Home » Thomas Ross (Page 12)

Category Archives: Thomas Ross

There is no balm in Gilead to heal the sin sick soul

April 23, 2021 / 3 Comments on There is no balm in Gilead to heal the sin sick soul

The famous hymn “There is a Balm in Gilead” begins:

There is a balm in Gilead
To make the wounded whole
There is a balm in Gilead
To heal the sin-sick soul …

The song is based on Jeremiah 8:22:

Jer. 8:22 Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

The problem is that in this verse Jeremiah is teaching that there is no balm in Gilead that can heal Israel’s sin-sick soul. The other two texts that refer to “balm” in Jeremiah likewise specify the failure of balm to heal:

Jer. 46:11 Go up into Gilead, and take balm, O virgin, the daughter of Egypt: in vain shalt thou use many medicines; for thou shalt not be cured.

Jer. 51:8 Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed: howl for her; take balm for her pain, if so be she may be healed.

Perhaps it would be more accurate, if one is to sing this hymn, to sing:

There is no balm in Gilead
To make the wounded whole
There is no balm in Gilead
To heal the sin-sick soul

Only Jesus Christ can do it,

Not any balm of man;

There is no balm in Gilead

To heal the sin-sick soul.

Sadly, if one sings the traditional version, he is singing to God exactly the opposite of what Scripture says.

Churches are encouraged to sing from hymnals where the compilers actually cared that their content is doctrinally accurate, such as the Trinity hymnal: Baptist edition or Great Hymns and Psalms of the Faith (currently words-only, a version with tunes is being worked on by the Metropolitan Baptist Tabernacle), as well as singing God’s inspired and infallibile psalms, as the New Testament explicitly commands (James 5:13).

–TDR

No Divorce–Just Legal Separation!

April 9, 2021 / Leave a comment

Scripture plainly teaches that God hates divorce, e. g. Mark 10:11-12:

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

But what about “legal separation”? Can a believer justify separating himself or herself from his or her spouse, going to law in custody battles, and in other ways remaining unreconciled, as long as “legal separation” and not “divorce” is what this is called? Consider the following passages.

1.) 1Cor. 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Cor. 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1Cor. 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Cor. 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Cor. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Note that “let …” is the English way of rendering a 3rd person imperative in Greek–in other words, these are not just allowances, they are commands, infallible orders in God’s Word. “Let not the wife depart from her husband … Let not the husband put away his wife” are not options, but commands, commands just like the commands not to commit idolatry, not to steal, to confess Christ, etc.Note as well that a believing spouse is not suggested, but commanded to “not leave” even an unconverted spouse–and what kind of unconverted people are we talking about? What kind of people are the unconverted at Corinth? They were “unrighteous … fornicators … idolaters … adulterers … effeminate … abusers of themselves with mankind … thieves … covetous … drunkards … revilers … extortioners” (1 Cor 6:9-10). Even spouses who are unconverted and are engaging in such filthy perversion and gross wickedness come under the command, not the option, but command, “Let not … leave.”The only person who is seen leaving is the unconverted spouse. Leaving is what an unconverted person would be characterized by, not a converted person who can love, suffer, patiently endure wrong, etc. like Christ because of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.Note as well that leaving does not result in a better situation for the household. Staying with even a spouse who is a fornicator, adulterer, thief, etc. results in the household being “sanctified” and the children being “holy.” It is better for the children for the two to stay together, even if one spouse is engaged in such gross wickedness. Nothing in the text says anything about separating until the other person gets better or changes. On the contrary, the only mention of change in the evil of the one spouse is if they stay together (1 Cor 7:16):

1Cor. 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

where the “whether” is the Greek particle for “if” with the assumption of the reality of the condition (1st class conditional)–in other words, “whether/if thou shalt..” with the assumption that staying together will result in the positive change (1st class), not “whether/if” with this presented as only being possible (3rd class) or unlikely (4th class conditional). The only thing the text says happens when the two are not together is children who are unclean instead of holy and the other spouse not making positive change.

2.) Mal. 2:13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
Mal. 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal. 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal. 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Note that Jehovah, the God of Israel, says that “he hateth putting away.” Note that Jehovah does not say that He only hates giving a certificate of divorce. He says that He hates–He finds detestable in His holy Being–“putting away.” A simple search for this word (shalach, Piel stem) indicates that “putting away” appears in passages such as:

Gen. 12:20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

Ex. 10:7 And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?

Josh. 24:28 So Joshua let the people depart, every man unto his inheritance.

and many others.So what God “hates” is not just signing a divorce certificate, although He certainly does hate that. He hates “putting away.” He hates it when spouses “depart” or “go” from each other, and when this happens, not only do they do something that He “hates,” but they do something that greatly compromises the “godly seed”–something also seen, as noted above, in 1 Cor 7. “Putting away” meaning literally “departing” or “going” etc., not just “divorce,” as something hated by God is also seen in 1 Cor 7 above, where “put away” is paralleled with “depart,” not being “reconciled,” “dwell with,” “not .. leave,” etc.So what God hates, what He calls “treachery” to the marriage vow in Malachi 2, is not just divorce, but “putting away.” Consider the contextual curses related to the sins of the chapter like “putting away” include:

Mal. 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
Mal. 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

The text indicates God calls putting away of a spouse treachery, and He curses those who do it, corrupts their seed, spreads dung on them, and takes them away.

3.) Psa. 15:1-4 LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
Psa. 15:2 He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
Psa. 15:3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
Psa. 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

Note that this passage says that those who “speak truth” and “swear to [their] own hurt, and changeth not” are those who will “dwell in [God’s] holy hill,” and are contrasted with the “vile person.” The upright person swears to his own hurt and does not change, while the vile change and when swearing is to the vile person’s own hurt, he changes, unlike the righteous.So if someone calls together a large group of witnesses, and then swears to God something such as, in part:

“I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith.”

Even if one later thinks he or she should not have made this vow it does not matter. The righteous swears to his own hurt and does not change. The vow has been made and must be kept even to one’s own hurt. Christ’s people know that their time on earth is about losing their life, taking up the cross–which is terrible, humiliating suffering and excruciating death–to follow Jesus Christ. So even if keeping one’s vow means one will be in awful misery, he needs to keep his vow that was sworn to one’s hurt, and not change, since Jehovah calls spousal separation “treachery” in Malachi 2. It is better to endure lifelong misery than to sin. It is better to suffer a horrible death like crucifixion than to sin. While God gives comfort to His obedient people in suffering, and it is not likely that staying in a marriage will mean life-long suffering for a believer, even if it does the believer is to swear to his own hurt and not change. This life is nothing compared to eternal life, and suffering for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 100 years is nothing compared to eternity. It is better not to make a foolish vow, but once it has been made it must be kept, because life is not about our feeling comfortable, but about the glory of God.If we have the following attitude:

Is. 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

it is very clear that “legal separation” is hateful to God. Believers who file for “legal separation” are sinning against the Lord. If a spouse is running at you with a meat cleaver screaming he is going to kill you, you can run away so you don’t get killed. If you are getting beaten up, you can flee to prevent that from happening because of the Biblical principle in the Sixth Commandment to preserve life from murder (Exodus 20:13). You do not get to leave if you have an unsaved spouse who is mean, who says terrible things to you, or anything like that. Obey God. Reject legal separation, just like you reject divorce. God rejects them both.

Learn more about the Christian home here.

–TR

Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God, says the Watchtower Society or Jehovah’s Witnesses

April 2, 2021 / Leave a comment

According to the Watchtower Society or “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” “Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God!” This is their explanation for Isaiah 9:6:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

There is a severe problem with their explanation of this passage–namely, that every other text with the Hebrew translated as “mighty God” (Hebrew ‘el gibbor) says that Jehovah is the Mighty God. The complete list of texts in Hebrew where “the mighty God” is found are as follows:

Deut. 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
Is. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Is. 10:21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.
Jer. 32:18 Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name,
Neh. 9:32 Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the kings of Assyria unto this day.

So in Deuteronomy Jehovah is ‘el gibbor, “the mighty God.” In Isaiah 10:21–just one chapter after Isaiah 9:6–Jehovah is the Mighty God. In Jeremiah 32:18 Jehovah of hosts is the mighty God. In Nehemiah 9:32 Jehovah is the mighty God.

So is the mighty God in Isaiah 9:6 some sort of quasi-deity, a less-than Jehovah true god, as the Watchtower teaches, advocating a hierarchical form of polytheism? Or is ‘el gibbor a title for Jehovah–the Mighty God? The answer is obvious, but people in the Watchtower do not know it, because they do not know how to study the Bible. Even their leaders who give “talks” can have never done a word study in their lives. “Bible study” for them is reading the Bible in light of the Watchtower magazine and their website, not actually studying the Bible on its own terms.

Should we be surprised that the Watchtower admits that people who start studying the Bible on their own reject their cult and become Trinitarians?

“From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. … They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago[.]” (The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981, pgs. 28-29)

Learn more by reading Are You Worshipping Jehovah? here.

–TR

New Christian Mutual Fund

March 26, 2021 / Leave a comment

I am very thankful for the Eventide family of mutual funds, for the reasons explained in my “God-honoring and Bible-based Christian mutual funds” post. If you do not have strong confidence that whatever you are invested in is not funding abortion, tobacco, alcohol, sexual perversion, and other evils, use the link on this page to get a complementary moral audit of your funds.

Eventide has a new fund called the “Exponential Technologies” fund (ticker: ETNEX, ETIEX, ETAEX, ETCEX. Most people should get ETNEX, if you have a lot of money you can use ETIEX.). It works as: “A concentrated mutual fund representing our ‘best ideas’ for long-term capital appreciation in the information technology and communication services sectors as well as healthcare technology and device industries.”

Consider adding this new Eventide fund to your portfolio, in conjunction with what your financial advisor says (you can get a free consult with an organization like Fidelity.)

–TR

KJV margin vs Ruckmanisim

March 19, 2021 / 2 Comments on KJV margin vs Ruckmanisim

The original edition of the King James Bible had marginal notes (see the replica of the original 1611 in the Bibliology section here). These marginal notes, which are still reprinted in the Trinitarian Bible Society and Cambridge printings of the KJV, as well as being available in electronic versions such as for Accordance Bible Software, reject the Ruckmanite ideas that the KJV is superior to the original language text, that study of Greek and Hebrew should not be undertaken, and similar foolishness. For example:

The note on Matthew 5:15 contains the phrase: “the word in the original signifieth.” Oops, I thought you weren’t supposed to look at the original. See also Mark 4:21, etc.

The note on Mark 7:4 reads: “in the Original, with the fist,” supplying information that one would not readily understand by just looking at the English text. This is a no-no with Ruckmanites.

The note on Mark 13:8 reads: “The word in the original, importeth, the pains of a woman in travail,” again supplying additional information not obvious from the English text alone.

There are numbers of other notes like this. If you are a real King James Bible 1611 person, then you need to be in favor of studying Greek and Hebrew and helping the saints understand God’s Word better by referring to the original languages. If you are against study and reference to the original languages, you are not a 1611 KJV person. You may be a Ruckman2000, but you are not a KJV1611.

–TR

Free Psalm Singing Resources

March 12, 2021 / Leave a comment

In the section on ecclesiology on my website, I have a number of resources discussing psalm-singing. I hope you are in a church that obeys the command to “sing psalms” (James 5:13; Ephesians 5:18ff.) and that you also obey this command in your personal life and in your family worship. If you are in a position of church leadership, and you are not obeying God’s command to sing to Him the inspired psalms, why not start–now?

Crown and Covenant publishes conservative psalm-singing recordings. The large majority (but not all) of them are Biblically acceptable in their musical style. You can now stream the large majority of their music for free–for example, you can listen to them on YouTube here. It is a blessing to have these high-quality audio productions available for free.

Being glad for their psalm-singing is not an endorsement of their unscriptural Presbyterian theology.

–TR

“Q,” the Son of Man, and Christ’s Deity

March 5, 2021 / Leave a comment

The alleged document “Q,” according to critical or anti-supernaturalist scholars, underlies the New Testament Gospels. As explained in my study on the New Testament and archaeology, there is no reason to believe that “Q” ever existed. However, even if one granted, for the sake of argument, that “Q” did exist, it still provides evidence that Christ is Divine, for the Lord Jesus clearly identifies Himself as the Son of Man.In Daniel 7:13-14; the “service” the Son of Man receives is that which pertains only to Jehovah [see the other Biblical references to the Aramaic word pᵉlaḥ in: Daniel 3:12, 14, 17–18, 28; 6:16, 20; 7:14, 27; Ezra 7:24; the word means to “pay reverence to, serve (deity),” (Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977]) and is translated in the LXX as latreuo, the word for the service/worship of God]). Thus, when Christ claims to be the Son of Man, He is claiming a Divine title.According to the skeptical, anti-supernaturalist criteria for evaluating the authenticity of Christ’s sayings about Himself known as the principle of dissimilarity, sayings of Jesus are recognized by skeptical scholars as authentic when they disagree with what early Christianity taught and what the Judaism of the time taught. In other words, the Christians were not making up sayings of Jesus and putting them into His mouth if they themselves did not employ them. This is a foolish skeptical criterion, for the likelihood that the Christians would teach what Christ had taught them and so there would be tremendous overlap is only natural. However, if one accepts this criterion as true for the sake of argument, the “Son of Man” sayings by the Lord Jesus pass it. Skeptical scholars recognize that Jesus’ “Son of Man” sayings are attested to by multiple sources. As Gary Habermas points out, even though “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite self‐designation in the Gospels, none of the New Testament epistles attribute this title to Jesus even a single time. So skeptical scholars, using their own critera, should accept the legitimacy of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels.The real Jesus of history is a supernatural one who claims He is God in the flesh, the Divine-human Son of Man predicted by Daniel the prophet. A “Jesus” who was just a good teacher is entirely absent from the pages of history. Thus, my question in my debate with Shabir Ally on the accuracy of the New Testament picture of Jesus (on YouTube here):If, for the sake of argument, I granted that “Q” existed, does not the fact that “Q” still specifies a Jesus who has the attributes of God (Q 10:22 cf. Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22), gives the Holy Spirit Divine status (Q 12:10; cf. Matthew 12:31; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10), and who is the Divine Son of Man who shares Jehovah’s throne, glory, and worship[1] (Q 6:22-23; 7:34; 9:58; 11:30; 12:8-10; 17:22-23; cf. Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27–28; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:13, 31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26, 34; 14:21, 41, 62; Luke 5:24; 6:5; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 56, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7; John 1:51; 3:13–14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Hebrews 2:6; Revelation 1:13; 14:14) show how impossible it is to reduce the Lord Jesus to the mere prophet or teacher affirmed in Islam and secular humanism, since even in the anti-supernaturalist myth “Q” Christ still is the God-Man?–TR

Gender-Neutral Language in Bible Translation is Unscriptural

January 23, 2021 / Leave a comment

Many modern Bible versions employ what they call “gender neutral” language. So, for example, the Authorized, King James Version of John 1:9 reads:

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

by way of contrast, the New International Version reads:

John 1:9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

There is no textual variant here. The Greek text reads:

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

ēn to phōs to alēthinon, ho phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon.

The KJV translates the Greek word anthropos as “man”–which is what the word means, recognizing that “man” is the generic term for the entire human race, even as Adam, not Eve, represented mankind (Romans 5:12-19).

For another example, consider John 12:32. The King James Version reads:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In contrast, the NKJV, New King James Version, reads:

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

There is no textual variant here either. The Greek text reads:

κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

kagō ean hypsōthō ek tēs gēs, pantas helkysō pros emauton.

The masculine form of pantas is properly rendered “all men.” The NKJV alters the text to the more feminist “all peoples” to prevent “man/men” from being the generic word for mankind (oops, excuse me, “humankind”; using “mankind” might have been a microaggression and evidence of systemic racism and sexism). Note also that here, as in vast numbers of other places, the NKJV is not simply updating archaic and hard-to-understand language in the KJV; “all men” is not hard to understand in the least.

For another example, note Matthew 25:40 in the King James Bible:

Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Compare the same verse in the New International Version:

Matt. 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Here again there is no textual variant. The Greek reads:

αὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

ai apokritheis ho basileus erei autois, Amēn legō hymin, eph’ hoson epoiēsate heni toutōn tōn adelphōn mou tōn elachistōn, emoi epoiēsate.

The plural adelphon, “brethren,” is from the Greek word adelphos, “brother.” The “and sisters” is simply not contained in the text, but has been added in by the NIV translators to make their version more feminist.

When the New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, translated the Old Testament, did they follow the practice of modern feminism and transform the inspired Hebrew Old Testament into something more “gender neutral”? Or did the New Testament specifically use “man” as the generic term for all people–does it specifically make the male the representative of generic humanity?

Consider Romans 11:4:

Rom. 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ.

alla ti legei autō ho chrēmatismos? Katelipon emautō heptakischilious andras, hoitines ouk ekampsan gony tē Baal.

Romans 11:4 is referencing 1 Kings 19:18:

1Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Notice that the word “men” is not specifically contained in 1 Kings 19:18, but it is in Romans 11:4. Furthermore, Romans 11:4 does not use the Greek word anthropos, which is commonly a generic word for “mankind” or the entire human race, but the word andros (lexical form aner)–“men” as “males.” So when the New Testament, under inspiration, makes reference to the Old Testament, it is so far from removing masculine terms and making the Scripture more gender neutral that it specifically states “all men” in translating a less-specific original language reference.

The Lord Jesus Christ does the same thing as the Apostle Paul. Consider Matthew 12:41:

Matt. 12:41 The men [andros, “males,” from aner] of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The Lord Jesus is referring to Jonah 3:7-8:

And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man [Hebrew ‘adam, properly rendered “man” but frequently a generic word for the entire human race, not for “males” in particular] nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man [Hebrew ‘adam again, frequently a generic term] and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

When Christ refers to the Old Testament, He takes a more generic Hebrew word for “mankind” or “humankind” and employs the word aner, the word specifically for a “male … in contrast to woman” (BDAG). Christ, speaking in Greek, does not make the Hebrew Old Testament “gender neutral.” He does exactly the opposite. Luke 11:32 indicates this fact as well.

So, what does the Bible teach? When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it translates and paraphrases the Hebrew in such a way that the text is less gender neutral, not more gender neutral.

In light of the inspired and infallible practice of translation modeled by the sovereign, all-wise God, we should:

1.) Reject modern Bible versions influenced by feminism and gender-neutral language, from the New International Version to the New King James Version, and cleave to the Authorized, King James Bible.

2.) Reject gender-neutral replacements for classical terms for humanity. We should retain expressions such as “all men” and “mankind” if we are engaged in the holy practice of Bible translation ourselves.

3.) We should continue to use “man,” “mankind,” and such like terms in our own speech when reference is made to the entire human race. We should follow the practice of Christ and His Apostles instead of bowing to anti-Scriptural feminism in our language.

4.) Recognize that feminists know exactly what they are doing when they seek to make the English language, and even more importantly, God’s infallible Word, less patriarchal. They oppose patriarchy, while the resurrected Lord and Son of Man, Jesus Christ, their Creator, taught patriarchy Himself and led His prophets and Apostles to support it through what He dictated to them through the Holy Spirit from God the Father. Let us consciously agree with the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, and the infallible Word of God, and support male headship in our common language and in our English Bible version.

Learn more about Bible texts and versions by clicking here.

–TDR

Support Bethel Christian Academy and Bethel Baptist Church with Amazon Smile

October 2, 2020 / Leave a comment

The basic content from this post is now here:

Support Bethel Christian Academy, Bethel Baptist Church, and FaithSaves with Amazon Smile!

Please click on the link above to read the content.

The Septuagint (LXX) Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11: Corrupt and Indefensible

September 28, 2018 / 5 Comments on The Septuagint (LXX) Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11: Corrupt and Indefensible

Recently a friend of mine asked me to evaluate the following paper: Smith, H.B., Jr. 2018. The case for the Septuagint’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 117–132. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. The author is Associates for Biblical Research’s lead researcher for the Genesis 5 and 11 Research Project. Associates for Biblical Research has some quality material on the Bible and archaeology, but, regrettably, Mr. Smith’s attack on the chronology of the Hebrew Masoretic text and defense of the LXX cannot be included among this high quality material.

God’s Promises Require that the Hebrew Masoretic Text is Correct, not the LXX, in Genesis 5 and 11

The conclusive reason why Mr. Smith is wrong in his defense of the LXX’s chronology in Genesis 5 and 11 is that his position contradicts God’s Word. Mr. Smith argues: “Scripture’s promises that God will preserve His Word do not specify how those promises will be carried out. . . . Rather, it merely promises preservation (Mat. 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:17; I Pet. 1:24–25; Is. 40:8), which has subsequently occurred in complex ways over many millennia.” Mr. Smith would have done well to read and accept the Biblical truth in Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture, or, indeed, simply examined Matthew 5:18 a bit more carefully. The Lord Jesus promised: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot [the Hebrew letter yod, the smallest Hebrew consonant] or tittle [the chireq, the smallest Hebrew vowel] shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Lord Jesus promised that the inspired Hebrew text dictated by the Holy Spirit through the human instrumentality of Moses, Isaiah, and the other Old Testament writers would be perfectly preserved, rather than the Hebrew words being lost while a Greek translation would preserve (?) God’s message. (Please see the studies on Bibliology here for a great deal more Biblical teaching on preservation.) Matthew 5:18 makes Mr. Smith’s position impossible.

Regrettably, Mr. Smith sets up the following straw man that one who rejects his position based on faith in God’s promises of preserving the Hebrew text:

Only the divinely authorized writers were uniquely and infallibly moved by the Holy Spirit, not scribes who translated, (re)copied, and/or transmitted the biblical text after it reached its final, canonical form. The Bible never promises the infallible transmission (copying) of Scripture in any single textual tradition (117)

Of course, Mr. Smith cites no sources that actually argue that every Biblical scribe was infallibly moved by the Holy Spirit or that there would be infallible copying of individual manuscripts. The actual Biblical position, which he ignores in his paper, is that God would preserve every one of the Hebrew words of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:18), that those words would be continually in the mouths of God’s people (Isaiah 59:21), and that God’s people and institution, Israel in the Old Testament and the church in the New, would receive those words (Isaiah 40:6-8; John 17:8; Matthew 28:18-20). These Biblical presuppositions necessitate that the Christian today receive the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus as the preserved Word of God.

Mr. Smith’s Arguments For the LXX and Against the Masoretic Text Are Weak

Mr. Smith attempts to argue that one who declares that attempts to explain the LXX numbers are wrong when they are larger than those in the Hebrew Masoretic text fail. Their failure is allegedly because one must have “a specific and adequate motive for inflating the numbers,” something for which “there are no ancient testimonies,” and, furthermore, “it would have been impossible for the LXX translators (or anyone else) to get away with such a fraud due to the subsequent dissemination of the LXX” (121). Of course, there are no ancient testimonies about what the LXX translators did in Genesis 5 and 11 because we have no idea who they were, we are not certain when they lived, where they worked, or practically anything else about them. Indeed, there are good grounds for doubting that there ever was a “the” LXX, rather than a multiplicity of Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures; the Letter of Aristeas, just about our only original ancient source on the origin of the LXX, makes reference to earlier translations. Asking defenders of the Masoretic Text to supply the specific motives of the LXX translators in Genesis 5 and 11 when we do not even know their names, their location, the time they did their translation, or just about anything else of the sort is an utterly unsupportable requirement, somewhat comparable to requiring one to specify the eye and hair color, as well as the type of drink he likes with his breakfast, for a person when one does not know his name, have any evidence of his looks, or even know the continent and century in which he lived.

Furthermore, Mr. Smith’s argument that the LXX in Genesis 5 and 11 became widely disseminated, and so could not be corrupt, proves too much, even for him. His article shows awareness of the astonishing corruption evident in other equally widespread portions of the LXX (e. g., Jeremiah 26 in the Hebrew text and the Authorized Version is Jeremiah 33 in the LXX; Jeremiah 48 in the preserved Hebrew text is Jeremiah 31 in the LXX, etc.) But how could such corruptions be possible? Was not the LXX of Jeremiah widely distributed, just like the LXX of Genesis? Were Mr. Smith’s argument valid, it would prove that there was no serious corruption anywhere in the LXX–a supposition he himself knows to be false.

Mr. Smith makes the astonishing affirmation that we are to explain the differences between the LXX numbers in Genesis 5 and 11 because of “deliberate chronological deflation in the proto–Masoretic Hebrew text by the Jewish rabbis in the post–AD 70 period” (122). They allegedly were able “to introduce wholesale chronological changes into the biblical text while also purging the higher numbers from the textual stream. . . . In the aftermath of 70 AD, it became possible for the rabbis to amend their Hebrew MSS and hide the trail of evidence,” making “radical chronological alteration permanent in future manuscripts” (122). Why, one wonders, would they allegedly corrupt the entire Hebrew textual tradition in Genesis 5 and 11? It was because the numbers in Genesis 5 and 11, Smith argues, were changed in the Hebrew text because they disprove the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus (122)!

Mr. Smith’s allegation here is ridiculous. First, the motive given for changing Genesis 5 and 11 is laughable. Why did the Rabbis change Genesis 5 and 11 to disprove the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus, but leave untouched Isaiah 53 and the countless other passages that prove the risen Savior is the Messiah? Second, his affirmation that the Rabbis corrupted the entire Hebrew textual tradition and then hid all the evidence is simply factually impossible. Why does every pre-Masoretic manuscript found outside of Qumran (Masada, etc.) agree with the Masoretic Text? Why is the Masoretic text so strongly supported at Qumran as well? Did the post-70 A. D. Rabbis not only cover their tracks so well that they left not a scintilla of evidence for their corruption of the Hebrew text, but also go back in time to corrupt texts made decades or even centuries before they were born? Were piddly disagreements among Jewish Rabbis recorded and discussed ad nauseum in the Jewish ancient literature such as the Talmud, but radical corruptions of the Hebrew text universally agreed upon without any evidence that it ever happened in the ancient Jewish sources? Furthermore, any student of the Hebrew Bible is well aware of the strong evidence that the scribes of the OT were unwilling to change the text in this sort of way. Has Mr. Smith read the Old Testament through in Hebrew? Has he read the Greek LXX? Mr. Smith would require that post-70 A. D. Rabbis got together, changed wholesale the Hebrew of Genesis 5 and 11 to attack the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus while leaving hundreds of plain Messianic prophecies untouched, covered up all the evidence that this ever took place, and even somehow planted evidence that predated them. Sadly, such notions sound more like wild-eyed conspiracy peddling than the sound scholarship that characterizes a great deal of the work of Associates for Biblical Research.

There are other egregious problems with Mr. Smith’s article. He does not in any way adequately deal with the textual variation within the LXX itself on Genesis 5 and 11, as evidenced in the textual apparatus in the Gottingen LXX; his article is filled with special pleading; it contains numerous strawman arguments; etc.

One wonders if Mr. Smith’s fundamental reason for arguing against the Hebrew text the Lord Jesus promised to preserve in its every consonant and vowel (Matthew 5:18; Luke 16:17) is an apologetic one, evident in his concern about Carbon-14 dates allegedly at variance with the chronology in the Hebrew text of Genesis (128). Such an apologetic desire is commendable, but rejecting God’s promises to preserve His inspired Hebrew words while making poor arguments in favor of the too-often corrupt LXX is not the way to go about defending Scripture. The consistent Christian who believes God’s promises to preserve every Greek and Hebrew word that He inspired does not need, for example, to believe that there are no gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 any more than he needs to believe that there are none in the genealogy of Matthew 1. Indeed, Luke 3:36’s reference to Cainan is conclusive proof to the Christian perfect preservationist that the Genesis chronologies can have gaps. The genealogies cannot be extended indefinitely–to use an extreme example, if there were, say, several thousand years between each name in Genesis, the genealogies would be a poor joke–but the affirmation that there were no gaps is simply contrary to the evidence found in the Biblical text itself. Furthermore, even were one to (improperly) concede that there were no gaps, and somehow explain Luke 3:36 away, Christ’s promises to preserve the Hebrew text are of infinitely more significance than particular attempts to explain Carbon 14 readings, and apologetic concerns cannot justify jettisoning the doctrine of preservation and God’s preserved Hebrew words to embrace a Greek Old Testament text containing many evident corruptions, even apart from the far more serious apologetic difficulties that would arise from accepting the factually impossible notion that a cabal of Hebrew rabbis successfully corrupted the entire Hebrew textual tradition, requiring Christians to attempt to pick up the pieces from a Greek text with many corruptions evident to all.

TDR

WHAT IS TRUTH

Category Archives: Thomas Ross

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

There is no balm in Gilead to heal the sin sick soul

No Divorce–Just Legal Separation!

Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God, says the Watchtower Society or Jehovah’s Witnesses

New Christian Mutual Fund

KJV margin vs Ruckmanisim

Free Psalm Singing Resources

“Q,” the Son of Man, and Christ’s Deity

Gender-Neutral Language in Bible Translation is Unscriptural

Support Bethel Christian Academy and Bethel Baptist Church with Amazon Smile

The Septuagint (LXX) Chronology in Genesis 5 and 11: Corrupt and Indefensible

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta