Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 12)

Search Results for: king james version

New Testament Greek, Bill Mounce, 1st Semester Videos Online

I am thankful to announce that all the videos teaching the first semester of Biblical Greek are now online!  The main textbook used is William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek. Either the 3rd or the 4th edition of that text works well.  (I prefer some features of the 3rd and some other features of the 4th edition; overall, they are similar enough that either one will work with the class.)  The entire playlist is on YouTube, and the videos are also being put up at Faithsaves.net and on Rumble.  We thank God for the work that has been done. Lord willing, the second semester videos will also all be made available.  If you are interested in helping to edit videos and so help train spiritual leaders for the kingdom of God, or you know someone who can help with this ministry, please contact me.  You can also pray for us.  Learning the Biblical languages is very valuable, and it is our prayer and hope that these videos will not only help those who have physical teachers, but also enable God’s people to learn Greek all around the world, even when they who do not have the privilege of a physical teacher.  A physical teacher is very helpful–and, Lord willing, I will offer the class personally again in the future, as I have offered it in the past–but I believe a dedicated student can teach himself Greek with the textbooks and answer keys here, although it is not as easy to do as it is if one has a professor to help.  I also want these videos to help people learn Biblical Greek from a Biblical, separatist, militant Baptist position, instead of from the point of non-separatist evangelicalism–the doctrinal position of Bill Mounce, who is a great Greek teacher, but not so great in his doctrine and practice.  Furthermore, we use the Textus Receptus and support the King James Version in the class, rather than utilizing modern Bible versions and their inferior Greek text, the Nestle-Aland.

 

If you want to help people get Biblical, Baptist, separatist training in the Biblical languages and theology, please feel free to recommend and send links about my class to the various websites where online Greek classes are compared and offered. I don’t have time to look into all of those, but the more places that link to it, the better. I would be fine if evangelicals learn Greek from someone with Biblical Baptist convictions and get moved towards that position. Thanks!

 

TDR

How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology

The Study of Bibliology

People who read here will associate me with the doctrine of preservation of scripture, because of the book, Thou Shalt Keep Them.  I and others argue the biblical and historical doctrine of the perfection preservation of scripture in the language in which it was written.  The Bible teaches its own preservation and it shows perfect preservation.  The doctrine of preservation falls under the general category of the doctrine of bibliology.  What does the Bible say about itself?

The study of bibliology includes sub-categories of doctrines.  Early on in the Bible, we read Satan attack God’s Word (Genesis 3:1-5).  From his attack, we see his desire to undermine or destroy God’s Word.  We suppose that Satan wants to do this, and then in observation of history, we see this occur also with his using the world system.  Satan uses people to destroy the Bible by undermining and destroying biblical teachings about the Bible, which includes the sub-categories of doctrines under bibliology.

Presupposing What the Bible Says About Itself

Being an evangelical presupposes belief in and from the Bible, what it says.  Truly saved people believe the gospel, which is in the Bible.  Evangelicals have believed the Bible for salvation to be evangelicals.  Saying they believe the Bible means they believe the Bible on the doctrines as subcategories of bibliology.  What are those?  Among those are the inspiration, preservation, canonicity, and perspicuity of scripture.

From where at one time in the past evangelicalism supported scriptural bibliology, I contend that they move the goalposts.  What was inspiration is no longer inspiration, what was preservation is no longer preservation, and so on.  The serious modification of the doctrine of bibliology does destructive damage.

Attacks on the Doctrine of Scripture

The major bad outcome of the attack on categories of the doctrine of scripture is the undermining or elimination of the authority of God’s Word.  This effects both belief and practice of scripture.  I have observed especially these four attacks.

Inspiration

One, people attack the inspiration of scripture.  A common attack on inspiration is that the Bible is written only by men.  There are variations of this attack, as I see it, accommodated or supported by those calling themselves evangelicals.  They would even say they believe in inspiration, but I’m saying that they moved the goalposts on inspiration.

Preservation

Two, people attack the preservation of scripture.  There are a few common attacks on the doctrine of preservation.  First, the Bible doesn’t teach its own preservation.  Second, God preserved scripture in heaven, not on earth.  Third, God preserved all the Words of God in the preponderance of the hand copies or manuscripts, but they both haven’t all been available or identified and there is no settled text.  Fourth, the Words of God in the original languages were lost (not preserved) but restored in translations even like the King James Version.

Perspicuity

Three, people attack the perspicuity of scripture when they say that we are not sure of what the Bible means.  It’s now mostly an opinion as to what the Bible says.  It’s only men’s interpretations anymore.  So many interpretations exist, it’s impossible to know the right one.  Today people are shut out or shut off from the meaning of words and what men meant when they wrote them.  These are ways that men today undermine the doctrine of perspicuity.

Application

Four, people attack the ability to apply scripture in many different ways, so that no one is sure about the application of the Bible.  That was a different era, culture foreign to us today, so that even if we knew what passages meant, it doesn’t apply today, especially cultural issues.

The Bible is a very old book written for a people that lived thousands of years ago that does not apply in any significant way today.  Even if you try to apply it, you can’t do that with any authority, because it could only be your opinion or preference.  The gap in history is too monumental to bridge from then to now.  These are various types of attacks today on the application of scripture.

Variations occur of the above four attacks with many different arguments employed.  The attacks take away from the authority of scripture.  Someone may call the Bible, the Word of God, but it no longer has the same authority as a book from God, because we are so unsure or uncertain about it.  In its usefulness, the Bible possesses a level something more akin to an important historical or philosophical resource.

Cutting Losses

Someone may say that it’s to their credit, that evangelicals today do not want a mass scale rejection of Christianity, so they invent new positions about the Bible to hinder an exodus.  They may use someone like Bart Ehrman as an example, who pushed the eject button Christianity when he dug deeper into the trustworthiness of scripture.  He could not square the guarantees of God and the certainty expressed in scripture with what the evidence presented to him in class and through his own investigation.

Evangelicals and others more conservative than Ehrman say that his former fundamentalist position caused his apostasy.  Someone cannot treat the Bible with an absolutist or purist stance.  Today even evangelicals would say that God didn’t even intend for the readers or audience of scripture to treat the Bible with such assurance.  Evangelicals now modify the former positions to rescue or spare the next generation.

As an Example

Just as an example, a Bart Ehrman argues against the historical reliability of the gospels.  He asks the question, “Do the gospels report or represent what really happened?”  His answer is “No.”

Many evangelicals now are afraid to say that everything in the gospels is reliable, but a high enough percentage is verifiable to the extent that the gospels are reliable.  They are at least as or more reliable than other extant writings from the same period.  The gospels are amazingly reliable for a historical document and that is good enough.

Moving the Goalposts

Evangelicals are moving the goalposts now on bibliology.  Mostly they see this as necessary to cut their losses.  If they try to take what they would call a strict fundamentalist view on the Bible, they’ll get exposed by scholarship.  In this era of the internet, they’ll lose the next generation.  Very smart men will steal these young people.  The idea of “cut losses” is reducing them.  Instead of saying that scripture is absolute, to say there is sufficient confidence or suitable confidence without absolute full confidence.

Are evangelicals and even professing fundamentalists right or true in their assessment of the conditions of the proof or evidence for the Bible and Christianity?  Are these recent modifications and adaptations of scriptural, historical, or classical bibliology outdated?  Do the evangelicals move the goalposts on bibliology and if they do, should we join them?

More to Come

Are the Doctrines of Crucification and Mortification the Same?

Crucification Not an English Word

As you read the above title, you read a word that doesn’t seem to appear in the English language, that is, crucification.  No one used crucification in the history of theology either.  Men used the concept of crucification, but not the word itself.

You have the English words crucify, crucified, and crucifixion.  You find those in a dictionary.  However, the words “mortification” and “vivification” do occur, which are in the spirit of crucification.  I’m still going to use “crucification,” because no one has a word to represent a separate doctrine, that is a definite unique feature of salvation in scripture.

Crucifixion and Crucification

Crucifixion is a kind of death.  Someone dies physically on a cross.  Apparently either the Assyrians or the Babylonians invented crucifixion as a means of execution, but the Persians then used it regularly.  It finally got to the Romans, who are most famous in history for crucifixion.  When Jesus died on the cross, it was Roman crucifixion.  The Lord Jesus made the cross a symbol and then the Apostle Paul took it further in Romans and Galatians.

If I say, the doctrine of crucifixion, that doesn’t mean anything.  If I say, the doctrine of mortification, that means something.  However, is it the same as, bear with me, a doctrine of crucification?  I use that “word” because crucification as a doctrine is different than mortification, as I see it in scripture.  Both crucification and mortification involve death, but mean something significantly different.  You can see that by the usage of “crucified” and “mortify” in the New Testament.

“Crucified,” “Mortify,” and “Dead”

“Crucified”

Galatians 5:24 says,

And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

To clarify and summarize everything that he said in Galatians 5, Paul wrote Galatians 5:24.  He had written earlier in Galatians something similar in 2:20:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The only other place you see this is again by Paul in Romans 6:6:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

We should add Galatians 6:14, because it fits here too:

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

Paul uses the word “crucified” (sustauroo or stauroo).  The word “cross” is the noun, stauros.  Galatians 5:24 is aorist active.  Galatians 2:20 is perfect passive.  Romans 6:6 is aorist passive.  Galatians 6:14 is perfect passive.  All four of these verbs mean completed action in the past.  The active is the subject doing something.  The passive is the subject having something done to it.  The perfect means completed action, yet with ongoing results.

“Mortify”

Before I dive back into crucification, that non-word in the English language, consider the references that mention mortification.

Romans 8:13, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Colossians 3:5, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”

Those are the only two times “mortify” appears in the King James Version.  They are actually two different Greek words.  Romans 8:13 is thanatoo, which is present indicative active, continuous action.  Colossians 3:5 is nekroo, which is aorist imperative active.  That is aorist, which is not continuous action.  However, both Romans 8:13 and Colossians 3:5 describe something occurring post-justification, that is, after the point of someone’s conversion.

“Dead”

The New Testament also uses the word “dead” in the verb form, describing a completed condition at the moment of justification.  For instance, Romans 6:2 says:

God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Peter also writes in 1 Peter 2:24:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Both of those are the Greek word, apothnesko, and both aorist indicative active.  They are again completed action.

Crucification and Mortification, Different

From all the scriptural data, crucification and mortification are different.  Crucification occurs at the moment of salvation.  It’s completed then.  One could also say that it occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, since Paul uses the language, “crucified with Christ.”  Crucification occurred with Christ at His crucifixion and occurred at the moment of conversion.

On the other hand, mortification occurs after conversion or after justification.  It keeps occurring.  Mortification will not stop in the life of a believer until his glorification.  He keeps putting to death the deeds of his body and his members until he sees Jesus.

Maybe you’re already asking some good questions like these:  “Why does someone need to keep putting to death something that is already dead?  If I am crucified, past tense and completed action, why more ongoing putting to death of apparently the same thing?  If true believers are dead indeed unto sin at the moment of conversion, why does God require further putting to death or mortification?”

What Is Crucification?

The questions of the previous paragraph are good questions and they relate to the doctrine of crucification.

Jesus died by crucifixion.  Crucifixion is a particular kind of death, a slow death.  This helps those in Galatia and Rome to understand why they still struggle with sin.  Jesus hung on the cross for hours.

The flesh is crucified at the moment of conversion, the instance of justification, but he necessarily keeps dying a slow death of crucifixion.  As a result, he must continue dying.  He becomes more and more dead to the flesh and its affections and lusts and to the world.  He becomes more alive then as well.  The latter is the doctrine of vivification.

Judicial Death and Ethical Death

Galatians 5:24 says true believers at the moment of their conversion “have crucified the flesh.”  Thomas Ross is the only one in church history that I read who refers to Romans 6:6:  “the body dominated by sin when the Christian was still unconverted, has been judicially destroyed.”  That language, judicially destroyed, I believe Ross coins.  Ross writes:

Judicial and Ethical Destruction

The “body of sin,” the body dominated by sin when the Christian was still unconverted, has been judicially destroyed.  This destruction is associated with positional sanctification.  In terms of progressive sanctification, the flesh, the ethically sinful “body of sin,” has received its death blow, and its ultimate destruction at glorification is certain, as a man who is on a cross is certain of ultimate death, although he still can struggle and fight within certain limits.

The flesh within the believer is certain of utter destruction at death or the return of Christ, but during this life, although crucified and growing weaker, it can still influence the Christian to sin. These remnants of sin in the believer are to be mortified, put to death, to bring the legal and judicial truth and the ultimate certainty of glorification closer to practical reality in this life.

Glorification

This crucifixion with Christ in the believer has the result “that the body of sin might be destroyed.” This destruction, judicially completed at the time of Christ’s crucifixion, and positionally and legally declared for the believer at the moment of his regeneration, will take place ultimately at glorification, when the remnants of sin in the Christian are entirely removed, finally and completely destroyed.

However, the beginnings of this utter destruction are already set in motion, even as the crucifixion of the old man with Christ, which took place legally at the time of the Savior’s own crucifixion and begins experientially in the life of the elect at the point of their regeneration, progressively removes the life and strength from the old man, the body of sin.

Negative Mortification and Positive Vivification

The negative aspects of the progressive mortification of sin in this life, is the converse to the vivification, the progressive cleansing, sanctification of the believer, and growth of the new man, produced by the Triune God and especially the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures. This vivification culminates in glorification, when the Christian will be entirely without spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:26-27).

I broke his one paragraph into five paragraphs, which are still hard to read.  I encourage you to read it again to get a grasp of (what I’m calling) “crucification” versus mortification.  Crucification, mortification, and vivification are all three necessary.

The Slow Death of Crucifixion

Strong

Augustus Strong agrees with this position on crucification, that it is a slow death.  He wrote in his Systematic Theology:

The Christian is “crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2:20), but the crucified man does not die at once.  Yet he is as good as dead.  Even after the old man is crucified, we are still to mortify him or put him to death (Rom. 8:13, Col. 3:5).

Fraser

James Fraser in his The Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification wrote speaking of Romans 6:6:

The expression . . . is not, that the old man is put to death.  Persons may live a considerable while, yea, some days on the cross.  Crucifixion is not a state of death, but a state of pain, and torment, tending to death.

Fraser also saw Paul for a specific purpose use “crucified” rather than “put to death.”  “Crucified” is a slow death akin to the reality of sanctification.  It could harmonize with the completed action of “crucified” and the ongoing action of “mortify.”  He never called a separate doctrine.  I am.

Henry

Matthew Henry in his commentary through the Bible on Romans 6 wrote:

The death of the cross was a slow death; the body, after it was nailed to the cross, gave many a throe and many a struggle: but it was a sure death, long in expiring, but expired at last; such is the mortification of sin in believers. It was a cursed death, Galatians 3:13. Sin dies as a malefactor, devoted to destruction; it is an accursed thing. Though it be a slow death, yet this must needs hasten it that it is an old man that is crucified; not in the prime of its strength, but decaying: that which waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Ross differentiates what occurs when one has crucified the flesh with mortification by characterizing the former as “judicial” and the latter as “ethical.”  This is a good differentiation.

Evidence of Crucification

As a part of crucification in Galatians 5:24, Paul says “they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”  Let’s call “affections” in this case, “feelings,” and “lusts,” “desires.”  “Feelings” and “desires” come along with “the flesh.”  A believer does not operate characteristically, habitually, or as a lifestyle according to his feelings and desires.

A believer crucified “feelings” and “desires” when he became “Christ’s.”  He does not function according to his feelings and desires, but Christ’s will, because he is Christ’s.  In Galatians, Paul says he “walks in the Spirit.”  He no longer fulfills the lusts of the flesh, which produce the works of the flesh.

The crucifixion of the flesh at the point of conversion is reality.  How does someone know it occurred?  He doesn’t see the works of the flesh in his life in a characteristic or habitual way or as a lifestyle.  He sees instead fruit of the Spirit.

In addition, someone with a crucified flesh will continue mortifying his members and the deeds of his body.  He will not allow sin to reign in his mortal body (Rom 6:12).  He lives in the Spirit.

Hebrew Shema / Deuteronomy 6:4-6 Chant / Trope / Cantillated

Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, is the most famous verse of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible for Jews. The Hebrew text has a complex system of accent marks that provide exegetically significant information; in addition to the accents providing one of four levels of disjunction in the text (that is, providing pauses that divide words with four levels of strength), or emphasizing conjunction (that words are to be read together).  The Lord Jesus affirmed that God would preserve the Hebrew vowels and accent marks until heaven and earth pass away-the words of the Old Testament themselves, not merely the consonants, are inspired:

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. (Matthew 5:18)

Historically, the inspiration of the vowels has been affirmed, and receiving the Biblical testimony to the inspiration of the words, not the consonants only, of the Old Testament is apologetically and intellectually defensible.

So what does the Shema and the following two verses sound like when sung or chanted following the Hebrew accent marks?  You can hear the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) in a synagogue, but if you do not want to go to one, and want to hear the following passage of the Torah chanted:

Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Deut. 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Then please watch or listen to the following brief video:

 

 

or watch the video on Rumble by clicking here or on YouTube by clicking here.

Whether or not one learns to fluently sing or chant, students of the Hebrew Bible should learn to identify the Hebrew accent marks, just like they can identify English periods, commas, and semicolons.  Courses in Hebrew should teach the people of the God of Israel and those who trust in Israel’s Messiah the accents, rather than ignoring them and teaching only the consonants and vowels.

This blog has pointed out in the past that the Authorized, King James Version does a good job representing the Hebrew accents in English (although the punctuation system in English is different and simpler than that of Hebrew).

You might be able to have more doors open in witnessing to Jews if you memorize at least the Shema, Deuteronomy 6:4, in Hebrew.  If   Then share with them the truth in the “Truth from the Torah” pamphlet.  If you have one of the Jewish evangelistic shirts here, by memorizing the Shema you will be able to chant the Hebrew text on the front of your shirt.

If you can at least read the Hebrew alphabet it should not be that hard to memorize this passage–the greatest commandment of all, according to the resurrected Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man, the Lord Jesus (Matthew 22:37-38).  Just copy the audio of the video to your phone or other electronic device and get your device to play the Hebrew over and over again, and before you know it you will have the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the greatest commandment (Deuteronomy 6:5) memorized in Hebrew.  Put these glorious words in your heart (Deuteronomy 6:6), where you can savor them, love them, and ever the more obey them.

TDR

My Daily Bible Reading: The KJV Bible Read Out Loud, Free

Do you listen to the Bible read out loud?  I have listened through the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, read out loud, numbers of times.  (Alexander Scourby is my favorite.)  Someone whom we know, mainly as a matter for him to make sure that he is spending time in the Word each day, recorded himself reading the entire Bible aloud this last year on YouTube.  He described his YouTube channel’s purpose as:

 

The goal of this channel is to provide daily accountability to read through the whole Bible and more in one year from January 1 to December 31! God’s Word is a Lamp to our feet and a Light to our path. May this channel help us get strength, encouragement, rebuke, doctrine, and guidance each and every day!

 

So if you would like a free, albeit non-professional, reading of the entire King James Bible through in one year, feel free to listen to the My Daily Bible Reading channel and prepare to be edified by the Spirit through the Word.

 

Click here to go to the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube Channel.

 

I personally spend a certain number of minutes each week reading the Authorized, King James Version and the Hebrew Old Testament Textus Receptus, as well as reading a certain number of verses in the Greek Textus Receptus. I also work on studying through an Old Testament book (I am currently in Proverbs, reading it with Bruce Waltke’s valuable commentary on Proverbs; before that I read Psalms through with Spurgeon’s excellent Treasury of David) and Matthew, reading through the book with a rather brief dispensational Moody Bible commentary, the New International Greek Testament Commentary on Matthew (useful exegetical insights, but generally dry as dust and anti-verbal inspiration because of source criticism and redaction criticism although “conservative”), and Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Matthew (helpful exegetical and devotional thoughts if the paedobaptist Calvinism can be set aside).  I also spend a certain number of minutes reading the Septuagint or LXX (I am in Numbers and Psalms).  Some days I will focus more on one of these and some days more on another, and at the end of the month I see how many minutes I spent on them all in comparison to how many I am supposed to spend; whatever I have spent less time on, I plan to spend more time on the next month, and whatever I have spent more time on, I can focus upon less.

 

If I listen to the Bible read out loud, I take the amount of time I spend listening and divide it in half, as I find it easier to get distracted when listening to the Bible then when reading it.  We should be especially on guard against our flesh seeking to lead our minds to wander when we are engaged in a spiritual activity like reading God’s Word.  I can say with Paul:  “I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Romans 7:21).

 

In any case, I am thankful for the hours I have been able to spend listening to the Bible read aloud.  Perhaps the My Daily Bible Reading YouTube channel will help you to read and/or listen through God’s Word (at least) once this year, meditate upon what you read, and obey it in reverent love.

 

The books I referenced above that are linked to on Amazon are affiliate links. I would recommend comparing prices on books here and then clicking through a portal as described here if you are going to buy a book online.

TDR

The Textus Receptus: Based on a Handful of Manuscripts? (Debate Review 13)

Are the Textus Receptus and King James Version based on a mere handful of late Greek manuscripts?  In the previous several parts of my review videos about the James White / Thomas Ross debate, we examined James R. White’s astonishingly historically uninformed claims that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side, and the side of modern Bible versions, in our debate over the preservation of Scripture. In part 13 reviewing the James White / Thomas Ross debate on:

“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”

I examine Dr. White’s amazing assertions that modern versions like the Legacy Standard Bible “utiliz[e] far, far more manuscript evidence than was even dreamed of by the KJV translators,” (16:00) while the King James Version and the Textus Receptus is “based upon a handful of manuscripts.”  Indeed, Dr. White said that the LSB had “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament.”  Are these claims valid? They are simply false, and they redound upon his own minority text, which is ACTUALLY based upon a handful of manuscripts—and sometimes far less than a handful!—far more than they are effective against the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible.  Find out more by watching the thirteenth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:

 

Lord willing, after looking at all the variants in an entire chapter of Scripture to evaluate how the Received Text and the Textus Rejectus do in them in review video #14, we will then move on to evaluate James White’s arguments against the KJV and TR from Acts 5:30, after which we will continue to his arguments from Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5 in subsequent review videos.

TDR

The Colossal Emphasis Put on Mercy in the Bible

Mercy in Scripture

The English word “mercy” is pivotal in all the English Bible.  I say English Bible, because it’s tough to accommodate the main Hebrew word translated “mercy” with just “mercy.”  It is the Hebrew word, chesed.  Maybe you’ve even heard someone say that word in a sermon or class.  Maybe you know Hebrew.

Forms of the English word mercy, which include mercies and merciful, occur 361 times in the King James Version.  The Old Testament usages are not always chesed, but they are mainly chesed, and the Hebrew Old Testament uses that word 261 times.  The first time chesed appears in the Old Testament (Genesis 19:19), the King James Version translates it “mercy.”  The next time in Genesis 20:13, the KJV translates it “kindness.”

I say “colossal emphasis put on mercy in the Bible” because forms of the word “grace” are found 204 times.  “Goodness” is found 50 times.  Yes, “love” is a lot — 310 uses of the noun form in the English.  The adding of the related words to love, including the verb forms, sees “love” in a greater place in the Bible.

Undeserved

Very often when I’ve read about chesed, defining it as “lovingkindness,” and yet it’s main historic English translation is “mercy.”  At the root of this attribute of God and transient attribute, because God allows and even requires mercy from man, is the undeservedness of the recipients.  Mercy is the flip side of justice.  The recipients of God’s mercy deserve justice but receive mercy.  In this is the withholding of punishment deserved.

I want to focus on the first usage in the New Testament in the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus in Matthew 5:7:  “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”  There are six Greek words in that verse, two of which are related:  eleemon and eleeo.  The first is an adjective, “merciful,” and the second is a verb, “they shall obtain mercy.”

Salvation Evidence

The beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount provide first entrance requirements (5:3-6) and then expected outcomes (5:7-12).  The expected outcomes give the audience the evidence of salvation.  The first evidence or outcome revealed by Jesus:  mercy.  Based on the order, it is the fundamental attribute that indicates salvation in a person.

You can see mercy as the expected outcome of the righteous in the Old Testament.

Hosea 6:6, “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”

Micah 6:8, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

God could just immediately destroy anyone based on what they’ve done.  He doesn’t because mercy characterizes Him.  This is not His nature.  When He saves someone, mercy becomes their nature.

Mercy at the Bottom of Goodness

In recent days, I wrote the following:

Habakkuk 1:13 says about God, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil.” He can’t even behold evil. Yet, God withholds from men the punishment for sin, and that’s even before salvation. No one would make it to his salvation without the mercy of God. Then after God saves a person, he does not live sinless perfection.

You reader do not live sinless perfection. Yet God doesn’t kill you immediately for that. Mercy should motivate surrender to Jesus Christ. Then once someone receives Jesus Christ, God’s mercy is far, far more than enough to sustain constant living for God, faithfulness to Him and His Word, and continuous love for Him. Think mercy. Mercy, mercy, mercy.

Every goodness every person experiences finds mercy at the bottom of it.  No one deserves it, but deserves just the opposite.

The Mother’s Womb

A common word translated mercy in the Old Testament, rachamim, has at its root, the word “womb.”  When you do a search on the root of the word, “womb” comes up again and again.  Womb?  Yes.  In the womb, the connection forms between child and mother.  Consider Jeremiah 31:20 when you think of “womb” and “mercy”:

Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.

God made man in His image.  The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have a connection to men.  The goodness men receive evinces the connection God has.

Mothers as a strong instinct do not want the destruction of their children, even when they sin against her.  Notice then this in Jesus in Matthew 23:37:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Despite Israel’s treatment of God, this was God’s sentiment toward Israel.  Mercy offers vivification for every human spirit against the bad all around the world.  It’s there to embrace and enjoy.  If you haven’t received Jesus Christ, let mercy provide the impetus to come to Him.

Eschatology and Political Activism from the Right and the Left

Living in the Last Days

If you travel in evangelical circles, you might hear language especially today that says, “We’re living in the last days.”  Those words, “last days,” occur eight times in the King James Version.  These are two prominent usages:

2 Timothy 3:1, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”

2 Peter 3:3, :”Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.”

“Last days” in the Bible is not very specific.  When the Apostle Peter uses the words in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, he refers them to a partial fulfillment now over 2,000 years ago:

Acts 2:17, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”

The phrase, “living in the last days,” did not start appearing in written material until the middle of the nineteenth century, when men would write something like the following:

There are features of the last days of the last times, and they are characteristic of these days and these times; we are therefore, living in the last days of the last times, and, consequently, expect the speedy appearance of the coming of the Son of Man.

This was from an article, “Elements of Prophetical Interpretation,” by J. W. Brooks in a book, The Literalist, published in 1841.  As popularly used, most refer these “last days” to a seemingly very short time before the rapture from the earth of the saints.

A Vision of the Reign of God on Earth

Many, many and from various factions oppose the literal approach to biblical prophecy and that everyone presently abides in the last days as such.  They reject the concept that the world will degenerate until the return of Christ.  If that be the case, political activism is of little point.  On the other hand, if persistent human effort might bring the reign of God on earth, then reasons exist for lobbying, campaigning, protesting — violent or non-violent, community organizing, and political action.

Early Roman Catholicism by envisioning the church as New Testament Israel also saw the church as the kingdom of God on earth.  Instead of circumcision as the entrance requirement to the kingdom, water baptism became that, a New Testament circumcision.  A false form of millennialism, this position says the church is already God’s kingdom with a view toward its ultimate perfection on earth.  Roman Catholic theologian Augustine in AD413 wrote in his City of God:

The Church is already now the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of heaven.  Accordingly, even now His saints reign with Him. . . . It is then of this kingdom militant, in which conflict with the enemy is still maintained, and war carried on with warring lusts, or government laid upon them as they yield, until we come to that most peaceful kingdom in which we shall reign without an enemy.

Spiritualizing Old Testament Israel and finding in its Old Testament prophecies a fulfillment in the New Testament church subscribes to advocation of positions of power for realizing God’s kingdom on earth.  According to this eschatological position, the church inherits Old Testament mandates for domination over the earth.

Postmillennial Liberation and Dominion Theologies

Mirroring Viewpoints

The left and the right both compete for power with the divine charge of liberation on the left and dominion on the right.  These two mirroring viewpoints easily find support for the replacement of Israel.  This might also adapt into justifiable eradication with an underlying disposition of antisemitism.  Both acquire their ordination from a form of postmillennialism and a hermeneutic of spiritualization and allegorization, the latter the rationalization for Roman Catholicism.

The left and the right become strange bedfellows with relationship to Israel under the same umbrella of eschatology.  Palestinian Liberation Theology buttresses a decolonization theme and advocates Palestinian freedom “from the river to the sea.”  Thomas Ice writes then concerning postmillennial reconstructionism:

The danger lies in their misunderstanding of God’s plan concerning the future of the nation Israel. Reconstructionists advocate the replacement of Old Testament Israel with the church, often called the “New Israel.” They believe that Israel does not have a future different from any other nation.

Corrupted Views of Israel

Ice continues:

While Reconstructionists do believe that individual Jews will be converted to Christ in mass in the future, almost none of them believe that national Israel has a future and thus the Church has completely taken over the promises of national Israel. In contrast to the eventual faithfulness and empowerment by the Holy Spirit of the Church, Reconstructionist David Chilton said that “ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God’s Kingdom.”

John MacArthur also tied together these two theological ideologies, saying:

There is another kind of theology that’s existing today, it’s called Liberation Theology. It is a form of theology that says that the church is to take dominion over the institutions of the world. That’s another form of dominion theology or kingdom theology. And what it basically says is that the church’s mandate is to take over the institutions of the world. That’s the liberation theology side. And what dominion theology says is that we are to take over the powers of darkness.

Dovetailing of Leftist and Rightist Values

Harvey Cox writes in an article in The Atlantic:

By far the most striking discovery I made . . . was the remarkable similarity between the rhetoric . . . of liberation theology. Both (postmillennial dominion theology and liberation theology) focus on continuing the ministry and work of Jesus. Both place the concept of the Kingdom of God, albeit interpreted quite differently, at the center of their respective theologies.

Leftist and rightist values dovetail around eschatological belief.  Neither provide a true and real solution for the present or for the future.  Instead of depending on a plain reading of the text of scripture, they spiritualize it and read into it a false vision of the future.  This then reflects on a relationship with Israel.

Judaizers followed the Apostle Paul into his churches after his first missionary journey and attempted to turn the churches of Galatia into a form of New Testament Israel.  They removed required distinctions between the church and Israel to make the church into Israel.  This confused the real solution for man’s problems found only in Jesus Christ.  It corrupted the church.  A kind of Judaizing continues perverting the church through its insidious false eschatological vision for the world.  In so doing, it also assaults Israel and annuls the promises God will still fulfill for this chosen nation.

Does the KJV Translate Hebrew and Greek Words Too Many Ways?

In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only (KJV) debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Is this true? In part 10 of my review of the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of Scripture I point out the severe flaws in this argument by Dr. James R. White against the King James Version, and the KJVO position.

 

In our debate James White argued in the same way that he did in his book: “[T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word … the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times” (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289).  The numbers White cites are inaccurate, and White fails to point out that in the examples he supplies where the Authorized Version (allegedly) translates words in too many different ways in English modern versions such as the ESV, ASV, NRSV, and NET actually have more, not fewer, different translations than does the KJV. James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly.  Learn more by watching debate review video #10 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:

TDR

KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9

In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions.  Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths.  Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position.  Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.

 

Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:

 

Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood

The answer is a resounding “No!”  Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith.  Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion.  Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord.  Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior.  Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:

 

“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”

 

Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.

 

Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:

or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.

 

TDR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives