The Capitulation on the Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible suddenly change its meaning? When God speaks on a certain subject in His Word, do we take what He says as the truth or do we conform it to naturalistic or humanistic presuppositions? I ask these question especially here about the biblical doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture.
Master’s Seminary and John MacArthur
I was watching an interview of the leaders of the Master’s Seminary about its founding, including John MacArthur, and I came to a crucial, foundational section of the interview. A little after the 15 minute mark, MacArthur said:
Obviously I have a very strong commitment to the Word of God and to its accurate interpretation and to sound doctrine. . . . [We needed] to come up with our own exhaustive doctrinal statement. . . . [A] seminary has to have a unified doctrinal statement. . . . We didn’t have any wiggle room. It was sound doctrine or nothing, and we were going to fight for that at all costs. . . . We tightened everything we could tighten with a very detailed doctrine that to this day is still our statement with some more refinement.
Even now we’re doing some refinement, having it right. It was in order to maintain sound doctrine and have a solid, unified set of convictions all the way from theology proper and bibliology down to ecclesiology and even eschatology, the whole thing. And that’s what’s been defining for us. And here we’ve been doing this since 1986 and nothing has moved.
Bibliology Statement at Master’s Seminary
When I heard MacArthur say this over a week ago, I wondered about the bibliology statement in the seminary doctrinal statement, so I looked it up. Here’s the fundamental part of what it says, the first four paragraphs:
We teach that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed.
We teach the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 31:17), describe the special creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-25), and define marriage as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). Scripture elsewhere dictates that any sexual activity outside of marriage is an abomination before the Lord (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:13; Matthew 5:27-32; 19:1-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 6:9-10; 1 Thessalonians. 4:1-7).
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12-13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
As you read that, maybe you think it’s a boilerplate, typical orthodox, scriptural, and historical statement of bibliology. In a statement on bibliology, in the first four paragraphs Master’s Seminary gave a gigantic chunk of space to interpretational philosophy, emphasizing a young earth interpretation and biblical definition of marriage. I’m fine with including that, but how do you include that and say nothing about the preservation of scripture?
The Bible and the Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible teach its own preservation? Does it say anything about that? Did you notice in the second paragraph on inspiration, it applies verbal inspiration and inerrancy and infallibility to the “original manuscripts”? After a third paragraph on interpretation, a fourth paragraph then says “the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” According to the statement, the Bible itself is not infallible, except in the original manuscripts, yet it still constitutes an infallible rule of faith and practice. These types of conclusions do not follow the premises for them.
The physical original manuscripts (autographa) do not exist. No one can look at them to get a rule of faith and practice. People can look only at copies of copies (apographa) of the original manuscripts. Without a doctrine of preservation, one cannot conclude an infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there no doctrine of preservation of scripture in the Bible?
MacArthur states in the interview that he obviously has a very strong commitment to the Word of God. Does he have a strong commitment to the Bible’s teaching on the preservation of scripture? He commits to six day creation based on his scriptural presuppositions. MacArthur commits to a biblical definition of marriage. The statement includes nothing about preservation of scripture. Is he committed to the teaching of the Word of God on its own preservation? I don’t see it.
Legacy Standard Bible
The same Master’s Seminary faculty took the project of the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Upon its completion in 2021, the editors of the LSB wrote in its preface:
The Legacy Standard Bible has the benefit of a number of critical Greek texts in determining the best variant reading to translate. The 27th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, supplemented by the 28th edition in the General Epistles, serve as the base text. On every variant reading the Society of Biblical Literature GNT as well as the Tyndale House GNT were also consulted. In the end, each decision was based upon the current available manuscript evidence.
This statement alone reveals a rejection of perfect preservation. Instead of God preserving His Words perfectly as scripture teaches, it reflects a failed attempt at restoration of the original text God inspired. This helps explain the doctrinal statement leaving out a doctrine of preservation. What does the Bible teach about a believers expectations between AD100 and the present regarding the preservation of scripture?
Even if the evidence of modern science says the world is a billion years old, a believer accepts the revelation of the first chapter of Genesis. He explains the science according to scripture, because scripture is truth. Even if the evidence of modern science says that there are errors in present printed editions of the original language Bible, a believer accepts the doctrine of the preservation passages. It also says that men alone have the task of preserving scripture like any other book. Everyone either begins with a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic presupposition, and no one is neutral.
Preaching on Preservation
When exposing the text in front of him, MacArthur has said the following, first on Matthew 24:35:
Finally, Jesus said this: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words” – what? – “shall not pass away.” That is an unchanging authority. And He closes the parable with an unchanging authority. “My Word shall not pass away.” In Luke 16:17, He said heaven and earth will pass away and it’s easier for them to do that than for one tittle out of the law to pass away. He said not one jot or one tittle in Matthew 5:18 will pass away until all is fulfilled. In John 10:35, He said Scripture cannot be broken. And so if we believe the Word of God, we believe this is going to happen – it’s going to happen.
So in a sermon to people, who sit there thinking that Almighty God will preserve His Words, it sounds like he preaches perfect preservation. But no, ‘we really don’t believe that.’ ‘We just say that in the texts that say that.’
Master’s Seminary has no statement on preservation of scripture, because it does not believe in the preservation of scripture. It does not believe that someone can prove the preservation of scripture on exegetical grounds. It says God inspired every word on exegetical grounds, but it doesn’t say on exegetical grounds that God then preserved every one of those words. The seminary says that God nowhere in scripture promised that He would preserve His Word. Historic Christianity writes doctrinal statements that say something different.
Historical Bibliology on Preservation of Scripture
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 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.
Dutch Theologian Herman Bavink (1854-1921) wrote in The Sacrifice of Praise (p. 21):
All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power.
In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925), Eldred Vanderlaan wrote:
Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle or the yod shall perish.
In a Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725), Benjamin Marshall wrote:
And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could one jot, or tittle of the latter pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle, much less could one word. . . . pass away. . . , without its actual completion, and full accomplishment in the express letter of it.
Believing God’s Promise of Preservation
A multitude of passages in scripture teach in their context the perfect preservation of scripture (see our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, here and here). God promised He would preserve every one of His written Words unto every generation of believer. It’s interesting to me what men, who have been in the same orbit as MacArthur, say about the sovereignty of God. R. C. Sproul famously wrote and said:
If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination, then ladies and gentlemen, there is not the slightest confidence that you can have that any promise that God has ever made about the future will come to pass.
It amazes me that they can believe that every molecule functions under the control of God, but God would not and did not fulfill His promises of perfect preservation of scripture.
The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” King James Onlyism Refuted?
In the James White / Thomas Ross debate “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” James R. White made the astonishing claim that the “Translators to the Reader” refutes King James Onlyism. I touched on the main points of Dr. White’s claim in previous review videos, and in my twelfth debate review video I examine James White’s final arguments to this end, both from our debate and his book The King James Only Controversy.
James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is against translating the Bible into other languages.
He quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Who denies this?
He points out that the preface supports “study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” Of course! The large majority of King James Only advocates would agree.
White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another.
White claims that the KJV translators were “looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” Who is denying one should look at commentaries?
White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources.
Dr. White makes other unsubstantiated and absurd claims. Learn more in the twelfth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel (part four)
What Is the Greatest Danger?
A good question to ask when evaluating United States domestic and foreign policy is “what is the greatest danger to the country?” When I grew up during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a monumental threat to the security of the United States. If you are close to my age, maybe you remember the power of the Soviet military.
I remember hearing the idea that the Soviets would fly the hammer and sickle over the U. S. capital in 1976. At that time, almost half of the world’s land mass was communist. It was an amazing time when the government changed in Eastern bloc countries and they opened up in the late 1980s. With the fall of the iron curtain, suddenly the United States became the sole superpower. Communist dictators were everywhere all over the world from the moment of my birth in 1962 to the tearing down of the Berlin wall on November 9, 1989. Putin and Xi are barely dictators today compared to those in the Cold War.
Terrorism
A transition began in the 1980s from international communism to Islamic terrorism. Terrorists would not defeat and take over the United States, but they would cause terror and chaos to free countries. My earliest inkling was the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, the bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983,then the bomb under the World Trade center in 1993, and finally the culmination with terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Terrorist attacks are still a threat, especially as long as someone could deliver a nuclear device into a major U. S. city. Conventional deterrence will not stop nuclear attack motivated by jihad, like the stalemate of mutually assured destruction. One of these random nuclear attacks still poses great danger, especially crossing the Southern border. From a sheer military risk, I still see this as the single greatest, immediate peril to national security.
China
Besides another major terrorist attack, I don’t see any great danger to the United States from a foreign country. China is the biggest threat, but in my opinion China shows no short term aspirations to invade our shores. The biggest danger by far isn’t foreign, but domestic. Every failing foreign policy relates to the internal corruption of the United States. I’m not saying Putin is better than the Democrat Party, but the latter is far worse for the United States than him.
In my childhood, Democrats supported Communists in Latin America. Bernie Sanders took his honeymoon in Cuba. They still lean socialist, even as seen in their support of the Palestinians and leftists in Israel.
The Left, the Democrat Party, and “Democracy”
In 2008 California passed Proposition 8, changing the California constitution on marriage, defining it between a man and a woman. Immediately upon it becoming law, San Francisco mayor (now governor) Gavin Newsome ramped up same sex marriage in city hall. No one said anything about democracy. No Democrat says anything about democracy with violations of immigration law and sanctuary cities. When they challenge elections, they say nothing about threats to democracy. Much more could be said about who really opposes democracy and freedom in the United States.
I don’t support the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I believe, however, that Russia saw the expansion of NATO as an existential threat. This was part of its agreement at the end of the Cold War. Will funding Ukraine end the war against Russia and will it turn Russia into a kind of long term partner, no longer a threat to American security? American meddling all over the world looks like it does more to hurt than help. The present government opposes truly democratic movements, such as what we have seen in Argentina, the Netherlands, and Italy most recently. Meanwhile, the United States is spread so thin that it hurts the American economy and security at home.
Changes are occurring elsewhere, difficult to interpret. They are framed by the establishment, mainstream media in the United States as anti-democratic. This is in the same spirit that antifa is anti-fascist, and antiracism is anti-racism. These are propaganda tools, it seems. Changes have occurred in Poland and Hungary that are called anti-democratic. California would call Florida, “anti-democratic,” because of decreasing abortion and banning pornography in the schools. The present administration pressures African countries to legalize same sex marriage.
Our Own House In Order
A stronger, more cohesive alliance with Russia, China, and Iran also supports an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian coalition in the Middle East. This hearkens to possible future events in fulfillment of prophecy unlike what I’ve seen in my lifetime.
Many Americans do not trust the Democrat apparatchiks at work in Ukraine or in Israel. These are the same characters who supported billions of dollars to Iran. The Biden family also received millions of dollars for peddling influence in Ukraine. The United States needs to get its own house in order. Then it will be better prepared to exert itself elsewhere.
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel (part three)
Proxy Wars and Existential Threat
Two words I hear on a regular bases are “proxy war.” Ukraine fighting a proxy war. Israel fighting a proxy war with Iran. Maybe Russia is a proxy of China now too. Proxy war actually now has a dictionary definition: “a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.”
Another phrase I’ve heard that relates to “proxy war” is “existential threat.” That also has a definition now: “an event that could cause human extinction or permanently and drastically curtail humanity’s existence or potential.” Is there any country an existential threat to the United States? Russia would not be an existential threat, as I see it, unless a country drove its leader to total desperation. Or, if another country could compel Russia to ally with China and maybe Iran into a more cohesive and powerful threat to the United States.
Who would want to escalate conflict between Ukraine and Russia toward a dangerous end? In a famous moment of the debate between Obama and Romney for the 2012 presidential election, Obama mocked Romney for his high estimation of Russia. He disparaged Romney for exaggerating a Russian threat, saying:
The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
Later in 2014, Obama then said:
Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. . . . Russian actions are a problem. They don’t pose the number one security threat to the United States. I remain much more concerned about the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
Russia, Ukraine, and the United States
Obama stood by as Russia annexed Crimea, invaded Eastern Ukraine, and intervened in Syria. Why? Obama considered the machinations of Putin as a mere regional concern. Russia was of little threat threat to United States security. What changed? Two things and from two different perspectives.
Trump and Clinton
One, Trump won in 2016 against Hillary Clinton. Immediately upon that outcome, the Clinton campaign began a predetermined or preplanned Russian collusion hoax with cooperation from the outgoing Obama administration. They had already taken preemptive action on this strategy. With that commitment to Russia as the reason for Trump’s victory, Russia and Putin took on greater importance as an international power and villain. Suddenly Russia had the power to choose the United States president. I guess 1980 called and Obama and Clinton got their foreign policy back.
When Michael Flynn communicated with his Russian counterparts, it wasn’t the typical beginnings of diplomatic relations of a new administration. No, it was instead a secret conspiracy with Russia, negotiating its reward for handing Trump the election. One proof you heard at that time was that Trump in a speech asked Russia to find Hillary’s 30,000 emails that she deleted. According to the conspiracy theory, Trump was signaling Russia to fulfill their pact with one another. You can’t make this stuff up.
Democrat Party and Media Puppets
The Democrat Party and its media puppets had to keep this charade going. They took it to an incredible extent by impeaching Trump for a phone call, asking Ukrainian president Zelenskyy to look into Biden corruption at Burisma. The Democrat apparatus conformed every event into a particular narrative that required Russian criminality.
Russia remains China’s chief crude oil supplier. The false Russia narrative pushes Russia and China into a dangerous alliance along with Iran. Democrats talk like this occurred distinct from their narrative puppets.
A coalition of neocon establishment Republicans, invested in the defense industry, with establishment, elite Democrats accentuates the sham narrative. It protects the status quo for top corporations, banks, and investors, who prefer the reliability of conventional partnerships and woke culture.
Ukraine and NATO
Two, the Russians see the trajectory of next door neighbors joining the NATO alliance, threatening Russian security and national sovereignty. Russia says the West pledged no NATO expansion into the former Soviet bloc countries. The Ukraine especially has long historic ties with Russia and its joining NATO crosses a red line, comparable to the Monroe Doctrine of the Western Hemisphere and the United States. Soviets crossed a red line when they put missiles in Cuba.
Putin opposes influence of so-called Western democracy in neighboring countries, endangering Russian culture. This is like the concern of the British with Brexit. The left, as you might know, call it democracy. It isn’t democracy. They impose leftist “values.” If you don’t accept, you’re cancelled. Mitt Romney doesn’t care about that.
Supporters of funding a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine call the Ukraine a democracy. The present administration won’t stop an invasion at the southern border. Instead, it wants to stop the invasion on the Ukrainian border. Many traditional Russians do not trust the West. 70 to 80 percent of Russians support the war. Not Putin. Russians. Surely there is a woke faction there that opposes it, but they support it for the reasons I’m expressing here.
John Mearsheimer
International relations scholar, John Mearsheimer, has gone viral with articles and speeches blaming the War in Ukraine on the United States. His arguments are very persuasive and give massive evidence to back his assertions.
Trump would have kept good relations with Putin. The left and neocons would have mocked Trump, calling him a pro Putin puppet, to fit that narrative. He would have kept NATO expansion from Russia’s neighbors. When I say this wouldn’t happen under Trump, this is the explanation. Putin could believe Trump, because he saw Trump in action. If Trump had won, Russia would not have invaded, mainly because Trump had ejected a 1980 cold war policy with NATO.
More to Come
Good free books with Logos and Accordance Bible Software
I wrote a post in 2021 about how one can get free books with Accordance Bible software and Logos Bible software. I do not intend to repeat the content of that post, but I wanted to point out that they often can be quite good (and even when they are not, the price is right–$0). For example, this month one of them is an expensive commentary in the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series that has a list price of $53.99. They are selling another volume in that series for $1.99–it has a retail price of $31.99. I would suggest that you bookmark this page and come back here near the start of each month and click on the links below to get the free books each month.
Free Logos Books Every Month
Another Logos Free Book of the Month (Verbum Free Book of the Month)
Logos Free Audiobook of the Month
Free Accordance Book(s) Every Month
I do not know an easy way to get links to the Accordance free book of the month–I think you have to sign up for their newsletter for that (go to the bottom of the main page linked to here.) You can also get emails from Logos about the free books, but I have found that they then email you about lots of other things that I do not want email about. Thus, I prefer to just go to the links each month.
Save $100 on a Logos Bible Software Base Package
Of course, Logos gives you these free books because they want you to buy a base package with them. If you do end up buying a base package, click on this link to save $100 off your base package (I will also get Logos credit if you use this link). I have lots and lots of books with both Accordance and Logos, and find both their packages very helpful. (I find Accordance superior for careful exegetical study of Scripture and study of the Biblical languages, while Logos has a larger number of books one can acquire and I use it more for commentaries, historical study, etc.) If I could only have one program, I would choose Accordance over Logos, but I can have both, so I do. If you do ever get a Logos base package, you get a discount for books you already own, so it is worth getting the free books each month just in case you get a package, or from already owning one get a bigger package, in the future–you will receive a discount on the books you already own.
We have amazing tools today to help us in our study of God’s Word. We are accountable for how easy it is for us. May the ease with which we can study God’s Word encourage us to strive for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus in a greater way, by His grace and for His glory.
–TDR
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel (part two)
Israel-Palestinian Conflict
From a biblical viewpoint, the Israel-Palestinian conflict started when Abraham sinned with Hagar, who bore Ishmael. Ishmael fathers the Arab people and Isaac the Jewish. Complicating this further, 93% of Arabs are Muslim of some kind. Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook in “Kill a Jew – Go to Heaven: The Perception of the Jew in Palestinian Society,” published in Jewish Political Studies Review 17:3-4 (Fall 2005), write:
The Palestinian religious, academic, and political elites teach an ideology of virulent hatred of Jews. The killing of Jews is presented both as a religious obligation and as necessary self-defense for all humankind.
This assessment of the Jews among Arabs or Muslims goes back centuries before the Zionist movement ever began.
No Jews live in Gaza. Two sides dispute Jewish settlement in the West Bank. There are 144 Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Neither a majority of Palestinians or Jews back a two state solution with the addition of the creation of a separate Palestinian state. Half of Jews desire complete expelling of Palestinians from Israel — that doesn’t include Gaza or the West Bank. 75% of Palestinians want the annihilation of Israel. A large majority of all Palestinians support Hamas.
Having traveled to Israel and in the Jewish and Palestinian territories, it’s very tense there. It cannot work like it is. The Jews need a place of their own. A two state solution will never succeed for obvious reasons. Very good arguments say that Israel should have all the land and the Palestinians find someplace else to live with Arab people. Jews should have their own, safe country.
Israel and the Land
Americans would never tolerate what the Jews do in Israel. A certain psychology for the Jews not only allows them to concede to their conditions, but also causes many Jews to advocate for the Palestinians. Many Jews lay a lot of blame on their own people for their problems. I do feel for Israel because of the deep hatred from so many across the world for the Jews.
God still has a plan for Israel. Even if Israel does not own the whole Holy Land, they continue possessing a right to it, based upon scripture. God gave Israel the land, which is why it is called, “the Promised Land.” This supports Israel’s statehood, its formal establishment, and perpetuation. Palestine never had statehood. It didn’t announce it’s own statehood until 1988. The Palestinian territories are not recognized by the US, France, or the UK as a state. At least four Palestinian organizations are designated as terrorist on the United States list, including Hamas.
My assessment of Israel is not some carte blanch acceptance of the policies of Israel. I still pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States with its rampant ungodliness. Support for Israel acknowledges God and the truth of scripture.
Two Wars
Because of world politics, the war in Israel associates with the one in Ukraine. Some of the same characters appear in different roles in both conflicts. I attribute both wars to the Biden administration in the United States. Neither would have occurred with Trump as president of the United States. Many would agree with that, less that would say it in public, but I also want to explain why I think it’s true.
More to Come
My Take on the Complicated World Scene That Includes Ukraine, Russia, and Israel
Division Over Israel
What’s going on in foreign policy in the world is one of the most interesting variations of division that I’ve seen in my lifetime. Positions divide normal allies and unify former enemies. It’s a challenge even in theological circles with diverse interpretations of biblical prophecy. The event of October 7, 2023 with the brutal attack by Hamas on Israel also ratchets up emotions, making it more difficult to discuss.
When someone becomes settled, what I like to call “concrete,” in his position, he might take disagreement personally. Maybe very personally. It’s tough to talk issues when emotions run so high. Maybe you’ve seen various podcasts with arguments between an Israeli and a Palestinian. Heated doesn’t represent how hot the temperature gets. I’ve noticed very often, between school yard taunts and name calls, the same repeated accusations from both sides.
Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and the Democrat Party
Perhaps you heard about the skirmish now between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens. The co-founder of Daily Wire called his employee an “absolute disgrace,” caught on video in a private meeting and went viral. She then sits down to comment to Tucker Carlson in an explosive interview. Shapiro has done very angry high energy rants about the expressed position of Carlson. I couldn’t possibly list every prominent ongoing debate, there are so many.
One can witness the variated division between the remaining Republican presidential candidates. A divide also exists among Democrats between university-type leftists, Pro-Palestinian, and traditional Democrat Pro-Israel stances, especially represented by Senator Chuck Schumer and others.
The Animosity Toward Israel
Hatred of Israel across the world validates biblical prophecy. Despite propaganda-like support from Hollywood and in the mainstream media for the Jews and against genocidal treatment, hatred reaches a recent high everywhere. Based on its mere size, Israel would not deserve or receive this animosity, yet it does. Why and how? Two reasons.
One, Satan opposes Israel still. He wants to throw a wrench into the ongoing plan of God in the world. He has strong influence on the easily manipulated lost nations and their leaders. Two, God still fulfills prophecy with chastisement of Israel. Israel does not have a statute of limitations on God’s reprimands. I wish for open eyes for Israel, although I don’t expect it. Yet, God still isn’t done with Israel; hence the continued discipline.
As an example of division, many reading this nod “no” in strong opposition to what I write here. Many both amillennialists and postmillennialists see God done with Israel, replaced by the church. When I say “church,” I mean their version of God’s kingdom on earth, made up of Christendom. They see Israel as an unbelieving, rebellious people, who deserves no special favor against the Arabs in Palestine.
Candace Owens, who professes Christianity, married a Roman Catholic. Maybe she leans that way now. She can find support from Reformed evangelicals with a similar view of the world. You look at the history of Roman Catholicism and even the European Protestant state churches, and you see historical anti-semitism. Tucker Carlson grew up Episcopalian and he seems right now to return to some version of Christian nationalism, as seen in his interviews of foreign Christian nationalists. I see Vladimir Putin himself a kind of Christian nationalist, more interested in the survival of his nation and culture.
Jewish Anger toward Hamas and Palestine
What I’m writing in this post would require book or dissertation level analysis. I’m not going to write that, even though it’s an interest.
I understand Shapiro’s anger. Hamas killed 1,500 Israelites and took 240 hostages. The United States is 33 times the population of Israel and had 3,000 killed on 9-11. That means this is at least fifteen times worse, and it’s almost immeasurable with the way Hamas did it.
Remove the religious and ethnic component, and even as an international incident, if Israel acts like any other nation, it would react more harsh than it even is acting. When I hear Shapiro defend Israel’s reaction, I agree with him. I’ve heard both sides of the argument in all their iterations and I support Israel’s argument. The United States should just let Israel do its thing and not get in the way. I would advocate for U.S. backing and support if international escalation occurred from prominent Israeli enemies like Iran.
Varied Points of View, Yet Still Supporting Israel
Support without Foreign Aid
On the other hand, I like the idea of not sending money to Israel. I’m in the proto-Republican anti-intervention, quasi-isolationist camp. This is more in the realm of a fresh realization of the Monroe doctrine. The United States solidifies its own security and borders, solves its own very serious problems first. It follows the Pauline view of bearing your own burdens before you bear those of others.
As a companion to everything else, I like firming up freedom of speech. Some of this relates to a reaction to January 6 compared to Antifa and BLM riots and the denial of a rigged 2020 election and the denial of 2016 election seen in the Russian Hoax and Hunter Biden laptop. I understand the concerns over any even questioning of Israel policy as anti-semitic. White people in the United States, Israel supporters, have felt left out of the concern over racism from American Jews in comparison with silence over Antifa and BLM. Apparent first amendment supporters should allow free expression of these inconsistencies without pulling an anti-semitism card.
Democrat support of Israel comes with obvious strings attached. American money brings American supervision or control. When America attacked Iraq after 911, relatively little criticism came for collateral damage, death of innocent civilians. This is the cost of war for American retaliation. Hamas uses children as human shields and Israel must pause its offensive, perhaps leaving Hamas intact. The United States should consider not sending monetary support and just allowing Israel free reign on its own security. American Democrat politics affect Israeli security, bouncing Israel around like a political volleyball.
Hatred from Jews for their Own Supporters
It is tough to bridge historical support of Israel with the typical woke politics among Jews in the United States and Israel. Almost 50% of Jews in Israel self-identify as secular. They support same sex marriage and other forms of moral perversion, not operating according to objective truth. 62 percent of the 7.6 million Jews in the United States are secular. 79% voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections.
Pew Research did a study on American Jews in 2020 and 81 percent of Orthodox Jews supported Trump. On the other hand, the same study said 73% of all Jews opposed Trump. This describes the difference between a secular and religious Jew in the United States. Recently, secular Jew Barbara Streisand complained that she would not live in the United States if Donald Trump became president again. She would move to England — you know, the place where 300,000 pro-Hamas protestors recently gathered on the streets of London against Israel.
Shapiro himself sometimes plays, I believe, to the secular Jew. Perhaps a form of self-preservation innate from hundreds of years of persecution explains. As a professing Orthodox Jew, attaching himself to the Old Testament in a prominent way, he uses profane language and tells dirty jokes in public. Then when an Owens or Tucker, whom I would see as supporters of Israel, albeit in a lesser way, he reacts in a ballistic manner. When questioned on Trump in a secular crowd, he throws Trump under the bus in a harsher way than he would George Soros or Bill Maher.
Support of Israel and Milquetoast Response
Part of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is still intact, is that God promised He would bless people that bless Israel. Among other reasons, that explains a strong support of Israel in the United States, including welcoming those 7.6 million Jews in the United States. A majority of those Jews have been sharply antagonistic with their chief supporters, many expressing intense hatred for them. This communicates the peculiar situation this issue provides. You can greatly dislike the Jewish worldview while really loving and bestowing support for Jews and Israel.
No group provides as sharp and hateful rhetoric toward Christians in the United States like Jews do. Israel’s protection in the Middle East greatly depends on this group of people mainly hated by Jews in the United States. In a personal way, I’ve received no greater disrespect than I have from Jews and on many different occasions. I’ve never treated a Jew in a bad way, always in a loving way. A small percentage of the Jews I’ve known return that favor. Of course, they might explain that they don’t like the reason why we love them so much.
Many forms of contradiction occur over the issue of Israel and Palestine. A Jew easily can confuse a Catholic from a Protestant from an Evangelical. Even on this blog, in the comment section some attack Israel for Christian reasons while we defend Israel for Christian reasons. They both can’t be right, yet they both exist.
More to Come
Is the King James Version Too Hard to Understand? (White 11)
The James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Version Only debate examined the topic:
“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.”
In our debate, James White claimed that the Authorized, King James Version was too hard to understand. He also made this claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Dr. James White’s argument has been employed by others as well, such as the Bob Jones University graduate Mark Ward. In my eleventh review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate, I examine the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and point out that Dr. White confuses the KJV preface’s claim that their version would be understood by the common man with White’s own claim that the Bible must be in the language of the common man. To my knowledge, James White never acknowledges this important distinction.
The King James Version is Modern English
I also point out that the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in Modern English, and that scholars of the English language have dated the rise of modern English from the translation of the KJV:
Old English or Anglo-Saxon -1100
Transition Old English, or “Semi-Saxon” 1100-1200
Early Middle English, or “Early English” 1200-1300
Late Middle English 1300-1400
Early Modern English, “Tudor English” 1485-1611
Modern English 1611-onward
The English Of the King James Version
Is Easier than the Hebrew and Greek of the Inspired Old and New Testament
I then deal with the crucial question-which I have not seen addressed elsewhere by opponents of perfect preservation and the Textus Receptus, and which I wish defenders of preservation would address more frequently and with more completeness–of the objective standard of what “too hard” is for a translation, namely, the level of difficulty of the original Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. Is the King James Version harder English than the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New Testament? This crucial question is answered “no!”
The crucial question: Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel? The answer: No! The New Testament contains challenging Greek (Hebrews, Luke, Acts) as well as simple Greek (John, 1-3 John). Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. The Holy Ghost did not just dictate very short Greek sentences like “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) but also very long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14. God did not believe such sentences were too hard to understand, and both God and the Apostle Paul were happy for inspired epistles with such complex syntax to be sent to churches like that at Ephesus–congregations that were filled, not with highbrow urban elites, but with slaves, with poorly educated day laborers, with farmers, and with simple peasants who had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Similarly, parts of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than are many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament also contains some very long sentences. The whole chapter, Proverbs 2, is one sentence in Hebrew, for example.
There are also more rare or hard-to-recall words in the original language texts than there are in the English of the KJV.
Thus, evaluated by the objective standard of the literary level of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture, the King James Version is NOT too hard to understand. If you encounter people who argue that the KJV is too hard to understand, I would encourage you to challenge them to consider whether their claim is true based on the linguistic level of the original language texts of the Old and New Testaments.
Learn more by watching debate review video #11 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
Please also check out the previous debate review blog posts here at What is Truth?
–TDR
What Is the “Mind Virus” Of Which Elon Musk Alludes?
Elon Musk and the Mind Virus
Civilizational Threat
Not until very recently did I hear the terminology, “mind virus,” and it came from Elon Musk (the wealthiest man in the world) in various podcast interviews. In a few of those by various individuals, he talks about the “mind virus” as a civilizational threat. When asked why he bought Twitter (now X), even though it was an apparently very bad investment, he explains that he did it to ward away again, “civilizational threat.” He saw a particular mind virus, which took the world in a trajectory that he assessed would result in the destruction of humanity. His purchase of X would push that back for a time, Musk surmised.
Elon Musk could be right, depending on what the real “mind virus” is. The terminology hearkens to a biblical truth that gets at the crux of the real problem in the world. The actual mind virus is not, however, we know, the same one of which he speaks, based on scripture. Yet, mind virus as a concept, I would agree, depending on its definition, is the greatest civilizational threat.
Richard Dawkins and “Viruses of the Mind”
It seems that the words “mind virus” originated with Richard Dawkins with a 1991 article, entitled, “Viruses of the Mind,” originally delivered as a lecture. Others that then used the terminology equated a similar concept. Dawkins saw religious faith as the chief mind virus, but really faith itself, people with which he calls “faith sufferers.” His point, albeit very false, was that faith bypassed evidence, so it mainly blocked or impeded evidence.
In most recent times, maybe the most common usage of “mind virus” refers to the technical terminology, “woke mind virus.” Googling those three exact words brought me 123,000 hits. This seems to be where we’ve settled in the realm of “mind virus.’ “Woke mind virus.” References to “mind virus” now mean “woke mind virus.”
Meaning of Woke Mind Virus
Musk’s Definition
At the top of a google search is an article at Rolling Stone, titled, “Elon Musk and Bill Maher Fear the ‘Woke Mind Virus’.” When asked, Musk defined this virus as “anything anti-meritocratic and that results In the suppression of free speech.” He said the main cause of it is “the amount of indoctrination that’s happening in schools and universities.” One man, I think, accurately described the woke mind virus with the following quote by G. K. Chesterton:
We shall soon be in a world in which a man may be howled down for saying that two and two make four, in which furious party cries will be raised against anybody who says that cows have horns, in which people will persecute the heresy of calling a triangle a three-sided figure, and hang a man for maddening mob with the news that grass is green.
Some of that to which Musk refers is what I also believe is the mind virus, including in his assessment of Netflix. Commenting on the hemorrhaging of Netflix subscriptions, Musk said Netflix was “unwatchable” because of its “woke mind virus.”
The Real Woke Mind Virus
“Woke” became contemporary terminology to describe a state of totally subjective enlightenment, untethered to objective reality. Someone woke is awake to something probably invisible to almost everyone. An apparent woke person can see someone is a racist like a Geiger counter picking up radioactivity. No evidence of racism is necessary. His inner Geiger counter detects racism; therefore, it must be there. A woke practitioner also sees more than two sexes and even fluidity in gender identity, where someone can label himself a woman, when he is a man, even depending on the day of the week.
A Reprobate Mind
What Musk called the “woke mind virus” is what Romans 1:28 calls “a reprobate mind,” that does not “like to retain God in [its] knowledge.” Concerning the same, 2 Timothy 3:8 says, “these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” It’s what 2 Thessalonians 2:11 calls a “strong delusion.” In modern vernacular, someone infected with the woke mind virus is delusional. 2 Corinthians 3:14 and 4:4 say these people’s minds are blinded, so that they cannot see the light of God’s truth.
Musk himself rejects the light of the gospel. He considers the earth billions of years old and that man emerged from naturalistic evolutionary processes. Musk also contends that an extinction event for earth is inevitable. He says, “An extinction event is inevitable and we’re increasingly doing ourselves in.”
Public schools keep teaching lies of the most fundamental and foundational nature. These lies are the root that poison every fruit on the entire tree. They are what Paul calls, “imaginations that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). These ways that seem right unto man, Solomon says are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).
Prevenient Grace
How do Musk and other’s like him, themselves deluded, correctly identify the woke mind virus? In a default manner, God gives every human “the law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:15). The same verse says, “the conscience also bearing witness.” In the previous chapter, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1:19: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.” C. H. Spurgeon said in a sermon entitled, Prevenient Grace, preached:
PREVENIENT GRACE, or the grace which comes before regeneration and conversion. I think we sometimes overlook it. We do not attach enough importance to the grace of God in its dealings with men before He actually brings them to Himself. Paul says that God had designs of love towards him even before he had called him out of the dead world into spiritual life.
That grace doesn’t end in salvation for everyone, as seen in Romans 1:18. Even though they know God through many general means, men still suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. As a result, they become “vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:21). This is another description of the “woke mind virus.”
The virus also creeps into churches. Churches accommodate the world system. They subjugate themselves to conventional wisdom, what James 3:15 calls “wisdom [that] descendeth not from above, earthly, sensual, devilish.” These are what the Apostle Paul calls in 1 Corinthians 2:13, “the words which man’s wisdom teacheth.” He also calls it “the carnal mind [that] is enmity against God” (Romans 8:7).
The True Woke Mind Virus
Musk doesn’t know or understand the true woke mind virus. Yes, the god of this world deludes most men, including Musk, and God turns them over to a reprobate mind. They are bewitched like the Galatians, “that they should not obey the truth” (Galatians 3:1).
The only escape from the woke mind virus is what Paul calls ‘the law of the mind’ (Romans 7:23). This is akin to replacing the “heart of stone” with a “heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26). With this change of nature, man can and will think characteristically how God wants him to think. This is the only true and real cure for the woke mind virus. God can and will deliver through the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul writes (Romans 7:25):
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God.
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.
Recent Comments