Sing John 3:16 in Koine / New Testament Greek: Ιωαννην 3:16!
Would you like to learn how to sing John 3:16 in Greek? You can sing these words in the very speech in which the Lord Jesus Christ originally spoke this blessed promise to Nicodemus!
You can learn to sing the infallible words of John 3:16, the most famous verse of the Bible in the video below from Rumble, or watch it on YouTube, or see it at Faithsaves.net.
John 3:16 Song: Koine Greek New Testament Language
Ιωαννην τρεις:εκκαιδεκα ωδή εν γλώσση Ελληνικη
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on Rumble
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on YouTube
–TDR
The Whole Universe Both Runs and Acknowledges It Runs on Jesus’ Time
I know that the title of this post sounds like Donald Trump saying, Mexico will pay for the wall. It sounds like it can’t be right. Nevertheless, the title is right.
Despite Outlawing Jesus, the Public Acknowledges Jesus All Over
In the last few days, I talked to someone who worked for Gideons, the parachurch organization. I asked him if they handed out Bibles in the public schools in Decatur County. He said, “No, it is illegal to hand out Bibles in the public school.” They cannot do that. No one can do that. That doesn’t sound like a society that acknowledges that it runs on Jesus’ time. And yet, it does.
The calendars for the Indiana public schools where I live call it 2023. The sports schedules call this 2023. This year’s basketball season is 2023-2024. When I use the internet, the world wide web, to schedule a post, it says it’s 2023.
Anno Domini
2023 is AD. AD is Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. 2023 is 2023 years since the birth of Jesus, assuming Jesus born at 1, since the Romans didn’t have a zero. Whether you refer to the Julian Calendar or the Gregorian one, Jesus is the start date.
I brought in the Gideon story, because the public schools still use a date with Jesus Christ as the start date. They won’t let anyone hand out Bibles, the book about Jesus, but they use “the year of our Lord,” which refers to Jesus. I’m guessing that when they hand out their teacher paychecks, they use the year of our Lord for a date. Wikipedia says:
The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin and means “in the year of the Lord” but is often presented using “our Lord” instead of “the Lord”, taken from the full original phrase “anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi,” which translates to “in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Universe
The term “universe” in the title is defined as the following:
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
Wikipedia says:
The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.
I can go with that as my usage. The Latin etymology is universus or universum, which is all things as a whole, so speaking of everything physically as a whole, not the individual parts.
Acknowledging Jesus’ Time
When I say the universe acknowledges it runs on Jesus’ time, I mean that they refer to the year of our Lord Jesus Christ to mark the date. With full disclaimer, I saw an episode of Star Trek that said the year of the program was 3188. The character said that on another planet. Star Trek acknowledged that other planets would say that they use Jesus as a basis for dating.
Presently we don’t know of another planet in the universe with life besides earth. According to a hypothetical, sentient life on other planets says they provide the present date using the year of Jesus’ birth as the starting point.
Perhaps you could join me in the irony of all this. This world must acknowledge Jesus, even when it doesn’t want to do that.
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
David Whose Heart Was Perfect With The LORD His God?
David. You look back to Saul, and then back at David. Of course, David. You look forward to Solomon, and then back to David. Of course, David. David. Why? Something is different about David. What is it?
David and Solomon
When you arrive at 1 Kings 11:4, the Lord says:
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
God was not saying that Solomon’s heart was not with the LORD his God. It was not perfect with the LORD his God. On the other hand, David’s heart was perfect with the LORD his God. What was different about David, that his heart was perfect before the LORD his God, and Solomon’s wasn’t?
David and Jeroboam
Even Compared to Solomon
Then in 1 Kings 11:6, God says:
And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father.
This puts the condition of Solomon compared to David in a different way: he “went not fully after the LORD.” He also did evil in the sight of the LORD. By the time we get to Jeroboam, he’s worse than Solomon. His heart wasn’t even with the LORD his God. 1 Kings 12:32 says:
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.
Then 1 Kings 13:33 says:
After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places.
Judgment on Jeroboam
Because of this, 1 Kings 13:34 says:
And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.
And then God says to Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14:10:
Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.
In fulfillment of that in 1 Kings 15:29-30 we read:
And it came to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him, according unto the saying of the LORD, which he spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite: Because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked the LORD God of Israel to anger.
Distinct Paths Taken
Again and again after this, you can read the phrase, “walked in the way of Jeroboam,” very much like there was the phrase, “as David thy father walked.” These are two different paths in the history of Israel. David’s path is very much described by what God warned Solomon in 1 Kings 9:4 (and 11:38):
And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments.
David did not live a life of sinless perfection, but he walked in integrity of heart, uprightness, doing all God commanded him, and keeping God’s statutes and judgments. Fulfilling that is not sinlessness, but it does mean having a perfect heart with the LORD and going fully after Him.
Scripture distinguishes the heart of David from other kings. Some other kings had a heart fully after the LORD in the heritage of David. The way this manifested itself more than any other was in the worship of David. Someone fully after the LORD acknowledges who God is and then offers Him what He wants.
Solomon was an idolater, not to the extent of Jeroboam. But then Jeroboam was an even worse idolater, because he gave himself fully to idolatry. Solomon gave himself partly to the LORD and partly to idols. Solomon set himself part by building the temple and worshiping God there, even though later he partially turned from that and ruined his legacy with God.
Worship Distinguished David
David murdered Uriah. He committed multiple adultery. He was a polygamist. What does this mean in juxtaposition with the good things scripture says about him?
David was a true worshiper of God, who sought after God. He failed, but his direction and his sincere spirit for the Lord characterized him over the flaws in his life. The Bible and myself do not write these things to excuse David, but to elevate the distinction of worship.
Today churches are rampant with idolatry. The church growth movement changed and corrupts the worship of the church. It centers on the audience and not the Lord. The false worship profanes God and shapes a false god, unlike the God of the Bible, in the imagination of the participants. This is akin to the path begun by Solomon and then taken full fledged by Jeroboam. It’s ruining young people, churches everywhere, and the entire United States of America.
Fried Preacher
Early Personal Considerations
When I was a child, growing up in an independent Baptist church, I thought God dropped pastors down from heaven, at least something like that. Even when I was in high school and college, I regarded these men with reverence. God was infinitely higher and greater to me, of course, but they topped everyone else. As I became a pastor myself, despite still highly regarding the office, I held lower estimation of the men in the office.
For one, when I became a pastor, I knew for sure pastors weren’t dropped from heaven. I knew I wasn’t. Then spending more time with several other pastors in closer relations, I had to reevaluate my lofty estimation. I don’t write this to engender any disrespect for the man or his office. I still love pastors and have a better understanding how difficult the job. Many pastors are friends.
Pastor As Sunday Afternoon Meal
The idea of fried preacher relates to a Sunday afternoon meal. In the spirit of fried chicken, a church family after church instead serves up a delectable main entre of “fried preacher.” I read someone explain: “My mother would always say we were having fried preacher for dinner.”
If you grew up in church, maybe you fried your preacher sometimes for Sunday afternoon dinner. My parents never did. I never heard one foul word about a preacher in my home from my parents. It amazes me, because my parents had negative things to say about people. Their preacher was never one of them. It happens though.
The Apostle Paul himself became fried preacher by the Athenians in Acts 17:18:
Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
They called Paul a “babbler.” This portends a great pastime of criticizing a preacher and his preaching. I don’t think Paul was bad. Maybe no better preacher ever existed.
Pastors Say and Do Wrong Things
Prove All Things Preached
People might say true things about a preacher and his preaching. They are sometimes right about him. He did things and said things wrong. Preachers also sin.
When someone hears preaching, he should consider whether it is true. To do that, he judges it. Paul commands this practice in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22:
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
What To Do with Error
When someone tests or proves the preaching and finds something bad, what does he do next? Does he criticize the preaching to others, maybe at home at Sunday dinner? No. Scripture reveals a certain way to deal with the error of someone else. The goal is restoration or reconciliation (Galatians 6:1). You help someone get it right, when he’s wrong. That’s God’s will.
If bad preaching becomes the pattern, this necessitates a stronger reaction. The deficient preaching should be obvious. Very bad preaching occurs all over today. Probably more bad preaching exists than good. When I say good, I’m talking about when in general the preaching is good with a small minority of duds or awful preaching mixed in.
Dealing with Bad Behavior
Every preacher will also behave badly. Hopefully that’s not normal for him. 1 Corinthians 13:7 says love “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things.” You hope the best. The goal isn’t to let a preacher get away with doing something wrong, but it is to believe the best about him. That approach doesn’t tend toward frying the preacher. Fried preacher doesn’t sound like love, does it?
It is hard to talk to certain pastors. Like many other men, they don’t take it very well. They could go further than that and say it’s mutiny, worthy of church discipline, heresy, or dishonor. Some might try to destroy the critic, like Diotrephes, cast him out of the church, even without any due process.
Preachers Frying Preachers
Conference Cuisine
Preachers are also notorious for fried preacher. No one can fry a preacher like another preacher. Maybe the experience of frying prepares him to fry so well. Preachers conferences can provide a kind of industrial sized instrument of frying.
I know another preacher who in recent days attended a preaching conference. When he returned, he reported to another preacher friend of mine that the conference was a major and constant frying session of a non-attending man. It was long, high temperature frying of this third party. They disintegrated him — “for the Lord.”‘ This kind of gang-style muckraking, one could even call, ganging up on someone. Fifteen to twenty on one pouncing on him in a dark alley.
In Absentia
The crispified pastor wasn’t there to enjoy the benefits of this “helpful” criticism. It was all out of his presence. His critic preachers sat at meals doing so, identifying him by name. It was all very fun and entertaining. Sinful, but at the same time, in public they gave the impression they were in special alignment with God.
The conference attendees didn’t say anything to the preacher. I know the preacher they fried. He had no opportunity for self-defense. He wasn’t there. Fried preacher only occurs with the preacher gone. Every preacher knows that.
The Prayer Request
In the fried preacher recipe book, the best chefs call fried preacher a prayer request. Pray for preacher so and so, because he’s blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. “Help me with my prayers. What else can you say about him?” Nothing to see here, they’re just praying for the guy. Nothing to smell like fried foods. You can smell that aroma from three blocks away.
Getting Caught
Fried preacher is a whole lot of fun in a conference setting. The closer proximity brings a bonding among the participants, what some call a benefit. If you can’t find doctrinal or practical unity, you could find a common enemy to bring everyone together. It take just one person to report in order to cool the fry temperature. Everything just turns soggy then. Maybe you try to find out who reported to make the subject of your next gathering.
Accuser of the Brethren
One might wonder if anyone needed to say anything negative about someone who wasn’t present. Scripture says a lot about the habit of this. Everyone does it at some point. Sometimes, people need to talk about a problem with another person. When it spreads to an all-out gossip convention, this requires a commercial kitchen for such a fry fest. This cannot, is not right. Ever. It requires at least a food service license in most states.
Revelation 12:10 says:
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven,, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Who is the “accuser of our brethren”? God doesn’t need any “help” from the accuser. This is Satan obviously. Satan is the master chef of fried preachers. To mix my metaphors, nothing is gained by backing up the dumpster and practicing demo-day on an absent fellow brother, stripping him down to the studs.
What Is Fried Preacher?
What is “fried preacher”? About one hundred percent of this cuisine is personal aggrandizement. It accomplishes lowering of the one fried and the supposed elevation of the fry chef. Psalm 52:4 says, “Thou lovest all devouring words.” Words are the oil in which a fried preacher fries.
The nature of the flesh, it loves hearing the scoop about someone when he isn’t there. The flesh of someone loves gossip, except when it’s about him. Then it’s something insidious or evil.
Is it ever wrong to say anything critical or negative about a preacher? People must say the truth at times in a certain setting and in a particular way. It usually starts with trying to help the man with whatever they think worthy of frying him. Warning of the danger of a man or his teaching could come if a man is dangerous. He should have heard about the kind of danger he is, first, at least from someone.
Men can expose false teaching in a public presentation. They review the material and point out the error. So then it becomes two people with public positions, who both interacted in public. Both are now open for review, which includes criticism. No one is anonymous. This isn’t fried preacher.
For talk to be gossip, it must be without the target of the gossip present. If he’s there, then it isn’t gossip. That would be something akin to admonishment or exhortation. Also, saying nice things about someone isn’t gossip. Only disparaging comments about a missing person fit into the definition, even if they’re true. That’s Fried Preacher.
Evangelists / Missionaries For Unaffiliated Baptist Support
If you are a sound Bible-believing and practicing Baptist church, and you are looking to support sound evangelists or missionaries, let me encourage you to consider the following two.
1.) The Suttons in Jackson County, Oregon. I have personally known Brother David Sutton and his family for many years, ever since the time I was teaching at Bethel Christian Academy as a member of Bethel Baptist Church many years ago. He is a godly man, a great preacher, and a wonderful shepherd. As one small example of his shepherding, when Bethel Baptist Church was going to send him and his family up to Oregon, we had a going-away fellowship with some food and beverages. Brother Sutton did not have time to even get any because he was too busy talking to every church member, encouraging, exhorting, and being a blessing to every single person. (We had to save some for him.) If you want to be blessed and encouraged with Scripture, Brother Sutton is the man for you to talk to. His wife is also a godly and faithful servant of the Lord, and his children are all serving the Lord. They are missionaries well worth your support as they seek to establish Jackson County Baptist Church, a church that, if your church is sound, you would be glad to be a member of. He only has partial support for his evangelistic work there. Please feel free to reach out to them if your church would be interested in having him present his work or take them on for prayer or financial support. Also, if you live in that part of Oregon and are looking for a faithful church, you need look no more–visit and serve the Lord at Jackson County Baptist Church, starting this Lord’s Day.
2.) The Dvoracheks in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. I am thankful for Bro Dvorachek and his family and their fellowship in the gospel and the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. I have preached at their church, Victory Baptist in Oshkosh, WI, a number of times. I summarize something Bro Dvorachek wrote as his testimony of how the Lord brought him and his family to Victory Baptist Church in Oshkosh, WI:
I graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh in December of 1997 as an unsaved man. During my time in college, I worked at a Burger King in downtown Oshkosh. Right across the street from that Burger King was this Baptist church, that I at one time despised. Shortly after college, I got married to my lovely wife, Andrea, and we moved to another city. Shortly after that, in the spring of 2000, we both came to know the Lord! In August of 2006, both Andrea and I surrendered to the thought that if God would be pleased to place us in vocational ministry, we would be willing to follow His lead. Really, we were just saying, “Lord, whatever, you want us to do, that’s what we want to do.”
We had no idea what we were in for. The Lord has taken us on quite a journey since then. In June 2015, I was properly ordained by a council of eight independent Baptist pastors. In November of 2016, the Lord led us back to Oshkosh, and we became members of Victory Baptist Church (the Baptist church across from the Burger King). When we came to the church with our eight children, we more than doubled the attendance. The church was on life support at that time. We served there for two years as I helped the pastor with preaching, songleading, and evangelism. In December of 2018, he resigned somewhat abruptly, and I became interim pastor. For several months, Andrea and I consulted and thought and prayed over the matter, and in April of 2019, both we and church believed the Lord would have me to become officially the pastor. The Lord has been faithful, and (I think sometimes, though in spite of me), He has grown the church to around forty, with many new members. My wife, Andrea and I are blessed with eight children, some of whom are now adults: Jonathan (21), Levi (19), Grace (17), Stephen (15), Sara (14), Abilgail (11), Lydia (10), and Sophia (10). The children are a great blessing in the work.
My primary goal has been to “feed the flock.” I look to primarily preach expositional messages and am doing so through the Book of Romans every Sunday morning, while I have also seen the need to address certain topics as well in the other services. By the grace of God, we are seeing people grow spiritually! All along, I have been praying for the Lord to send laborers here, but in June, I began praying more fervently, and we are beginning to see some possibilities open up. If any man is looking for an opportunity to be used of the Lord and/or get good experience in the ministry, perhaps the Lord would lead him to Victory Baptist Church in Oshkosh.
The Dvoracheks are also missionaries worth your consideration for prayer and financial support. They have no supporting churches and Bro Dvorachek has to work a secular job, pastor a growing church, and take care of his wife and eight children. If you live near their part of Wisconsin, and you are looking for a sound church where you can serve the Lord, you need look no more. Start serving there this Lord’s Day!
You can hear some of Bro Dvorachek’s preaching on their website. Bro Sutton’s sermons at his congregation should be coming soon; you can hear some of his older messages at the BethelElSobrante YouTube channel.
I am sure that there are many other godly families that are well worthy of support by the Lord’s churches. The evangelists or missionaries above are just two that I know personally. I would encourage you to contact our church and other sound churches if you are seeking prayer and financial support. Contacting sound churches directly would be better than reaching out to me. Let me also mention that I have taken the initiative to tell blog readers about these two godly men and their families. Please pray for them, encourage them in whatever way you can, and support them in whatever way your churches lead. Let me also mention that I chose to write this–they did not initiate my writing this post.
–TDR
Making Sin Justifiable and Permanent By Diagnosing It As A Psychological Disorder
“Mad” and “Madness”
As you read through the King James Version, you will read the related English words “mad” and “madness.” People in general don’t use these words any more or they use them in a completely different way than both the King James Version and historic Christianity. In 1863, William Smith in his Bible Dictionary writes:
[M]adness is recognised as a derangement proceeding either from weakness and misdirection of intellect or from ungovernable violence of passion; and in both cases it is spoken of, sometimes as arising from the will and action of man himself, some times as inflicted judicially by the hand of God. In one passage alone, John 10:20, is madness expressly connected with demoniacal possession by the Jews in their cavil against our Lord; in none is it referred to any physical causes.
It will easily be seen how entirely this usage of the word is accordant to the general spirit and object of Scripture, in passing by physical causes and dwelling on the moral and spiritual influences, by which men’s hearts may be affected, either from within or from without.
Smith’s assessment of madness, as you can read, sees it as a spiritual problem and not a physical one. In other words, that’s not “mental illness,” to which it would be referred today by Darwinistic or Freudian psychology.
From the Will and Action of Man Himself
When you delve further into Christian (and societal) thinking from an earlier era in the United States, as does Smith above, you see a distinction between “demoniacal possession” and “insanity,” “deprivation of reason,” and his “derangement proceeding . . . from weakness or from ungovernable violence of passion.” Furthermore, Smith says that it arises “from the will and action of man himself,” if not “inflicted judicially by the hand of God.” Calmut’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible by Augustin Calmut (1823), reads concerning “madness”:
The epithet mad is applied to several of persons in Scripture as 1. to one deprived of reason, Acts 26:24, 1 Cor 14:23.
2. one whose reason is depraved and over-ruled by the fury of his angry passions, Acts 26:11.
3. To one whose mind is perplexed and bewildered, so disturbed that he acts in an uncertain, extravagant, irregular manner, Deut 28:34, Eccl 7:7.
4. To one who is infatuated by the vehemence of his desires after idols, and vanities, Jer 1:38.– or
5. after deceit and falsehood. Hosea 9:7.
None of the Calmut’s definition includes mental illness or psychological disorders. Has society, science, and theology come upon something true and helpful that these previous generations did not? Or, are the modern and postmodern view apostate or heretical? I believe the latter. Premoderns told the truth about the troubles and the true conditions of men.
Four Occurrences
Christopher Rufo
Four occurrences intersected to direct my thoughts to write this essay. First, I recently watched the following youtube presentation by Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute on “The Cluster B Society.”
Sermon on the Mount
Second, I’ve started preaching the Sermon on the Mount and this came to my attention in this focus of Matthew 5:3-4:
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Ultimate fulfillment comes from poverty of spirit and mourning. Society goes opposite of these and others following in Jesus’ sermon, that cause the insanity, derangement, and deprivation of reason. The absence of the comfort promised equates to madness and what our culture calls “mental illness” and psychological disorder.
Adams and the Bobgans
Third, I read many years ago the work of Jay Adams and then Martin and Deidre Bobgan. They unmask the depravity of modern psychiatry and psychology. This seems like a major tool of Satan that has infiltrated in a major way and taken over the thinking of churches.
Ryan Strouse
Fourth, in reading reports from Bible Baptist Theological Seminary it sends out through email, I read work from Dr. M. Ryan Strouse on this subject (here and here). Apparently, coming soon is a 350 page Primer on Biblical Madness. I think it will be good. His father, Thomas Strouse, the dean of the seminary and pastor of the church, was my main seminary professor. This got on my radar, because I hear more overuse of the psychological terms than ever.
The Sinfulness of Sin
Everyone sins. The psychological disorders eliminate the sinfulness of sin. Sin becomes no longer sinful. It becomes permanent, even an imbedded trait and elevating sin as a useful trait. This is what Paul calls in Philippians 3:19, those who “glory in their shame.” This also hardens and then destroys the conscience, making souls beyond salvation, speeding them to their eternal destruction.
David wrote (Psalm 51:4): “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.” Sin is against God. It falls short of His glory. Sin damns people to Hell.
Today churches cooperate with justification and making permanent sin by diagnosing it a psychological disorder. This undermines the sufficiency of scripture, which is far above an earthly so-called wisdom. May we return to a biblical understanding of these important doctrines.
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
God Gave Words in their Original Languages and Preserved Them
In Scripture
Part of the story of the doctrine of inspiration of scripture and then its translation relates to languages. God immediately inspired the original manuscripts of scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God gave scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God also used His church in an institutional sense or His true churches to give witness to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This fulfilled the scriptural instruction to keep the Lord’s Words.
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18, “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.” A jot is the smallest consonant in the Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a vowel point, which is small. Some evangelicals say the tittle is a part of a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another Hebrew letter. Either way, jots and tittles refer to Hebrew letters. That says that God promised to preserve what He gave by inspiration, which is the original text.
In History
Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh, says that ‘not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the law.’ The Lord establishes one particular detail of preservation. That detail is this: He preserves His Words, the very letters, in the language in which they were written. We can see that churches believed this point of Jesus in the London Baptist Confession, when it says:
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.
Text, Translation, and Meaning
Churches should and do go to the original texts for their final appeal in all controversies of religion. This answers the question, “How did people understand the passage who heard it in the day of its writing?” The final appeal does not go to an English translation.
Someone could then ask, “Does everyone then need to know the original languages?” The same London Baptist Confession says next:
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
I did not write Matthew 5:18. I did not write the London Baptist Confession on that point that Jesus made. However, I believe Jesus and what true churches believed and taught on this doctrine. For sure, I’m not abnormal on this.
A bit of logic could come into play. If the true Word of God was an English translation in the 17th century or an edition of it in the 18th century, could true churches believe and live what God said for the previous sixteen centuries? Anyone should ask that. If man lives by God’s Words, it assumes He possesses them. Part of the doctrine of preservation is the doctrine of availability. Denial of general accessibility is denial of God’s promise of perfect preservation of scripture.
Studying the Original Text of Scripture
Meaning
For someone reading this essay today, you should know that you can look up a word in the English translation to find the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word. I know many who put in the effort to do that. Even those who never took one day of a course in biblical languages can know the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic word. In the church I pastor right now, when I refer to a Greek word, a man looks it up on his phone to see. The one, who does not know original languages, checks me out. I welcome it.
Grammar and Syntax
I would expect further study than the meaning of the words in their original language, but that is a very good start. A great one. Yes, people should know grammar and syntax, but I find that a large majority of people do not know grammar or syntax in any language. Some of the people who criticize our use of original languages here do not rely on grammar and syntax either.
For a moment, consider the expertise of grammar and syntax, even in an English version. Isn’t that an expertise too? Does the Bible come with a grammar book? Does scripture come with a syntax guide? It doesn’t. In a sense, someone uses a glossary of extra-scriptural terms to apply to the study of the Bible.
The words “verb,” “noun,” and “adjective” are outside of God’s Word. To be consistent, original language deniers should criticize the requirement of grammar and syntax. “Don’t make me learn the word ‘participle’!” I don’t know; maybe they complain about that too. Perhaps they are grammar deniers as well.
You will miss a portion of the meaning of scripture if you rely only on a translation. It helps to know the range of semantic meaning of a word. You can understand from the original text the tense, mood, or voice of verbs or participles. Going to the original text for meaning will help a student of God’s Word. God gave His Words in those original languages.
Points in the Text Not In Translation
Hebrew Acrostics
Did God give the book of Lamentations in a Hebrew acrostic? Yes. Someone cannot see that in a translation. Does that also affect the interpretation of the book? Yes. The third chapter is a triple acrostic by starting triplets of verses with the same Hebrew letter. This also provides a chiastic structure that tips the point of the whole book in the absolute middle of the book.
Several Old Testament passages structure each section of poetry to start with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Psalm 119 is a well-known example of this, but also Psalms 9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 145, Proverbs 31:10-31; and Nahum 1:2-8.
Poetic Word Plays
The Lord also used poetic word plays all over the Hebrew Old Testament one cannot see in a translation. Does God expect someone to recognize those word plays? Yes. You will start seeing word plays in the early chapters of Genesis and then continue seeing them all the way through the Old Testament.
In Genesis 1:2, “without form and void” translated tohu and bohu in the Hebrew, which is paranomastic, a rhyming effect. We don’t get this rhyming effect in English. One aspect of beauty or aesthetics are these devices of language. God gives them to us, not to miss them.
“One of his ribs” in Genesis 2:21 and “bone of my bones” in Genesis 2:23 are a Hebrew word play. God (and Moses) reverse the consonants of “rib” and “bone.” It’s intentional and easily spotted in Hebrew, but not in a translation. We are meant to see the life connection between “rib” and “bone.”
God uses an obvious pun between Adam and the Hebrew word ’adamah, meaning “earth.” The Hebrew ’adam means “man.” In the chapter introducing the first man, Genesis 2:5 says, “there was not a man [‘adam] to till the ground [‘adamah].” Later then, Genesis 3:19 says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust [‘adamah] shalt thou return.” These Hebrew word plays are distinct from a translation.
God cares about these word plays. He used them. They mean something. He has not shelved them for translations of the original text. When someone cannot see an acrostic or poetic word play, He does not witness something God wrote. Any true believer should want to know this. It is a reason why God gives churches pastors.
Different Words
In the King James Version, the translators translated different Greek words with identical English words. They also translated identical Greek words with different English words. Someone would not know that by the translation. I ask you to consider 1 Corinthians 13:8:
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
“They shall fail” and “it shall vanish away” both translate the same Greek word, katargeo. You would not know that by the translation. I believe it is very helpful to know that, even for the interpretation of the passage. “They shall cease” translates a completely different Greek word than the other two in the series, and yet all three are translated differently, as if there are three different words. There are just two, not three.
On the other hand, “miracle” translates two Greek words: semeion (Acts 4:22) and dunamis (Mark 9:39). You would not know that by the English translation. Sometimes, very often, the translators translated semeion, “sign,” as if “miracle” and “sign” might be something different.
Do we decide the words and the meaning by the English translation? Do we now say, there are three different words in 1 Corinthians 13:8? Do we say that miracle is just one word, because that’s the way it looks in the English? Our decisions on these issues come from the original text, not the translation.
Originalism
Obeying God by rightly dividing the word of truth (1 Tim 2:15) requires originalism. Originalism means the original biblical text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that God gave it by inspiration. The Bible doesn’t change in meaning from the original text given to the original audience of scripture. The text means what the author meant and he wrote it in an original language. Scripture cannot mean something different than what it originally meant.
God preserved His Words to fulfill His promise of preservation. He did it for the right understanding of meaning. God also preserved those Words because His communication of meaning comes through those original Words. An accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text is not superior to the perfect preserved text. That translation comes from that text.
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Recent Comments