefs speak of food presentation, the process of arranging food to make it look better on the plate. This started with God and is in fitting with his nature and the nature of man.
If scripture says the tree was “pleasant to the sight,” then something must also be “unpleasant to the sight.” For beauty to exist, ugliness also exists. However, right at the beginning of creation, in the nature of God is the making of something beautiful to see.
For man made in the image of God, what was beautiful for him to see was also beautiful for God to see. God created people who would have the same aesthetic standard as Him. This is the beauty of God’s holiness. Beauty conforms to the perfections of God’s attributes, His glory. This is seen in His creation in its symmetry, order, proportion, harmony, and diversity. God Himself is the standard and everything beautiful conforms to who He is.
The Garden of Eden looked good. This was a first priority and within the nature of God. It wouldn’t be trashy, unkept, disorderly, or messy. These qualities do not conform to God. Any reader should assume that he knows what was pleasant to the eyes of Adam and Eve in their sinless conditions.
The Importance of an Aesthetic Value
My major point in this was the importance of an aesthetic value. God emphasizes the beautiful. True believers should and will judge all forms of art as to its beauty and reject what contradicts the nature of God.
Beauty is a second term issue. By that, I mean that God assumes we know what pleasantness is. The syllogism would read like the following:
The Trees of the Garden Were Pleasant to the Eyes
Symmetry, Order, Proportion, Harmony, and Diversity Are Pleasant to the Eyes
Therefore, the Trees of the Garden Had Symmetry, Order, Proportion, Harmony, and Diversity
You could write a similar syllogism with the adverse qualities of ugliness. The qualities of objective pleasantness must conform to the nature of God. What doesn’t is in fact ugly. Nothing is beautiful in its own way. Everything is beautiful according to the nature of God.
God’s Perfect Preservation of the Old Testament Hebrew Text and the King James Version (Part Two)
Most talk about the text of the Bible focuses on the New Testament. The Old Testament is much larger and yet there is less variation in extant copies of the Old Testament than the New. As well, more Christian scholars know the Greek than the Hebrew, and when they know the Hebrew, they also know the Greek better.
Scripture teaches the preservation of all of scripture in the original languages, the languages in which scripture was written. Even if the conversation mainly centers on the New Testament, God preserved the Old Testament perfectly too. In recent days, some are talking more about the Old Testament again. Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, addressed the preservation of the Old Testament and the variation of a Hebrew critical text.
No Translation Above Preserved Hebrew Text
I think you would be right to detect hypocrisy in many of those who wish to alter the preserved Hebrew text of the Old Testament with a Greek, Latin, or Syriac translation. Not necessarily in this order, but, first, it flies in the face of “manuscript evidence.” It’s not because there isn’t evidence — around three hundred extant ancient handwritten copies of the Hebrew Masoretic text exist. Second, critical text advocates savagely attack those who identify preservation in a translation. I don’t believe God preserved His words in a translation, but they actually do in their underlying Old Testament text for the modern versions.
In a related issue, the same critical text supporters most often say that Jesus quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, “the Septuagint.” As someone reads the references or mentions of the Old Testament by Jesus in the Gospels, he will notice that there are not exact quotations of the Hebrew Masoretic text. Even when you compare the English translation of the Hebrew in the Old Testament passage and compare it with the English translation of the Greek in the New Testament, they won’t match exactly most of the time. What was happening in these passages? Is this evidence that we don’t have an identical text to them?
View of the Septuagint
It is a popular and false notion that Christians in the first century used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, called the Septuagint, as their scriptures, so they quoted from it. All the New Testament “quotations” of the Old Testament have at least minor variants from the various editions of the Septuagint in all but one place: a quote in Matthew 21:16 is identical to a part of Psalm 8:3 in Ralf’s edition of the Septuagint.
When you read the New Testament and find the 320 or so usages or allusions to the Old Testament in it, you will see that they are not identical. Some might explain that as a translation of a translation, that is, the Old Testament, Hebrew to English, and the New Testament, Hebrew to Greek to English, differences will occur by a sheer dissipation of a third language. Online and in other locations you can compare an English translation of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament with an English translation of one edition of the Septuagint and one of the Hebrew Masoretic to compare the latter two with the first.
I see value in the Septuagint, whichever edition, since there are several. Those various editions give larger sample sizes of Greek usage for meaning and syntax for understanding the Greek biblical language of the New Testament. They can help with the study of both the Old and New Testaments. As an example, Jewish translators translated the Old Testament Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 parthenos, which is the specific Greek word for “virgin,” not “young woman.” All of this answers the question, “How would people have understood the word, phrase, or sentence who heard it in that day?”
What Did New Testament Authors Do?
The mentions of the Old Testament in the New are most often not verbatim quotations of the Hebrew. That’s not what the New Testament authors were doing. They were serious about the preservation of the Old Testament as seen in the regular use of the words, “it is written.” This is a perfect passive verb that says passage continues written. The writing of the passage was complete with the results of that writing ongoing. This communicates the preservation of scripture.
The New Testament authors knew the Old Testament well, so they didn’t need a Greek translation of it. The New Testament writers could do their own translation of a Hebrew text. They most often, however, did a “targum,” some quoting and some paraphrasing from memory and also deliberately using the words of the text to make their theological or practical point from the Bible. Preachers continue to do this today, sometimes quoting directly from a translation and other times making an allusion or reference to the passage.
Reliance on the Septuagint?
What I’m explaining about “targumming” is the explanation of John Owen and others through history as to the variation between the Old Testament Hebrew and the Greek or English translation. Some references to the Old Testament are closer to an edition of the Septuagint than the Hebrew Masoretic text, sometimes almost identical. Were the scriptural authors relying on a Septuagint, which predated the New Testament?
If New Testament authors relied on what we know of the Greek Septuagint today, then they depended on a corrupt edition or version of scripture. Some give this as an argument for the validation of a corrupt text. They say that God doesn’t care about the very words of the Bible, just its message. Instead, God kept the message very intact, but not the exact words. In addition, they often say that the Septuagint is evidence for the acceptance of something short of a perfect text. These approaches to the Septuagint are mere theories founded on faulty presuppositions.
John Owen also referred to this similarity between the usages of the New Testament authors with a translation of the Greek Old Testament, such as the Septuagint. He said that the likely explanation was that Christians adapted the text of the Septuagint to the New Testament quotations out of respect of Jesus and the New Testament authors. Others have echoed that down through history. Owen wasn’t alone. It is a possibility.
John Owen
In Owen’s first volume in his three thousand page Hebrews commentary, he spends a few pages speaking on the Septuagint and the concept of quotations from it. Owen writes (pp. 67-68):
Concerning these, and some other places, many confidently affirm, that the apostle waved the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX. . . . [T]his boldness in correcting the text, and fancying without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the Scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. . . .
[I]t is highly probable, that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this epistle, reporting the sense and import of the places, in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text, either as judging them a more proper version of the original, (whereof they were ignorant) than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it.
And thus in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX. but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation.
Theories of Men Versus the Promises of God
Theories of men should not upend or variate the promises of God. God’s promises stand. He promised to preserve the original language text. We should believe it. No one should believe that Jesus or one of the apostles quoted from a corrupted Greek translation. That contradicts the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Other answers exist.
Whatever position someone takes on the Septuagint, it should not contradict what God already said He would do. There is no authority to historical theories based on no or tenuous evidence at best. The best explanation is one that continues a high view of scripture. One should not rely on one of the editions of the Greek Septuagint for deciding what scripture is. It should not correct the received Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Instead, everyone should believe what God said He would do and acknowledge its fulfillment in history.
The Second Amendment Comes Right After the First Amendment
Not to insult your intelligence, but the second amendment comes right after the first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers believed that the right to bear arms was necessary to protect first amendment freedoms. They believed citizens possessed a right of protection of those rights from the government. Without the right to bear arms, the government could overstep its constitutional boundaries and threaten freedom of speech, religion, the press, redress of grievances, and assembly.
History
The Framers experienced tyranny firsthand and knew tyrants disarmed militias to eliminate them. They needed an armed citizen militia to resist an oppressive military if constitutional order broke down. Catholic rulers in England prohibited their Protestant subjects from owning firearms. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights corrected that injustice. In Heller v. District of Columbia (2008), the Supreme Court then ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to own guns, rather than the collective right of a state to have a militia. Yale Constitutional legal scholar, Akhil Reed Amar, wrote in a 2001 Utah Law Review article:
Consider once again the First Amendment. The core idea underlying the Founders’ Freedom of Speech Clause was a right to engage in political expression, especially anti-government speech. Intratextual and historical analysis confirms that this was the core idea: the phrase “freedom of speech” derives from the English Bill of Rights protecting “freedom of speech, and debates … in parliament. “Parliament,” from the French parler, “to speak,” is a parley place, a speaking spot. But Parliament is not quite a spot for any and all utterances: the core concept here is political expression.
Voting itself is a powerful individual expression. When citizens believe the government is nullifying their vote, they might protest. When they begin to think government is taking away their vote, the government might expect a forceful response.
Protection Against Tyranny
The First Amendment is often viewed as fundamental to a democratic society because it ensures that citizens can express their opinions and dissent against government actions without fear of retribution. This principle is essential for fostering a healthy political discourse. Following this foundational principle, the Second Amendment addressed concerns about self-defense and protection against tyranny. The framers believed that an armed populace could serve as a check against potential government overreach or oppression.
Philosophers like John Locke emphasized natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. These ideas influenced American thought during the founding era; thus, protecting individual rights became paramount in drafting both amendments. While both amendments protect individual rights, they do so in different realms. The First Amendment ensures that citizens can freely express their thoughts and assemble to advocate for their beliefs. The Second Amendment provides a means for individuals to defend those rights physically if necessary. In this sense, one could argue that the Second Amendment serves as a safeguard for the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Both first and second amendments emerged from a backdrop where individuals had recently fought against British rule. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware that oppressive governments could stifle individual rights through censorship (First Amendment) or disarmament (Second Amendment). When only one side of a political divide has the firearms, this quells or quenches the free expression on the other. Other threats can also stifle free speech. Without the possibility of citizens arising with arms, the police power of the government can enforce its own approved speech to the elimination of its citizens.
Case Study of January 6
I would ask that we consider January 6, 2001 as a case study of first amendment rights. For the last seventy-five years one political party participated in political speech accompanied with violence in the United States, the Democrat Party. Hundreds of examples exist and almost every one of them come from the left, including the BLM riots of 2020 with at least 25 killed that Summer. All of this resulted in thousands of deaths and multiple billions of dollars in damage. Anyone reading here knows that violent protests and rioting are the unique domain of the Democrats, the left, and their supporters. Citizens have tolerated these for decades. Then comes January 6.
January 6 was an outlier for right wing protests. The primary motivating factor was the perception of interference in the 2020 presidential election. Conservative authors have written numerous entire books and dozens of published articles outlining and giving evidence for the interference with the 2020 election by advocates of the Democrat Party. Four Trump supporters alone died that day, one unarmed Ashli Babbit, who was shot and killed. The crowd that day saw the election interference as a greater violation than the vitriol and hostility of its demonstration.
The United States government understands the threat of violence against it posed by the existence of the second amendment. Defense of liberty goes two ways.
Debate Moderators As a Paradigm for a Censorship State
Freedom of Speech
A distinguishing characteristic of American liberty from the rest of the world is the first amendment of its bill of rights and in particular the freedom of speech. The people of modern Western states, apparent allies of the United States, do not have this same right. England doesn’t and France doesn’t. As serious as any single issue in the 2024 presidential campaign season is the attack on the first amendment rights of American citizens.
The right to free speech couples with the right to the free expression of religion and the rights to freedom of assembly and the right to petition the state for the address of grievances. Long ago the state exempted the truth of the Bible from the public square. As an example, Hammurabi’s one appearance of one pillar and his one code count as history but the multiple ancient Hebrew copies of Old Testament do not. This practice is a deliberate abridgement of the free speech right.
Moderation of the Vice Presidential Debate
Last night, I watched the entire Vance-Walz Vice-Presidential debate. Like in the ABC debate, the two CBS moderators only fact-checked or moderated one candidate. Moderation of one and not the other is a form of censorship. I would ascertain that this is why Trump refuses a second Presidential debate.
Based on what he saw from the first debate, Vance challenged a “fact check” from Margaret Brennan on the true legality of Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio. Before the debate, the Associated Press reported that CBS agreed that the moderators would not fact-check the candidates in real-time. Instead, they left it to the candidates to fact-check each other. In the ABC debate, the moderators fact checked Trump four times and Harris zero.
The Fact Check
Vance did not need a fact check. His point was legitimate. Calling the Haitian migrants legal was an opinion, easily in dispute. It is part of a larger effort to use a fact-checking apparatus to treat a statement as misinformation. The entire exchange went like this:
JD VANCE: Margaret. The rules were that you guys were not going to fact check, and since you’re fact checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for ten years.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator.
JD VANCE: That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.
Point of Contention
Wikipedia accounts for the CBP One App to which Vance referred, also giving links to appropriate related information:
CBP One was launched on October 28, 2020 primarily to help commercial trucking companies schedule cargo inspections.
In January 2023, CBP One’s functionality was expanded to include unauthorized migrants seeking protection from violence, poverty, or persecution.
In May 2023, CBP One was designated by Biden administration as the only path to request asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border and book asylum appointments.
The President of the United States does not have Constitutional authority to open the border of the United States or allow anyone to enter the United States regardless of the law. The executive branch of the United States, the president, has authority to enforce the immigration laws. The president does not have power to create laws. The Constitution gives that authority to the Congress. Those laws are subject to the review of the judicial branch as to their Constitutionality.
If the president grants legal status to a migrant, that doesn’t make him legal. He is legal or illegal based on the laws of the United States, passed by Congress and signed by the president. If the president grants asylum to the Haitian migrants, that doesn’t mean they’re legal. This president has allowed tens of thousands of migrants to enter and then stay in the United States illegally. The debate was between Vance and Walz and it was up to Walz what to fact check of Vance, if necessary.
Moderation and Censorship
If the moderators of the debate wanted to save time for all their questions, as in Brennan saying, “We have so much to get to,” then don’t take time for their so-called fact checking. The fact checking is a form of censorship in which the media amplifies the power of and as a part of the administrative state as a force multiplier. It furthers one position as a party apparatus for the consolidation of power. The administrative state censors what does not agree with its position. This is a process by which it eliminates all opposition toward an authoritarian regime.
One party in this presidential race doesn’t see the need to do many interviews. It exerts the most control of societal institutions and structures in a powerful means. A relatively few elite in the United States exert a tremendous hold over the minds and imaginations of the country. Key leaders for the uniparty signal the importance of arriving at a censorship state. At the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings of the World Economic Forum, John Kerry said:
Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence. What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.
Restriction of Information
In addition he warned that “there are some people in our country who prepared to implement change by other means.” In a poll by Pew, now 55% of Americans (39% in 2018) support the federal government restricting false information. Pew also stated from its poll:
In addition, the share of U.S. adults who say that tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online has increased from 56% in 2018 to 65% in 2023.
False information, disinformation, and misinformation are all very easy to define as something that disagrees with conventional wisdom or a societal norm. For a long time, people used the words “politically correct.” That doesn’t mean it is correct, but that it is the acceptable position of an administrative state.
Punishing Unacceptable Speech
Authoritarian regimes prosecute and incarcerate unacceptable speech. They send those espousing a disagreeable position to reeducation camps. What suffers is the actual truth. It’s easy today to see the truth chilled in the public square. People are afraid to lose their jobs and livelihood because of espousing something that was a moral belief and behavior less than fifty years ago.
Satan knows the truth shall set you free (John 8:32-36). When you read the Bible, the government jailed those expressing something contradicting the favored position. When John the Baptist spoke truth to Herod, he lost his head and life. The government banished the Apostle John to the isle of Patmos and executed the other disciples. The direction of censorship and threats to the first amendment portend a return to such a day, where you will suffer and die for the truth. May we first be warned and then attempt to protect and keep these rights while we still can.
*********************************
Related video (speech by Matt Taibbi) to this subject matter and then a link to an article by Jonathan Turley, Constitutional scholar.
God’s Perfect Preservation of the Old Testament Hebrew Text and the King James Version (Part One)
Preservation of Old Testament in Hebrew
If someone believes in the perfect preservation of scripture, he also believes in the perfect preservation of the Hebrew Old Testament. In discussions and debate about the text of scripture and translation, almost all of it relates to the New Testament, where there is a higher percentage of variation in the extant Greek manuscripts. People don’t spend as much time quibbling over the Old Testament. Nevertheless, people have differences and questions about the Old Testament text.
Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, does address the Old Testament. It looks at changes in the Hebrew text used in the modern versions. Even though the King James Translators relied on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament, translators for modern English versions of the Old Testament used a variation of sources from which to translate. In addition to the Hebrew Masoretic text, as an example, the translators of the English Standard Version (ESV) also used Alfred Ralf’s 1935 critical edition of the Greek Septuagint (LXX).
Modern Versions and the Original Languages of the Old Testament
The ESV translators also compared the Masoretic with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), a text discovered almost 75 years ago in caves near the Dead Sea in Israel, and made changes based on their textual theories. They also relied on the Samaritan Pentateuch, a version of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, maintained by Samaritans. In addition, the ESV committee used the Syriac Peshitta, an early translation of the Bible into Syriac, a dialect of Middle Aramaic, and lastly the Latin Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome in the late 4th century AD.
As I see it, a vast majority of the people who use modern versions like the ESV do not know that the Old and New Testaments come from a different text than the King James Version. Critical text and modern version advocates don’t mention this. Their own users see their versions as just updated translations in easier, more modern English, not a different underlying text.
Historical Doctrine of Preservation of Scripture
London Baptist Confession
Preservation of scripture means preservation of the original language text of scripture. The originals of the Old Testament are Hebrew and a very tiny amount of Aramaic. That’s what God promised to preserve, even with Jesus’ declaration of jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18. This also is the historic position of the church, as seen in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Isaiah 59:21
For preservation to be preservation, it preserves something already there. What was there at the beginning was a Hebrew text and God preserved that, using Old Testament Israel to do it. God also promised perfect preservation. This includes with it availability that God declares among other places in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
This is called getting your bibliology, your doctrine of the Bible, from the Bible itself. What does God say He did, that He is doing, and that He will do with the Bible. That’s how you get doctrine and that’s what you believe. This pleases God (Hebrews 11:6). He wants us to believe Him.
Septuagint
Enter the Septuagint. The Septuagint isn’t Hebrew. It is an apparently Greek translation of the Hebrew. I say “apparently,” because the translation of the various iterations of the Septuagint differ greatly from the Hebrew Masoretic text.
It seems acceptable today among themselves for various critical text and modern version proponents to advocate for the superiority of the Septuagint, even though it is a translation. They are fine with correcting the Hebrew text with a Greek translation. I don’t believe there is a published ESV edition of the Hebrew text, but it seems that the committee for the ESV changed the Hebrew Masoretic 50-100 times based on the Greek Septuagint. They also seemingly altered the Masoretic 20-30 times each for both the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta. They back translated into the Hebrew from the Greek, Latin, and Syriac languages.
Psalm 22:16
At this juncture, I think it is important to stop to answer what would be a very likely argument from those who believe God preserved His Words through translations and not the Hebrew language text. In other words, jots and tittles did in fact pass away in contradiction to what God promised. They will say that Masoretic text believers will do the same thing as they in one place: Psalm 22:16. This one apparent exception says that we both think the same way on this issue. They would say that the King James Version of Psalm 22:16 proceeds from the Greek Septuagint and not the Hebrew Masoretic.
Here is a translation of Psalm 22:16 from first the King James Version, second the Brenton’s 1870 edition of the English translation of the Codex Vaticanus edition of the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha, and third the Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 English translation of the Hebrew Masoretic:
KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Brenton Septuagint: For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.
JPS: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
For your information, the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the KJV and the Brenton Septuagint. The criticism here is that the last part of the verse is different in the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the King James Version. Critics say that the KJV translators relied on the Greek Septuagint in this one place. Is this true? The most conservative position that harmonizes with the biblical doctrine of preservation says that the KJV translators had Hebrew copies of what they translated.
William Whitaker and Disputations on Holy Scripture
William Whitaker wrote the following in 1588 (pp. 159-160) in his Disputations on Holy Scripture:
All Christians read, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” But the Hebrew MSS. have not Caru “they pierced,” but Caari, “as a Lion.” I answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in the Hebrew original; yet it is easy to protect this place from their [Catholics and others who are against the preservation of Scripture] reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading is Caru; Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. IV., and Galatinus, Lib. VIII. C. 17. And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy, in his book against Lindanus, Lib. II.; and the Masorites themselves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies.
Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation: whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is no no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome’s time. For the Chaldee Paraphrast has conjoined both readings, and the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place. Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew Caari, as our books have it, though he rendered it “fixerunt.” So that it can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome.
Advocates of modern textual criticism and modern versions don’t seem to care or respect the writings of men like Whitaker, who represents the historical doctrine of true believers. They never mention them or give them credit. Whitaker says there are “many Hebrew copies found in which the reading” is the same as that from which the King James Version translated.
More to Come
Recent Comments