Home » Search results for 'king james version' (Page 23)

Search Results for: king james version

Johnny Manziel, Obscenity, and Evangelicalism

August 20, 2014 / 6 Comments on Johnny Manziel, Obscenity, and Evangelicalism

I will continue my series on prayer (which you’ll be able to get to each part from here) — stay tuned. I’m planning on writing something about what’s happening in Ferguson, MO in the near future, because I would like to shed some thoughts that I haven’t read other places about that event. That incident seems to be just like many other events that have become now regular in the United States. I also am planning on writing about the long interplay between James White and Steven Anderson recently on the King James Version. But I have to make a choice and this is what I wanted to write on next. I hope my last two posts have gotten your attention. There were no comments on the last one, and I believe that one is bullseye. However, I think it is true that the very reason it occurs relates also to it being ignored. It must be ignored, although true.

**********************

After I got back to town here on August 15, I still had about ten days on my two month gym membership, and on Monday night, I chose to work out during football, so I could use the elliptical while watching Johnny Manziel of the Cleveland Browns. We don’t have television, and I was interested in how Johnny Football would fare against professional competition. I played quarterback in high school and college, and from a purely football standpoint, on the high side, he might in the future compare to a Russell Wilson type of skill set. I call that above average, and mainly because of intangible athletic instincts he possesses. But I’m not really writing here about his football prowess, but about what I didn’t see on Monday night, but did see when I came in to work out early Tuesday.

When his opposition mocked him on the sidelines after a subpar play, Manziel retorted with a common crude hand symbol. The gesture was called an “obscenity.” The report said he might receive an $11,000 fine from the NFL for the “obscenity.” $11,000!! ESPN protested the obscenity by replaying it about 47 times in the short time I used the exercise machine, except ‘fuzzing’ out his hand each time, as if seeing the single upraised center digit of a hand could not be imagined. ESPN will not be fined. Replaying the obscenity dozens of times does not constitute an obscenity, and neither does talking about it for cumulative days. Just wanted you to know. It’s obvious that his one moment of holding up that outstretched finger was the obscenity. But why? Let’s explore and then I’ll comment.

What is an obscenity? I wondered mainly because it interested me that the world thinks that anything is obscene. I got that the world thinks Manziel was obscene. One dictionary definition of obscenity is

any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time.

I looked at a whole bunch of other definitions and they were all essentially the same as the one above.

What could offend the prevalent morality of this present time? Did Manziel really do that? In this culture, what difference does it make? The cheerleaders wear something not much less than underwear and often join in undulating hip thrusting as a “cheer.” This doesn’t get a reaction. I could keep going and going here. Many high school basketball programs play foul rap lyrics at eardrum bleeding volume on a boom box at half time, time-outs, and pregame. I’ve seen this at middle school games in Oakland so loud that I couldn’t hear the person next to me. I have talked to coaches who witnessed as foul language as possible at clinics from the top named coaches across the country. This is how they talked in their own practices. I know that on rampant cable shows you don’t see the symbol, but nonstop the actual act that Manziel was symbolizing. Michael Sam slobbering all over his boyfriend live on ESPN was courageous, not obscene. How many venues and times do we hear our Lord’s name in vain without apology? I suppose this doesn’t matter any more.

What I’m saying so far is that Manziel isn’t offending the prevalent morality of the time. I contend that most don’t care except as a matter of hypocritical self-righteousness. People are feigning offense, I’m saying — just to look good. Obscenity is entirely subjective in this culture. We’re at a place, as I see it, that obscenity is essentially unfeasible. How can people call something wrong, when there is no. way. of deciding or determining what’s wrong? No absolute standard. This culture rejects absolute truth. According to the NFL worldview, no one could say Manziel did anything wrong. ESPN, its type of people, has no right to say anything is obscene. Nothing.

Sure. Many people don’t want to see Manziel’s gesture. I’d say that far more people though don’t want to see Sam’s slobbery kiss or hear one more thing about his lifestyle. ESPN misreads or just lies about prevailing morality. Obscene is whatever works as obscenity.

I oppose what Manziel did, even if it was in jest. And most readers here would expect me to connect it to evangelicalism. Judgment should begin with the house of God. The Bible doesn’t say it’s wrong. There is no verse on it. Isn’t it going “beyond what is written” (1 Cor 4:6) to oppose it? Suddenly something means something to evangelicals? Maybe. Why should it? Fingers are nothing. They’re just fingers. Music is just notes, the equivalent of paper and pen. Amoral. Morally neutral. What’s obscene to evangelicals is judging symbols. Any of them. If symbols such as these are judged, it seems totally to be arbitrary, like the soldier at the tomb of the unknown soldier. They want that to mean something, so it does. Where it is inconvenient, it stops meaning anything. Evangelicalism produces this, pushes this, excuses this, and gives cover to anyone who wants to go to heaven, but not live like a Christian.

Much of what evangelicalism does should be obscene. It isn’t, because evangelicalism says it isn’t. And they can’t have it mean anything if they want to reach what they understand to be a success. So it isn’t obscene, but only in a totally arbitrary way. They shape their buildings like theaters, but that means nothing. They use screens at the front and that means nothing. Casual dress means nothing. Women’s shorts over a foot above the knee — nothing. Rock music, nothing. Rap, nothing. But Manziel’s center digit. Something. Suddenly. Means something obscene. Oh yes.

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 4

July 18, 2014 / 72 Comments on Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 4

Some have alleged that the grammar of 2 Timothy 3:16 requires a restriction of the Theopneustos of 2 Timothy 3:16 to the original manuscripts because of an alleged distinction in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 between the words grammata and graphe. One word supposedly speaks of the autographs, and the other word of copies. It is difficult to determine how exactly this argument is supposed to work, but, in any case, it is invalid, since both words are used for copies.

For example, grammata is used of copies:

John 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings [grammata], how shall ye believe my words?

They Jews of the first century only had copies of Moses’ writings, obviously.

The word is also used of copies, and with semantic overlap with graphe, in early extra-Biblical patristic works:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies I:20:1 Besides the above [misrepresentations], they adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures [grammata] of truth.

Justin, Dialog with Trypho 29: For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the are of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures [grammata], or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them.

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 70: Moreover, these Scriptures are equally explicit in saying, that those who are reputed to know the writings of the Scriptures [here both words together, ta grammata twn graphon], and who hear the prophecies, have no understanding.

Theophilus of Antioch, to Autolycus 3:29 These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings [grammata] and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think; but very ancient and true.

Graphe is also used of copies of Scripture:

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures [graphe], The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

The book that the Lord Jesus’ audience would hold in its hands and read was a graphe.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures [graphe]; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Early patristic writings also use graphe for copies. One easy example is:

1 Clement 53:1 For you know, and know well, the sacred scriptures [graphe], dear friends, and you have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things, therefore, merely as a reminder.

Here the copies that Clement’s audience, the Church at Corinth, was examining were the sacred/holy scriptures. The Greek of 1 Clement 53:1 is tas hieras graphas, almost identical to 2 Tim 3:15’s ta hiera grammata. If there is some sort of technical distinction between the words so that only either graphe or grammata refers only to the autographs, the distinction was lost already in what is likely the earliest extant Christian document after the composition of the New Testament, 1 Clement, which was written by the man who appears to have been the Baptist pastor of the church at Rome around the turn of the 1st century.[xv] As noted above, grammata/graphe are also found together as early as Justin Martyr’s Dialog with Trypho 70, c. A. D. 120 or before. Moreover, these early texts use both grammata and graphe for copies of the Scriptures, rather than restricting the words to the autographs.

Thus, it is difficult to know which word, gramma or graphe, is the one that is supposedly the technical word for the autographs, and why one must believe the one or the other word constitutes such a technical reference in2 Timothy 3:15-16. The plain teaching of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that accurate copies of the Bible have the breath of God upon them in the same way that the original manuscripts did.

On a concluding note, when this author made a cursory examination of Baptist confessions and similar material, there appeared to be no hesitation in employing the word inspiration for copies or for accurate translations. For example:

“And no decrees of popes or councils, or writings of any person whatsoever, are of equal authority with the sacred scriptures. And by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English mother tongue [the KJV, as is evident from both the time of the confession and the references and allusions to verses in the document], of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day. . . . all which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life. (Article 37, An Orthodox Creed, 1678, quoted in Underhill,Confessions of Faith and Other Public Documents).

The Charleston Association of Baptist Churches in their 1802 circular #9, “On the Duty of Churches to their Ministers” (cited in Furman, A History of the Charleston Association of Baptist Churches) wrote, “We conclude in the language of inspiration—“Live in love and peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” Note that the “language of inspiration” is the KJV.

There did not appear to be any confession that either denied that the breath of God was in copies or accurate translations, or that made some sort of distinction between gramma and graphe in 2 Timothy 3:15-16.

Scripture teaches that inspiration is a quality that pertains to all that is appropriately called Scripture. Since original language copies are properly considered Scripture, they are properly termed inspired. Since, in a derived sense, the Bible, when accurately translated, is still properly termed Scripture, the Word accurately translated is, in a derived sense, properly termed inspired. Therefore, it is proper to call the King James Version inspired, because it is an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew autographs dictated once and for all by the Holy Ghost.

This is the final part of this four-part study. See the entire study on one webpage here.

TDR

[xv] See the article “Images of the Church in 1 Clement” at http://faithsaves.net; Clement teaches justification by faith alone, church independence and autonomy, and in every way looks like a good Baptist.

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 3

July 11, 2014 / 15 Comments on Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 3

In part 2 last Friday we concluded that “since the Authorized Version is an accurate translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Words dictated by the Holy Ghost, it is Scripture, and it is inspired.” This conclusion must be somewhat qualified, however.

Two qualifications to the above must be made.

1.) Only Greek and Hebrew words are directly inspired. Translated words are derivatively inspired.[ix] The directly inspired Greek and Hebrew cannot be changed, jot or tittle. Translated words can be changed and still have the breath of God. Dropping the “eth” from KJV verbs would not make the translation lose the breath of God. One could, in like manner, say that the KJV is derivatively preserved, sharp, quick, powerful, faith-producing, and so on. This fact does not by any means make English, rather than the directly, verbally, plenarily inspired and perfectly preserved Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic) words the Christian’s authority. The original language text is verbally, plenarily inspired, while a translation that is entirely accurate has plenary inspiration, but not the verbal inspiration of the original language,[x] and is entirely dependent for its authority upon the original language text. The substance of the meaning conveyed by God in Greek and Hebrew words is transferred into the language of a translation, but God did not dictate English, French, Spanish, or Latin words to the penmen of the Bible; He revealed Himself in Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words.[xi]

2.) When translations other than the KJV are accurate, in those parts they are also (derivatively) inspired. The NASV, for example, possesses the breath of God in the parts where it is not mistranslated nor is translated from a corrupt Greek or Hebrew text. This fact explains why believers who use English translations other than the KJV can be built up spiritually, and why unbelievers can be converted through the instrumentality of modern Bible versions.

This use of Theopneustos for product, rather than process, is the clear use of the Greek word in related Christian/Koiné Greek texts. For instance:[xii]

Papias 10:1 Regarding, however, the divine inspiration [Theopneustos] of the book [i.e., the Revelation of John] we think it superfluous to speak at length, since the blessed Gregory (I mean the Theologian) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear witness to its genuineness.[xiii] [Papias, who lived around the turn of the first century, reproduced by Andrew of Caesarea (563-637), Preface to the Apocalypse]

Here the book itself, the Greek words, the product, is referred to as inspired. Process is not in view, but product.

Sibylline Oracles 5:406-407 But God, the great Father of all within whom is the breath of God [Theopneustos], they were accustomed to reverence with holy sacrifices and hecatombs.[xiv]

Here the unknown writer of the Sibylline Oracles refers to the breath God puts within people as Theopneustos. It is simply “breath from God.”

Consistency thus requires that believers either refrain from calling translated Scripture “the Word of God” or allow the use of the word Theopneustos for anything that has the breath of God in it, including translated Scripture. An examination of the use of Theopneustos in its Koiné background leads to this conclusion.

The affirmation that translations possess the breath of God in a derived sense is by no means an affirmation of Ruckmanism. Peter Ruckman’s doctrine is that the English of the King James Version is superior to the Greek and Hebrew words God promised to preserve (Matthew 5:18), and thus involves a denial of the perfect preservation of the words God gave in the once-and-for-all completed process of giving the Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7). Ruckman affirms that a move of God like that mentioned in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611, a repudiation of the completion of the canon and a rejection of the warning of Revelation 22:18-19. Scripture, on the other hand, denies that 2 Peter 1:16-21 pertains to any other than the original writers of the Scripture when they penned the autographs, but maintains that the original copies do not lose the breath of God when they are copied or (in a derived sense) when they are accurately translated. Indeed, recognizing the Scriptural fact that the breath of God remains upon copies and (in a derived sense) accurate translations destroys the foundational appeal of the Ruckmanite error. Ruckmanism claims that only if one affirms that another supernatural act of giving the Scripture such as is described in 2 Peter 1:16-21 took place in 1611 with the Authorized Version can one have a Bible in his hands today that is living, powerful, sharper than any two edged sword, and truly the Word of God. The fact that the breath of God remains in accurate copies and accurate translations allows the believer to affirm that he does indeed have the very Word of God in his hand when he holds a King James Bible, without adopting the heresy of a re-opening of the canon in 1611 or denying the promises of Scripture that every Hebrew and Greek word God gave in the autographs is still available and is still the ultimate authority for the Christian (Matthew 4:4; 5:18; Isaiah 59:21).

TDR

Footnotes (if the Greek is garbled, read the PDF file of this study here):

[ix] While it is true that the specific phrase derivatively inspired is not found anywhere in the Bible, it is equally true that the word translation is absent. The implications of this paragraph, and the doctrine of derivitive inspiration, are simply the good and necessary consequences of the fact that accurately translated Scripture is still Scripture, and one can accurately translate Scripture in more than one way. Inspiration isderived in translated Scripture because the words in the receptor language derive all their authority from the original language texts that are correctly translated. The fact that translated words can be modified and still have the breath of God is the necessary consequence of the fact that “he doeth” and “he does” are both correct translations of the appropriate Greek or Hebrew phrases. Thus, one has no right to object to the use of the word derivitive in connection with inspiration, based on the absence of the word in the Bible, in connection with translations, unless he likewise objects to and abstains from the use of the word translation itself, never refers to Scripture as verbally or plenarily inspired, abstains from speaking of monotheism, or the Trinity, and so on. The use of the term derivative inspiration is simply a way of expressing the necessary distinction between the perfect and absolutely unchangable original language texts given by God once for all in the autographs (2 Peter 1:16-21; Jude 3) and accurately translated copies. Not the word Theopneustos alone, but all the terms that pertain to the original language texts of the Bible only pertain in a derived way to copies. Since translated Scripture is only in a derived sense Scripture, the Word of God, quick/living, powerful, profitable, and so on, it is, in like manner, inspired in a derived sense.

[x] Nonetheless, in a derivative way, texts like “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and theyare life” (John 6:63) are applicable to the words of accurate translations, although translated words are unlike the unchangeable, ultimately authoritative Greek words Christ originally spoke which were recorded by the Apostle John through the dictation of the Holy Spirit.

[xi] The affirmation of absolute verbal and plenary inspiration for the original language text, but of a secondary derivative inspiration for accurate translations, is the classic position assumed by Baptists and Protestants in the Reformation and post-Reformation era. Richard Muller explains the historic Protestant position:

[Alongside] the insistence of the Reformed that the very words of the original are inspired, the theological force of their argument falls in the substance or res rather than on the individual words: translations can be authoritative quoad res because the authority is not so much in the words as in the entirety of the teaching as distributed throughout the canon. . . . [T]he issue of “things” (res) and “words” (verba) . . . is crucial to the Protestant doctrine of Scripture and is, as many of the other elements of the Protestant doctrine, an element taken over from the medieval tradition and rooted in Augustine’s hermeneutics. . . . [T]he words of the text are signs pointing to the doctrinal “things.” This distinction between signa and res significata, the sign and the thing signified, carries over into the language typical of scholastic Protestantism, of the words of the text and the substance of the text, of the authority of translations not strictly quoad verba but quoad res, according to the substance or meaning indicated by the original. . . . [O]nly the [original language] sources are inspired (theopneustoi) both according to their substance (quoad res) and according to their words (quoad verba)[.] This must be the case, since holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21, who dictated to them not only the substance (res) but also the very words (verba). For the same reason, the Hebrew and the Greek are the norms and rules by which the various versions are examined and evaluated. . . . [There is] a distinction between authenticity and authorship quoad verba, which belongs only to the Hebrew and Greek originals, and authenticity and authority quoad res, which inheres in valid translations. . . . Thus translations can be used, but with the reservation that only the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the authentic norms of doctrine and the rule by which doctrinal controversy is to be decided[.] Versions that are congruent with the sources are indeed authentic according to substance (quoad res); for the Word of God [may be] translated into other languages: the Word of God is not to be limited, since whether it is thought or spoken or written, it remains the Word of God. Nonetheless they are not authentic according to the idiom or word, inasmuch as the words have been explained in French or Dutch. In relation to all translations, therefore, the Hebrew and Greek texts stand as antiquissimus, originalis, and archetypos. Thus, translations are the Word of God insofar as they permit the Word of God to address the reader or hearer: for Scripture is most certainly the Word of God in the things it teaches and to the extent that in and by means of it power of God touches the conscience. Even so, in translations as well as in the original the testimony of the Holy Spirit demonstrates the graciousness of God toward us. All translations have divine authority insofar as they correctly render the original: the tongue and dialect is but an accident, and as it were an argument of divine truth, which remains one and the same in all idioms. (pgs. 269, 326-327, 403, 416, 427-428, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy; volume 2, Holy Scripture: The cognitive foundation of theology (2nd ed.), Richard Muller. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003; quotations and original sources not reproduced)

[xii] Compare also the uses (which are loose but relevent for comparison) of Theopneustos as product in the Sibylline Oracles 5:308, “God-breathed streams” (na¿masin toi√ß qeopneu/stoiß) Pseudo-Phocylides 129, “God-breathed wisdom” (qeopneu/stou sofi÷hß) and Testament of Abraham (Recension A) 20:11, “God-breathed ointments and perfumes” (muri÷smasi qeopneu/stoiß kai« aÓrw¿masin). In each of these instances a divine quality is ascribed to the noun modified by Theopneustos. The God-breathed ointments and perfumes” of theTestament of Abraham is parallel to the “God-woven linen cloth” (sindo/ni qeou¨fantwˆ◊) mentioned immediately previously. (Of course, a simply linguistic point is being made here, namely, that Theopneustos is a designation for a product—by no means must the verbal, plenary giving of each word of the Scriptures by God be reduced to the level of allegedly divine quality unknown Koiné writers ascribe to perfume or ointment.) Note the detailed and careful discussion of these texts (and others, such as Nonnus’ “theopneustic sandal,” a Bostran inscription speaking of an arjciereuß qeopneu/stoß, etc.) by Warfield in Revelation and Inspirationchapter 7.

[xiii] Peri« me÷ntoi touv qeopneu/stou thvß bi÷blou [thvß ∆Apokalu/yewß ∆Iwa¿nnou] peritton mhku/nein ton lo/gon hJgou/meqa, tw◊n makari÷wn Grhgori÷ou fhmi« touv qeolo/gou kai« Kuri÷llou, prose÷ti de« kai« tw◊n aÓrcaiote÷rwn Papi÷ou, Ei˙rhnai÷ou, Meqodi÷ou kai« ÔIppolu/tou tau/thØ prosmarturou/ntwn to aÓxio/piston.

[xiv] aÓlla» me÷gan genethvra qeon pa¿ntwn qeopneu/stwn e˙n qusi÷aiß aJgi÷aiß e˙ge÷rairon kai« e˚kato/mbaiß.

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 1

June 27, 2014 / 5 Comments on Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 1

Scripture teaches that the words of Scripture are inspired by God, and thus the entirety of the canonical Scriptures are inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16. God did not inspire people like Moses, Jeremiah, or Matthew; rather, the words that He gave to mankind through them are inspired. Since “inspired” means “God breathed,” and Matthew 4:4 states, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” believers are to live by inspired words. Since the present tense verb “proceedeth” in Matthew 4:4represents continuing action, as is also found in other very closely related uses of the verb,[i] the breath of God, that is, inspiration, remains in the words of the copies of the autographs, and men are to live by every word of those inspired copies. The fact is that neither 2 Timothy 3:16 nor Matthew 4:4 actually refer toinspiration as a process, rather than a product.[ii] Standard Greek lexica provide ample evidence for the use ofTheopneustos, God-breathed, as a quality of actual written copies of the Scriptures.[iii] 2 Peter 1:16-21 does not employ the word “God-breathed” nor any phraseology like “proceedeth out of the mouth of God” likeMatthew 4:4 does. 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that a quality or attribute of Scripture, whether of autographs or apographs, is that it has the breath of God in it.[iv]

One can use the word inspiration to refer to the process whereby God dictated His Words to the prophets as described in 2 Peter 1:16-21. However, the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 is that the breath of God/inspiration remains in every Word perfectly preserved in Hebrew and Greek, just as it does in the original manuscripts. Thus, the perfectly preserved words in the Greek and Hebrew Received Texts underneath the Authorized Version represent a text just as inspired as the original copies dictated to Moses, Paul, or Luke, as the words in the Received Text are identical to those in the autographs.

Recognizing inspiration as equal to the continuing action of “proceeding out of the mouth of God” that pertains to the product of what was originally dictated by the Holy Ghost to men moved by Him (2 Peter 1:16-21) helps to solve of the debate over the propriety of the use of the word inspired for accurate translations such as the King James Version.

Footnotes (if the Greek is garbled, read the PDF file of this study here):

i] See Matthew 15:11, 18; cf. Luke 4:22; Revelation 1:16; 19:15. Note the unquestionable continuing action in Revelation 22:1. A denial of continuing action in John 15:26 would overthrow the classical doctrine of the interpersonal relations in the Trinity by denying the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father (and the Son). Note that while ekporeuomai is not very common in the aorist or perfect tenses, it is found in these forms outside the NT (2 Samuel 19:8 (), aorist, clearly a one time action; Numbers 31:28, 36;Deuteronomy 11:10 (), perfect tense, retaining the fundamental idea of the Greek perfect), although not within the NT itself.

[ii] “The Greek word of this passage—Theopneustos . . . says of Scripture . . . that it is breathed out by God, ‘God-breathed,’ the product of the creative breath of God. In a word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indication of how God has operated in producing them. . . . Paul declares, then, that ‘every scripture,’ or ‘all scripture’ is the product of the Divine breath, ‘is God-breathed,’ [and so] he asserts with as much energy as he could employ that Scripture is the product of a specifically Divine operation” (pg. 60, Revelation and Inspiration, Benjamin B. Warfield. Elec. acc. Rio, WI: AGES Digital Software, 2006; orig. pub. New York: Oxford University, 1927).

Nevertheless, the Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, J. Parkhurst (2^nd ed. 1794; elec. acc. http://books.google.com) defines qeo/pneustoß as: “from qeo/ß, God, and pepneusai, 3^rd pers. sing. perf. pass. of pnew, fut. pneusw, to breathe. Breathed or inspired by God, divinely inspired, given by divine inspiration . . . 2 Tim 3:16.” The perfect tense root underlying qeo/pneustoß would make the idea of a completed action in which the Scriptures were dictated, with the result that the breath of God remains upon the words, possible, and thus gives some justification for employing the word inspired for the process of giving the Biblical autographs. However, the actual use of Theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16, and frequently in KoinéGreek, for a product, indicates that considering actual original language copies of Scripture as both inspiredand profitable is the correct exegesis of the verse. The predicate adjective wÓfe÷limoß, profitable, in2 Timothy 3:16, does not specify a process, but a product—so does the predicate adjective qeo/pneustoß. Of course, if Scripture has the quality of being qeo/pneustoß, when it came into being, it must have been supernaturally spoken by God, so there is nothing wrong with speaking of inspiration as the process of the giving of the autographs. To deny, however, the fact that 2 Timothy 3:16 ascribes the breath of God as a quality to apographs of Scripture and shut up Theopneustos to only the giving of the autographs is to neglect the exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16, and the idea expressed in that text by the Holy Ghost through the apostle Paul, because of a secondary, although certainly legitimate, sense of the word.

[iii] G. W. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007, 20^th ed.) reads: “qeo/pneustoß . . . divinely inspired . . . of Scripture (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16) . . . qeo/pneustoß . . . as a frequent epithet of grafai/ or of grafh/ or applied either to contents of scriptures or to the actual volumes.” Lampe provides vast amounts of evidence for the use of qeo/pneustoß as a quality of copies of Scripture in patristic literature, including passages where the actual copies in hand that were being read among the Christians are called inspired (qeo/pneustwn aÓnagnsma¿twn) and it is obvious that no reference to the one-time process of giving the autographs is in view. When the classical Greek-English Lexicon of H. G. Liddell & R. Scott (9^th ed., New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1996) provides examples of the adjective qeo/pneustoß used for dreams (o¡neiroi) and artwork or craftsmanship (dhmiou/rghma), clearly employing qeo/pneustoß as a quality of the substantive modified, not making reference to God breathing out a piece of artwork in a one-time process. TheGreek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd. ed. (BDAG), William F. Danker (ed.), (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), mentions, among many other examples, the “God-breathed ointments” (muri÷smasi qeopneu/stoiß) of the Testament of Abraham 20:11. Similarly, Warfield documents the very common use of qeo/pneustoß as a quality of apographs through patristic quotations such as: “truly holy are those letters . . . and the writings or volumes that consist of these holy letters or syllables, the same apostle consequently calls ‘inspired by God, seeing that they are profitable for doctrine,’”; “sing . . . the inspired Scriptures”; “All bread is nutritious[.] . . . All Scripture is God-inspired (pa◊sa grafh qeo/pneustoß) and profitable”; (Revelation and Inspiration, chapter 7, “God-inspired Scripture”).

[iv] Note that the –toß ending on qeo/pneustoß supports the view that the sense is passive (“Scripture is God-breathed”) rather than active. A. T. Robertson wrote: “The verbal in – toß goes back to the original Indo-Germanic time and had a sort cf perfect passive idea,” while cautioning that “we must not overdo this point. . . . Strictly this pro-ethnic –tos has no voice or tense and it never came to have intimate verbal connections in the Greek as it did in Latin and English” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934, pg. 1095, cf. 157–58). Warfield discusses the question in Revelation and Inspiration chapter 7, “God-breathed Scripture.”

TDR

Reviewing Why I Can’t Be A Fundamentalist

June 18, 2014 / 101 Comments on Reviewing Why I Can’t Be A Fundamentalist

Some are upset that I won’t accept the fundamentalist label. It is suitably derogatory for me to be a fundamentalist, and if they don’t have that title to designate me, they’re unhappy. The still call me a fundamentalist, because I become too hard to label without it. However, continuing to do it is lazy and untrue.

Fundamentalist is the best word, maybe the only word, most have for the most theologically conservative in doctrine and practice. To them you can’t be more conservative than a fundamentalist, so I’ve got to be one. To review, if someone could be a fundamentalist by dictionary definition, that is, strong adherent to a standard, I could be that. I strongly adhere to the Bible and I wouldn’t apologize if that’s what fundamentalist meant. However, Christianity has a very specific meaning that rules me out as a fundamentalist, if we’re going to be honest with the terminology.

Someone questioned recently why I attack fundamentalism. If I’m not a fundamentalist, what am I?You’re left with an evangelical or new evangelical or conservative evangelical — things not fundamentalist. So if I’m attacking fundamentalism, must I be an evangelical?

Labels themselves don’t bother me, but we’ve got to be honest with them. They have a purpose for marking someone, helping understand who someone is. Sometimes the terms are used as a pejorative to shame the target. The media does that with conservative evangelicals.

To say I am or I’m not a fundamentalist, we’ve got to know what a fundamentalist is. Being a fundamentalist does have to do with the fundamentals and it is a historical position. Fundamentalism is a movement that responded to theological liberalism in the early twentieth century. Fundamentalists separated from others, those deemed liberals, for not believing and teaching what they called the fundamentals. They separated only over the fundamentals, so they unified or fellowshiped merely if someone believed and taught the fundamentals. They reduced unity and fellowship to the fundamentals.

It dawned on me several years ago that I couldn’t keep self-identifying as a fundamentalist, because I believe that more is required for unity and fellowship than the fundamentals. Scripture doesn’t support unity on just fundamentals. If there are fundamentals, the Bible doesn’t say what they are. I often say that I figured out that I can’t be a fundamentalist and obey the Bible, and obeying the Bible is more important than being a non-scriptural title or even idea. I don’t know that I ever truly was a fundamentalist. I didn’t know what one was, but when I understood it, I decided I wasn’t one.

As an example, our church separates over mode of baptism. Our church separates over ungodly worship. Our church separates over immodest dress. Our church separates over false doctrine and practice. We don’t immediately cut other people off. We give people an opportunity to grow. But we don’t divide the Bible into the so-called essentials and non-essentials and separate only over the essentials, whatever size of list that is growing to or shrinking to.

I give credit to fundamentalism for separating at all. That’s why I most often am defending fundamentalism here. For that reason, I care about fundamentalism. Fundamentalism still teaches separation. Evangelicals do not hold ecclesiastical separation. They don’t teach it. Often they repudiate ecclesiastical separation. Evangelicals are in non-stop rebellion against the doctrine of separation. They can’t be right. If I was an evangelical, I would doubt my own salvation. Why? I would be in continuous disobedience to scripture. I would say that I know the Lord, but not keep His commandments, and, therefore, be a liar. Evangelicals reading — think about that. Those who consider me a fundamentalist do so because I believe in separation. However, I separate on more than just the fundamentals.

What I have noticed about fundamentalism is that it struggles with separation. The list of fundamentals is very nebulous. Most fundamentalists have a different or varied list of fundamentals over which they will separate. Some separate over a smaller number and others over a much larger number. What they have in common is that they believe that someone should separate just over fundamentals, whatever size the list of fundamentals might be. Because fundamentalists can’t agree on what the list is, there is non-stop debate and fundamentalists are rightly targeted for being political, because the size of the list often seems to correspond to fundamentalist politics. There are many ways to illustrate this.

Fundamentalism will separate over Billy Graham because of the gospel. Aspects of the gospel are fundamentals. They often will not separate over the various iterations of Jack Hyles over the gospel. They won’t separate over the Hyles type of gospel, but then they will separate over those who will use the English King James translation only. I’ve noticed that often now fundamentalists will separate from those who they think separate too much, because those people are heretics. Explanations for why and who to separate from are regularly changing.

Fundamentalism is about separation, but not just about separation, because it is also about militancy. Fundamentalists historically are militant in their stands on doctrine and practice. Even if they won’t separate over whether someone drinks alcohol or doesn’t drink alcohol, since it isn’t a fundamental, they will fight over alcohol drinking. They will make resolutions. They will repudiate. They will use very strong language against alcohol drinking.

Here’s a tough one now for fundamentalists, which shows why it is hard to be a fundamentalist. Fundamentalists separated from the Southern Baptist Convention. Calvinism is growing in fundamentalism. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is Calvinist. The Convention still harbors a false gospel among many. However, it seems that fundamentalists can now fellowship with Southern Baptists and Calvinism is the glue. Calvinist fundamentalists will fellowship, again, it seems, with Southern Baptist Calvinists. Those same Calvinists have a much bigger problem with the King James Version than they do Southern Baptist Calvinists. Go figure. Perhaps, go try to figure, because you won’t understand the doctrine of it.

Maybe I can’t say that Calvinist fundamentalists hate the revivalist fundamentalists. Maybe hate is too strong a word. But that’s what it seems like. The Calvinist fundamentalists seem to like the Southern Baptist Calvinists more than the fundamentalist revivalists. I’m laughing.

Anyway, I digress. You can’t practice the Bible and be a fundamentalist. Scripture does teach ecclesiastical separation, so you can’t be an evangelical and be biblical, but you can’t be a fundamentalist and practice separation like the Bible teaches. The most that fundamentalists have done with me is find inconsistencies to prove that no one can be consistent, to justify their own inconsistencies. What they should do is just believe and obey what the Bible teaches. The practice of ecclesiastical separation isn’t easy. Church discipline isn’t easy. How long do you wait before you discipline someone out of your church? You try to be patient. It can take longer to separate from someone outside of your church. However, the only consistent position to take is to separate over every doctrine and practice of the Bible.

The Bible is perspicuous, that is, plain. The Bible is sufficient. The Bible is sufficient in everything that it teaches. You leave some out and part of the Bible isn’t sufficient. To keep the doctrines and practices of the Bible, which are plain, we have to separate over all of it. We can, because we can know what it means. We should, because we need all of it. God never said to do otherwise, no matter what kind of convoluted explanation a fundamentalist might try to make.

I understand evangelicals. They believe in a universal church, so they fellowship with all believers. They don’t want to separate and cause disunity in the universal, invisible body. But then they have all the doctrinal and practical garbage that flows in and through, spoiling everything. Fundamentalists, also universal church, don’t want to spoil unity or doctrine, so they try to bridge the gap between the two with incessant argument.

The key here is to understand where unity is. Unity is in a church, in an assembly. You can keep doctrine and practice pure in a church. Each church fellowships with churches of like faith and practice. Each church separates from churches with a different doctrine and practice. What I just described is not fundamentalism. But it is what I am. It is biblical. Join me.

The NKJV—Just “Easier to Read,” or an Inferior Translation that, Among other Problems, is Weaker on Sodomy?

May 16, 2014 / 5 Comments on The NKJV—Just “Easier to Read,” or an Inferior Translation that, Among other Problems, is Weaker on Sodomy?

Is
the NKJV simply an easier-to-read update of the King James Version, or does it
alter—for the worse—the sense of the KJV?
Consider, as a representative example, the following passages from the
KJV:

Deut.
23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite
of the sons of Israel.

1Kings
14:24 And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did
according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before
the children of Israel.

1Kings
15:12 And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed
all the idols that his fathers had made.

1Kings
22:46 And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days
of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2Kings
23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were
by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

These
passages are rendered as follows in the NKJV:

Deut.
23:17 “There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel,
or a perverted one of the sons of Israel.

1Kings
14:24 And there were also perverted persons in the land. They did according
to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD had cast out before the
children of Israel.

1Kings
15:12 And he banished the perverted persons from the land, and removed all
the idols that his fathers had made.

1Kings
22:46 And the rest of the perverted persons, who remained in the days of
his father Asa, he banished from the land.

2Kings
23:7 Then he tore down the ritual booths of the perverted persons
that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for
the wooden image.

Do
you notice something that is missing? Yes, every reference to the abomination
of homosexuality is gone in these passages. In fact, the word “sodomite” is
entirely absent from the NKJV. The NKJV is weaker on homosexuality than the
KJV.

While
it is outside the scope of this post to examine this question in detail, the
translation “sodomite” is correct and indubitably superior to the translation
found in the NKJV in these texts. In the
words of a non-KJVO and modern-version supporting scholar:

[H]omosexual
connotations belong to the Hebrew. . . . Rather, the terms of both the Hebrew
text and the LXX suggest cultic prostitution and homosexual practice. . . .
[H]omosexual practice cannot be eliminated from the range of meaning in light
of the linguistic and cultural contexts.

The Hebrew texts and their Greek
renderings have much to contribute to modern discussions of the Biblical
teaching regarding sodomy. The Scriptures address sodomy in Gentile (universal)
contexts (Gen 18:25; 19:1–8; Judges 19), in everyday Jewish legal settings
(Leviticus 18; 20), and in religious worship (uses of qades in Deuteronomy and Kings). The sense is always condemning.
Indeed the divine judgment exercised on Sodom is intended to be a perpetual
warning to Gentile nations as well as to Israel (Luke 17:26–37). Homosexual
conduct validated Sodom’s evil (Gen 13:13; 18:17–21). It was culpable before
the “judge of all the earth” (18:25).

The passages make a significant
contribution to ethics and civil law (cf. Rom 1:26–27; 1 Tim 1:8–11). Western
society should heed this revelation in the formulation of its ethics and laws.
There is Biblical and historical precedent for the criminalization of
homosexual practice. . . .

It is important to point out that
the KJV . . . [is] not in error when [it] use[s] “sodomite” in the places
discussed above. . . . If terms such as “male cult prostitute” or the
collective “cult prostitute” are used, marginal references should make it clear
that sodomy is at least included in these terms.

Critics of the usage of the LXX and
of the KJV have simply not considered the total linguistic and cultural
settings. The LXX translators seem to have exercised deliberation and concern
to reproduce appropriately the impact of the Hebrew to their contemporaries
centuries after the Hebrew was written. While they use terms more explicit and
contemporary than the Hebrew, they have not distorted or contradicted the
meaning of the Hebrew, for a homosexual idea was there already. The
reinterpretation of modern critics has strayed too far and is fairly termed
revolutionary and revisionist. (pgs. 176-177, “The
Contributions Of The Septuagint To Biblical
Sanctions Against Homosexuality,” James B. De Young. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34:2 (June 1991)
157–177).

The weakness of the NKJV—and the vast majority of other
modern Bible versions—on sodomy in the texts above is another of the many
reasons why the NKJV and other modern Bible versions should be rejected and
English-speaking Christians and churches should use only the Authorized, King
James Bible.

TDR

Answering the TR (Textus Receptus), Perfect Preservation of Scripture Question. One More Time.

May 14, 2014 / 27 Comments on Answering the TR (Textus Receptus), Perfect Preservation of Scripture Question. One More Time.

Scripture teaches presuppositionalism, and being a presuppositionalist, I look at the problem of volition versus intellect. Applying this to the doctrine of bibliology, specifically what the Bible teaches about the preservation of scripture, I think most misunderstandings are a matter of the will and not the intellect. Almost all of them.

Like most other truth, where people are wrong, they are rebellious against the true, scriptural position on the preservation of scripture. I can’t tell why for each individual, but I could give you a long list of why it is that people won’t believe it, that relates to “won’t” rather than “can’t.” Again though, I don’t believe it is intellect, but volition. People just won’t believe what the Bible says. For most, I think it is pride, but a multitude of sins comes out of pride, so that’s an easy one of the reasons.

I’ve explained what I believe here and elsewhere again and again and again and again. And then people straw man it again and again and again and again. The position they say I take isn’t very convincing and easily shot down. The biblical position is biblical, so it can’t be shot down, so rather than deal with that, they go to the easier target and then celebrate like they got the actual thing. They get the plastic duckie at the fair and now they think they’re skeet shooters.

For the sake of new readers and those with thick heads and even for the rebellious or deceitful, I’m going to explain it one more time. Some of it I’m going to repeat several times even here, so there will be no doubt. I’m not going to attempt to prove the position from the Bible, because I’ve done that again and again. People are fine to ask about it, but we do have a whole book on it (why not buy it?). I’m not even going to show that it is historical, but I’ve done that already again and again. We’ll probably have a second book about that some day soon. I’m going to talk about the true, right position, so people will know what it is.

To start, I got this position from the Bible, from reading it and studying it. There is not a whiff of anything else taught in the Bible. Then when I went to find out what the historical doctrine of preservation was, I found the biblical position was also the only historical Christian position. I have never had anyone prove what I’m saying in this post to be wrong. No one. I’m not saying people won’t say it’s wrong. They do say it’s wrong, but they don’t give you any biblical reasons why it is wrong. They don’t have any. You will read no other position in history, so, in other words, every other position is brand new and is assuming that the only historic Christian position was apostate — all genuine believers were apostate on this position. How possible is that? Then that brings up another point, that is, can there be a brand new position or can there be a position that was totally apostatized in the history of biblical Christianity? You’ll have to believe the brand new position in addition to the total apostasy of the true position for centuries and centuries if you reject the position I’m espousing here. Enjoy that. I won’t be joining you.

By the way, I’ve discussed the above position at pretty good length with Daniel Wallace and he believes that third from the last sentence of the last paragraph. He believes this is the only position that was believed after the printing press for hundreds of years and even before, but that it was an apostasy of the biblical position. Wallace also has a novel position of inerrancy, not found in historical literature. All of this is actually developed on the run to conform to what he does. It’s pragmatic. It works for his situation, but he’s a scholar, so it works for many others too, who are under his influence. He doesn’t have to prove his position from the Bible. That should be bad for a Bible professor. Not anymore.

Next is a clear statement I think is important for everyone to understand. Here goes.

The Bible teaches that God would preserve every one of His inspired Words in the language in which they were written, accessible to every generation of believers.

What I want to repeat is that we believe that God would preserve His Words. Words. We are not saying God preserved the paper or parchment or vellum of the original manuscripts or one perfect copy that made its way down through the annals of history. Scripture doesn’t teach that. It teaches the preservation of Words and letters, and so that’s what I believe.

What I have written is what I believe, but it also just so happens to answer the “which TR?” question for anyone who cares, which most don’t. I’ve found that they just try to discredit the position that can be taught by the Bible and the one found in Christian history without providing one of their own. I’ve found it’s their only option. The “which TR?” question is a red herring. It just takes away from the doctrinal point that needs to be considered first, that is, what does the Bible teach about preservation?

God preserved all the Words of scripture and they were all available for believers of every generation. That is not saying that all those Words were, again, in that perfect copy that made its way down through history — you know, just one perfect copy. Scripture doesn’t teach that. That particular view is one of the main straw men. No one teaches that or believes that. We should believe what God said, no more and no less. Even if there was no evidence that a perfect copy made its way all the way through, it doesn’t prove anything that there is no evidence. The straw man is more than what the Bible teaches, so it can’t be defended. I don’t want to defend it. It’s not in the Bible and I don’t believe it. We live by the Words, not by the parchment or vellum or scroll that the Words are written on, or even by the ink. Those are what God said He would preserve.

The Words accessible to believers in the 16th century were what they received, hence the received text. They had them. It’s not “which TR?”. It’s that the Words are available. The King James Translators translated. The King James Version is a translation. They translated the New Testament from Greek words into English ones. The Greek words from which they translated were available. They didn’t translate from Scrivener’s (1881/84). They translated from what was available then.

When you compare all those various editions of the TR, you have very few differences — in the low hundreds of variants. And most of those are spellings. We’re not talking about entire passages, entire verses, just individual words and sometimes just letters. What I’m saying is that those editions are nearly identical. But all the Words were available, and that is the biblical standard. Since they were available, they were the ones that God preserved. Perfect preservation is that God perfectly preserved all of the Words.

I own and I believe you can still purchase an annotated Scrivener’s that marks each difference from the 1598 Beza. 1598 is before 1611. Just thought I’d tell you. The differences are very little. You would hardly notice it in a translation. For those who say that Scrivener is some type of reconstruction, they really are giving you the wrong impression of the differences. They are tiny. Some would say that if there is one difference, open wide the door to textual criticism or don’t believe the doctrine of perfect preservation. Again though, the belief is that we have all the Words accessible, and I’m saying that believers came to an agreement about which those Words were. They were already almost identical to begin with, so the “which TR?” question indicates either misunderstanding or it’s trying to give a false impression that these editions were vastly different.

I know that next is where the most major rub will come in, for those who choose to doubt God’s promises. Do we know what those very Words are? Historically, Christians have said, yes. This is in their doctrinal statements, in their sermons, and in their writings. How do we know which words are the exact ones? We know by means of the canonicity of the Words. God promises the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, and the church has agreed what the Words are. This is how we have been directed, just the same as we were directed to the very books. The Holy Spirit directs or guides the believers to the very ones. The providence of God is involved, just like it was in the preservation of the Godly line that led to Jesus, the preservation of the nation Israel, and the preservation of our eternal souls.

The King James Version comes from the Words that were available to believers. The Words behind the modern versions weren’t available. They weren’t what Christians agreed upon by faith. They had agreed on the text received by the churches. Since I believe we will also know what the Words are, when it comes to those 300 or so differences between the editions of the TR, then I see that God’s people agreed on what was behind the King James Version. Can we know what those Words are? I believe we can. Are they found in one edition? If you want those, you will get Scrivener’s. That is what represents what God’s people have received.

At this point, the critics of the biblical and historical view have various attacks. They don’t offer a biblical point of view. They look for inconsistencies in the application of the biblical position. They’ll say that the text of scripture was reverse engineered or that the Greek text comes from the trajectory of the English. I’ve already answered those two criticisms in the paragraphs above. They will also say that there are a few words that are unsure or uncertain. They want to argue about the scientific veracity of those examples. Were they the actual Greek words from which the English translation comes? Are they found in an existent hand copy? I don’t think those questions should lead to a wholly unbiblical and new point of view. They don’t merit it. I am glad to discuss them, especially since that’s where the critics want to park. They don’t want to talk about the doctrine. I just believe God did what He said He would. We don’t need to keep looking for God’s Words. We’ve already had them throughout all history since their inspiration.

The Ambiguity, Confusion, Contradiction, and License of Universal Church Practice

April 30, 2014 / 11 Comments on The Ambiguity, Confusion, Contradiction, and License of Universal Church Practice

Catholic means universal. The Catholic church came out of an allegorical, neo-platonic interpretation of scripture, convenient to amillennialism. The Reformers protested a chunk of Catholicism, not all of it. Among some other doctrines, they kept catholicism itself. They kept a state church mentality too.

Protestants almost exclusively believe that the true church is a universal, invisible entity made up of all believers. Not surprisingly, of those rejecting the state church, of those remaining separate, Baptists, believe that the only church, so the true church, is local only. It’s an assembly. Some Baptists consider themselves Protestant, and they’re usually also the professing Baptists who believe that the true church is universal and invisible with a local church being a mere visible manifestation of the true one.

It’s easy to understand how that local only ecclesiology works itself out in the real world. God is one. Nothing in the Bible denies anything else in the Bible because it’s God’s Word — when the doctrine is true, that’s how it works. This is not how universal church doctrine works. You will die by a hundred paper cuts of contradictions.

I come to this subject today because of reading a post entitled, “Should Bible colleges have women serve as chapel speakers?” “Chapel speakers” is careful wording, because it was reported (I didn’t listen or watch) that she preached, it seemed like. I’m not really attempting to make a point about women preachers at this point. Setting aside whether she was preaching or not, a big question or discussion about this was “is it OK for the woman to preach in chapel, since that’s an educational institution and not church, and such?”

She could preach because it isn’t a church and those restrictions about preaching relate to the church. But what is the church? Well, in this case the church is local. That allows women preachers in the educational context. On the other hand, training preachers in the educational institution can come because the true church is all believers. Preachers are being trained in the universal church, of which the Bible college or university is a part, unless a woman is preaching, at which point it’s an educational institution.

You actually get the same kind of discussion about separation. You can bring in speakers you otherwise wouldn’t have in your church, because of separation, to your college or seminary, because that isn’t a church, being that at that point it is an educational institution. I bring you the universal church, which makes this all possible. You train preachers there because of the universal church and you don’t separate because it is an educational institution.

If you like music and you’re really good at it — maybe not good enough to earn a living playing it in the world — you could play it in the universal church in a Christian concert. Christians will pay you to come and worship in the church, the universal church. It might not be something the pastor of the church approves of, but it’s hard to question whether it is worshiping God in the universal church. You might even feel more unity there than you do in your own church with the breakdown of denominational lines and such.

The universal church justifies a lot out there. It also causes a lot. There are so many holes in the universal church that it can easily allow unsaved people — ironically — almost requires it. Many overlook doctrine because keeping unity in the church, the catholic one, is necessary. The universal church has room for continuationism, amillennialism, rock music or sacred, long skirts or short ones, infant sprinkling or adult immersion, etc. Don’t get me wrong, there are certain things that the local church and the universal church sometimes can’t put up with, like King James Version only. Both “churches” can get picky about that. Maybe not women preachers or chapel speakers though.

The Deceit and Tragedy of the Wrong Attribution of Success or a Wrong View of Success in Church Leadership, part three

January 27, 2014 / Leave a comment

Part One Part Two

There were several factors that came together at once, that got my thinking about a view of success and attribution of success in church leadership. Part of it is the experience of vicious, unmerited attack, wondering how this originates and where it comes from. I expect harsh criticism, because Jesus prophesied it, but I find myself looking into the source, when it is wacky and grossly unsubstantiated, of the total cheap-shot variety, full of lies.

Another motivator was the reaction of major evangelicals to the “holy hip-hop” debate, especially Albert Mohler. I was thinking about his relationship to the “conservative resurgence” in the Southern Baptist Convention and advocacy for “holy hip-hop.” I am convinced now that the conservative resurgence in the big picture, in the long run, will serve to be worse than if the SBC had simply taken its course. What I’m saying is that the cure will be worse than the disease. That will likely be a whole other blog post in the near future. I’m saying that Albert Mohler is doing more damage than good.

Another couple of factors came from a controversy related to conservative evangelicals, cessationists, and Charismatics. It’s been around on simmer for awhile, but the heat turned up on the burner with John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference. MacArthur and his church savaged the Charismatic movement, in the midst of which he and several other participants said plainly that music was the means of entrance. Again and again, they agreed that music was how someone started being deceived into the movement. At the end of the conference, MacArthur said, and oddly, sort of out of the blue, seeming to answer some unknown critic, that the trajectory of Grace Community Church was the Protestant Reformation and not the Jesus Movement. I mean, who had said anything about that?

Another aspect of the last one in the previous paragraph has been the after conference battle of the Strange Fire conference participants and defenders with the Charismatic apologist Michael Brown, and his rebuttal book, Authentic Fire. I obviously side with MacArthur on this one, but it has been interesting, and even entertaining, nonetheless. What was especially so was the Benny Hinn-Michael Brown get-together that was bombarded by the Strange Firers. This was proof positive that the baby and the bathwater were just about one and the same. You might not be able to find a baby in the bathwater, to articulate a metaphor (or cliche) that Brown used and that Phil Johnson pounced upon in a Strange Fire session. The Brown allies came right back at the MacArthur confederation with a charge of hypocrisy, because of MacArthur’s one time appearance on Paul Crouch’s Trinity Broadcasting Network to promote one of his books — Hard to Believe. The hypocrisy charge was that Brown appearing with Benny Hinn was like MacArthur appearing on TBN to promote a book.

The Strange Fire alliance has answered the Brown Charismatic crowd by saying that MacArthur’s appearance was way different — it just was, not to be compared with Brown and Hinn. Hard to Believe was a stark repudiation supposedly of TBN, and so on. Phil Johnson said Paul Crouch hated MacArthur’s appearance and they just wouldn’t even re-air it after that. I don’t know. I watched the appearance, and here it is.

MacArthur’s appearance with celebrity Christian Kirk Cameron appears like a television variety show. They sit on those variety show stools with the studio audience clapping and clapping as if they were being entertained. There is no doubt that there is some playing to the audience with things that are said. Was that TBN audience being confronted for the travesty that is TBN? Not at all. Anything MacArthur was saying could be viewed through a TBN grid. How could they be clapping so much if they really knew what he was talking about? And there was no attempt to clarify. But that wasn’t the worst of it.

In order to entertain the TBN crowd, then comes at the 20 minute mark MacArthur’s son-in-law Kory Welch, in front of this lavish television set, singing to entertain the audience. I’m not going to give my take on his performance in any detail, but the whole thing comes off as a “Christian” version of a television variety show. The style is worldly in so many aspects, music and appearance. It wasn’t praise to God. It was a performance that fit in perfectly with a TBN crowd. Now remember, MacArthur “doesn’t have a trajectory” from the Jesus Movement, even though he benefited big numbers in Southern California from the Jesus Movement, when he was calling it a genuine revival. Those kids fit in fine with John MacArthur because he didn’t do anything to stop them from these types of abuses that now he says are the entrance into the movement. According to MacArthur, that music is the entrance into the Charismatic movement. You’ve got this studio set, the worldly music, and an adoring TBN crowd. There was definitely no repudiation of TBN with his appearance — sad really, but unfortunately not surprising. The Charismatic style music is at his own church, and now at the Shepherd’s Conference with the addition of the rock band this last year, what was before featured at their youth conference. People there can pick up that taste for an easy segue and acceptance of Charismatic styled worship that now MacArthur is calling Strange Fire.

Before I move on, when I talk like this, the way this is marginalized is by calling names, like flame-throwing fundamentalist. This really is typical of evangelicalism, more than even fundamentalism, to go to name-calling in order to disrespect the critique. Most people want any kind of music style they want. It will be easy for them to go along with name-calling as a means of excusing themselves. If not a flame-thrower, I’ll hear that I’m KJVO, which has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. I’d be glad to talk about that, but it is hardly related to this. They know their crowd, however, will not respect anyone who still uses the King James Version of the Bible, and so that is code language.

Biblical Credentials for Success

What is success, according to the Bible? In 2 Corinthians, Paul differentiated himself from the false apostles, the false teachers, that had subverted his teaching and ministry at Corinth. What do you think would be the credentials of Paul that were different than those appearing as angels of light to deceive the Corinthians? What he said they were, I don’t think are what people would think they would be. I don’t think they would even cross someone’s mind. How would someone know Paul was true and those fakes were false? In 2 Corinthians 11:23, Paul was indicating how the Corinthians could determine who was a minister of Christ, a servant of the Lord, and who was not. How would they know?

How you could tell someone was real and not fake was by the suffering they were enduring. Paul lists from 2 Corinthians 11, verses 23 to 27, what was preeminent in a determination of authenticity. Why would the real be suffering, when the false would not? The real are confronting the darkness with light. The real are contradicting the world, the culture, the zeitgeist. The genuine are not conforming to the world, are denying worldly lust. The false can do just fine and keep very comfortable because they are not pointing out those areas that will bring the unpopularity that will shrink their following.

The false are all about getting and keeping the bigger crowd and are not going to teach certain uncomfortable teachings of scripture. With evangelicals, it is a matter of finding that sweet spot, where they hang on to enough true doctrine without offending too many, so that they would get too small to meet an understanding of success.

In this world, in this present climate, I don’t believe someone will get to the size of a MacArthur and many others who are even bigger than him, in order to keep their opportunities, without a compromise for the sake of a worldly standard of success. Everyone getting very big in this country should be suspect. What sinning, what fleshliness, what worldliness, what false worship are they failing to confront? How are they dimming their light in the darkness? That is what happens. They are deemed successful, but in fact they are not. They are avoiding the suffering of allowing their light to shine brightly. They’ll say it’s something else, but that’s really what it is.

And I’ll talk more about that in the next post.

Luke 23:43: Where Does the Comma Go? Was the Thief in Paradise That Day? “Verily, I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise,” as in the KJV, or “Verily I say unto thee to day, Thou shalt be with me in paradise,” as the Watchtower Society, Seventh Day Adventism, and other annihilationists teach?

January 4, 2014 / 7 Comments on Luke 23:43: Where Does the Comma Go? Was the Thief in Paradise That Day? “Verily, I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise,” as in the KJV, or “Verily I say unto thee to day, Thou shalt be with me in paradise,” as the Watchtower Society, Seventh Day Adventism, and other annihilationists teach?

Luke 23:43 is a clear text that proves believers go into conscious bliss immediately upon their death. Annihilationist cults like the Watchtower Society and Seventh-Day Adventism deny that believers go into conscious bliss immediately, so they have to escape the plain teaching of Luke 23:43. The SDA/Watchtower argument is that the original text did not have any punctuation, so the comma can be placed wherever one likes in the verse; therefore this passage does not teach that the thief was indeed in Paradise with the Lord Jesus that very day, only that the Lord Jesus was saying on that day that, at some point in the future after he died and ceased to exist as a conscious being, he would be resurrected and enter Paradise.

The Watchtower/SDA argument is erroneous for the following reasons.

a.) We don’t have the original, and so we don’t know that it didn’t have punctuation; that is an assumption.

b.) Even granting that assumption, there is overwhelming evidence that the pause in the verse comes after “thee,” not after “today.” Every time this construction occurs in the New Testament, there is always a complete thought, and thus a comma required after “thee” in translation[i] (Note: if the Greek font below appears garbled, you can acquire it by downloading a free trial version of Accordance Bible Software here, or you can get a PDF file of this work here which will eliminate the problem of garbled text.):

Matt. 5:26 aÓmhn le÷gw soi, ouj mh e˙xe÷lqhØß e˙kei√qen, eºwß a·n aÓpodwˆ◊ß ton e¶scaton kodra¿nthn.

Matt. 5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Matt. 26:34 e¶fh aujtwˆ◊ oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn le÷gw soi o¢ti e˙n tau/thØ thØv nukti÷, pri«n aÓle÷ktora fwnhvsai, tri«ß aÓparnh/shØ me.

Matt. 26:34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Mark 14:30 kai« le÷gei aujtwˆ◊ oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn le÷gw soi, o¢ti sh/meron e˙n thØv nukti« tau/thØ, pri«n h£ di«ß aÓle÷ktora fwnhvsai, tri«ß aÓparnh/shØ me.

Mark 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Luke 23:43 kai« ei•pen aujtwˆ◊ oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn le÷gw soi, sh/meron met∆ e˙mouv e¶shØ e˙n twˆ◊ paradei÷swˆ.

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

John 3:3 aÓpekri÷qh oJ ∆Ihsouvß kai« ei•pen aujtwˆ◊, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw soi, e˙a»n mh tiß gennhqhØv a‡nwqen, ouj du/natai i˙dei√n thn basilei÷an touv Qeouv.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 aÓpekri÷qh oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw soi, e˙a»n mh tiß gennhqhØv e˙x u¢datoß kai« Pneu/matoß, ouj du/natai ei˙selqei√n ei˙ß thn basilei÷an touv Qeouv.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:11 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw soi o¢ti o§ oi¶damen lalouvmen, kai« o§ e˚wra¿kamen marturouvmen: kai« thn marturi÷an hJmw◊n ouj lamba¿nete.

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

John 13:38 aÓpekri÷qh aujtwˆ◊ oJ ∆Ihsouvß, Thn yuch/n sou uJpe«r e˙mouv qh/seiß; aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw soi, ouj mh aÓle÷ktwr fwnh/sei eºwß ou∞ aÓparnh/shØ me tri÷ß.

John 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

John 21:18 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw soi, o¢te h™ß new¿teroß, e˙zw¿nnueß seauto/n, kai« periepa¿teiß o¢pou h¡qeleß: o¢tan de« ghra¿shØß, e˙ktenei√ß ta»ß cei√ra¿ß sou, kai« a‡lloß se zw¿sei, kai« oi¶sei o¢pou ouj qe÷leiß.

John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

Furthermore, “Verily I say unto you,” the construction found in Luke 23:43 with a second person plural pronoun in the Greek dative case, instead of the second person singular, also always has a pause after the “unto/to you,” rather than a word later, in all 61 verses where the construction appears in the New Testament. There is no instance of this construction taking the word after the “to you” and including it within the “verily I say unto” clause. The idea is always a complete idea with “verily I say unto you,” followed by the content of what is being said.

Matt. 6:2 ›Otan ou™n poihØvß e˙lehmosu/nhn, mh salpi÷shØß e¶mprosqe÷n sou, w‚sper oi˚ uJpokritai« poiouvsin e˙n tai√ß sunagwgai√ß kai« e˙n tai√ß rJu/maiß, o¢pwß doxasqw◊sin uJpo tw◊n aÓnqrw¿pwn: aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, aÓpe÷cousi ton misqon aujtw◊n.

Matt. 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matt. 6:5 Kai« o¢tan proseu/chØ, oujk e¶shØ w‚sper oi˚ uJpokritai÷, o¢ti filouvsin e˙n tai√ß sunagwgai√ß kai« e˙n tai√ß gwni÷aiß tw◊n plateiw◊n e˚stw◊teß proseu/cesqai, o¢pwß a·n fanw◊si toi√ß aÓnqrw¿poiß: aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti aÓpe÷cousi ton misqon aujtw◊n.

Matt. 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matt. 6:16 ›Otan de« nhsteu/hte, mh gi÷nesqe w‚sper oi˚ uJpokritai« skuqrwpoi÷: aÓfani÷zousi ga»r ta» pro/swpa aujtw◊n, o¢pwß fanw◊si toi√ß aÓnqrw¿poiß nhsteu/onteß: aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti aÓpe÷cousi ton misqon aujtw◊n.

Matt. 6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Matt. 8:10 aÓkou/saß de« oJ ∆Ihsouvß e˙qau/mase, kai« ei•pe toi√ß aÓkolouqouvsin, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, oujde« e˙n twˆ◊ ∆Israh/l tosau/thn pi÷stin eu∞ron.

Matt. 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Matt. 10:15 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, aÓnekto/teron e¶stai ghØv Sodo/mwn kai« Gomo/rrwn e˙n hJme÷raˆ kri÷sewß, h£ thØv po/lei e˙kei÷nhØ.

Matt. 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Matt. 10:42 kai« o§ß e˙a»n poti÷shØ eºna tw◊n mikrw◊n tou/twn poth/rion yucrouv mo/non ei˙ß o¡noma maqhtouv, aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ouj mh aÓpole÷shØ ton misqon aujtouv.

Matt. 10:42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Matt. 11:11 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, oujk e˙gh/gertai e˙n gennhtoi√ß gunaikw◊n mei÷zwn ∆Iwa¿nnou touv baptistouv: oJ de« mikro/teroß e˙n thØv basilei÷aˆ tw◊n oujranw◊n mei÷zwn aujtouv e˙stin.

Matt. 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Matt. 16:28 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ei˙si÷n tineß tw◊n w—de e˚sthko/twn, oiºtineß ouj mh geu/swntai qana¿tou, eºwß a·n i¶dwsi ton ui˚on touv aÓnqrw¿pou e˙rco/menon e˙n thØv basilei÷aˆ aujtouv.

Matt. 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matt. 18:3 kai« ei•pen, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, e˙a»n mh strafhvte kai« ge÷nhsqe wJß ta» paidi÷a, ouj mh ei˙se÷lqhte ei˙ß thn basilei÷an tw◊n oujranw◊n.

Matt. 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 18:13 kai« e˙a»n ge÷nhtai euJrei√n aujto/, aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti cai÷rei e˙p∆ aujtwˆ◊ ma◊llon, h£ e˙pi« toi√ß e˙nnenhkontaenne÷a toi√ß mh peplanhme÷noiß.

Matt. 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

Matt. 18:18 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢sa e˙a»n dh/shte e˙pi« thvß ghvß, e¶stai dedeme÷na e˙n twˆ◊ oujranwˆ◊: kai« o¢sa e˙a»n lu/shte e˙pi« thvß ghvß, e¶stai lelume÷na e˙n twˆ◊ oujranwˆ◊.

Matt. 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matt. 19:23 ÔO de« ∆Ihsouvß ei•pe toi√ß maqhtai√ß aujtouv, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti dusko/lwß plou/sioß ei˙seleu/setai ei˙ß thn basilei÷an tw◊n oujranw◊n.

Matt. 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 19:28 oJ de« ∆Ihsouvß ei•pen aujtoi√ß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti uJmei√ß oi˚ aÓkolouqh/sante÷ß moi, e˙n thØv paliggenesi÷aˆ o¢tan kaqi÷shØ oJ ui˚oß touv aÓnqrw¿pou e˙pi« qro/nou do/xhß aujtouv, kaqh/sesqe kai« uJmei√ß e˙pi« dw¿deka qro/nouß, kri÷nonteß ta»ß dw¿deka fula»ß touv ∆Israh/l.

Matt. 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Matt. 21:21 aÓpokriqei«ß de« oJ ∆Ihsouvß ei•pen aujtoi√ß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, e˙a»n e¶chte pi÷stin, kai« mh diakriqhvte, ouj mo/non to thvß sukhvß poih/sete, aÓlla» ka·n twˆ◊ o¡rei tou/twˆ ei¶phte, ⁄Arqhti kai« blh/qhti ei˙ß thn qa¿lassan, genh/setai.

Matt. 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Matt. 21:31 ti÷ß e˙k tw◊n du/o e˙poi÷hse to qe÷lhma touv patro/ß; le÷gousin aujtwˆ◊, ÔO prw◊toß. le÷gei aujtoi√ß oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢ti oi˚ telw◊nai kai« ai˚ po/rnai proa¿gousin uJma◊ß ei˙ß thn basilei÷an touv Qeouv.

Matt. 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

Matt. 23:36 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, h¢xei tauvta pa¿nta e˙pi« thn genea»n tau/thn.

Matt. 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Matt. 24:2 oJ de« ∆Ihsouvß ei•pen aujtoi√ß, Ouj ble÷pete pa¿nta tauvta; aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ouj mh aÓfeqhØv w—de li÷qoß e˙pi« li÷qon, o§ß ouj mh kataluqh/setai.

Matt. 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Matt. 24:34 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ouj mh pare÷lqhØ hJ genea» au¢th, eºwß a·n pa¿nta tauvta ge÷nhtai.

Matt. 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matt. 24:47 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢ti e˙pi« pa◊si toi√ß uJpa¿rcousin aujtouv katasth/sei aujto/n.

Matt. 24:47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

Matt. 25:12 oJ de« aÓpokriqei«ß ei•pen, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, oujk oi•da uJma◊ß.

Matt. 25:12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Matt. 25:40 kai« aÓpokriqei«ß oJ basileuß e˙rei√ aujtoi√ß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, e˙f∆ o¢son e˙poih/sate e˚ni« tou/twn tw◊n aÓdelfw◊n mou tw◊n e˙laci÷stwn, e˙moi« e˙poih/sate.

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

Matt. 25:45 to/te aÓpokriqh/setai aujtoi√ß, le÷gwn, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, e˙f∆ o¢son oujk e˙poih/sate e˚ni« tou/twn tw◊n e˙laci÷stwn, oujde« e˙moi« e˙poih/sate.

Matt. 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Matt. 26:13 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢pou e˙a»n khrucqhØv to eujagge÷lion touvto e˙n o¢lwˆ twˆ◊ ko/smwˆ, lalhqh/setai kai« o§ e˙poi÷hsen au¢th, ei˙ß mnhmo/sunon aujthvß.

Matt. 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

Matt. 26:21 kai« e˙sqio/ntwn aujtw◊n ei•pen, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti ei–ß e˙x uJmw◊n paradw¿sei me.

Matt. 26:21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

Mark 3:28 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢ti pa¿nta aÓfeqh/setai ta» aJmarth/mata toi√ß ui˚oi√ß tw◊n aÓnqrw¿pwn, kai« blasfhmi÷ai o¢saß a·n blasfhmh/swsin:

Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

Mark 6:11 kai« o¢soi a·n mh de÷xwntai uJma◊ß, mhde« aÓkou/swsin uJmw◊n, e˙kporeuo/menoi e˙kei√qen, e˙ktina¿xate ton couvn ton uJpoka¿tw tw◊n podw◊n uJmw◊n ei˙ß martu/rion aujtoi√ß. aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, aÓnekto/teron e¶stai Sodo/moiß h£ Gomo/rroiß e˙n hJme÷raˆ kri÷sewß, h£ thØv po/lei e˙kei÷nhØ.

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Mark 8:12 kai« aÓnastena¿xaß twˆ◊ pneu/mati aujtouv le÷gei, Ti÷ hJ genea» au¢th shmei√on e˙pizhtei√; aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ei˙ doqh/setai thØv geneaˆ◊ tau/thØ shmei√on.

Mark 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

Mark 9:1 kai« e¶legen aujtoi√ß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢ti ei˙si÷ tineß tw◊n w—de e˚sthko/twn, oiºtineß ouj mh geu/swntai qana¿tou, eºwß a·n i¶dwsi thn basilei÷an touv Qeouv e˙lhluqui√an e˙n duna¿mei.

Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Mark 9:41 o§ß ga»r a·n poti÷shØ uJma◊ß poth/rion u¢datoß e˙n twˆ◊ ojno/mati mou, o¢ti Cristouv e˙ste÷, aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ouj mh aÓpole÷shØ ton misqon aujtouv.

Mark 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Mark 10:15 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o§ß e˙a»n mh de÷xhtai thn basilei÷an touv Qeouv wJß paidi÷on, ouj mh ei˙se÷lqhØ ei˙ß aujth/n.

Mark 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Mark 10:29 aÓpokriqei«ß de« oJ ∆Ihsouvß ei•pen, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, oujdei«ß e˙stin o§ß aÓfhvken oi˙ki÷an, h£ aÓdelfou/ß, h£ aÓdelfa¿ß, h£ pate÷ra, h£ mhte÷ra, h£ gunai√ka, h£ te÷kna, h£ aÓgrou/ß, eºneken e˙mouv kai« touv eujaggeli÷ou,

Mark 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,

Mark 12:43 kai« proskalesa¿menoß touß maqhta»ß aujtouv, le÷gei aujtoi√ß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti hJ ch/ra au¢th hJ ptwch plei√on pa¿ntwn be÷blhke tw◊n balo/ntwn ei˙ß to gazofula¿kion:

Mark 12:43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

Mark 13:30 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti ouj mh pare÷lqhØ hJ genea» au¢th, me÷criß ou∞ pa¿nta tauvta ge÷nhtai.

Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mark 14:9 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢pou a·n khrucqhØv to eujagge÷lion touvto ei˙ß o¢lon ton ko/smon, kai« o§ e˙poi÷hsen au¢th lalhqh/setai ei˙ß mnhmo/sunon aujthvß.

Mark 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Mark 14:18 kai« aÓnakeime÷nwn aujtw◊n kai« e˙sqio/ntwn, ei•pen oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢ti ei–ß e˙x uJmw◊n paradw¿sei me, oJ e˙sqi÷wn met∆ e˙mouv.

Mark 14:18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.

Mark 14:25 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti oujke÷ti ouj mh pi÷w e˙k touv gennh/matoß thvß aÓmpe÷lou, eºwß thvß hJme÷raß e˙kei÷nhß o¢tan aujto pi÷nw kainon e˙n thØv basilei÷aˆ touv Qeouv.

Mark 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 4:24 ei•pe de÷, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti oujdei«ß profh/thß dekto/ß e˙stin e˙n thØv patri÷di aujtouv.

Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

Luke 12:37 maka¿rioi oi˚ douvloi e˙kei√noi, ou§ß e˙lqw»n oJ ku/rioß euJrh/sei grhgorouvntaß: aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti perizw¿setai kai« aÓnaklinei√ aujtou/ß, kai« parelqw»n diakonh/sei aujtoi√ß.

Luke 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

Luke 18:17 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o§ß e˙a»n mh de÷xhtai thn basilei÷an touv Qeouv wJß paidi÷on, ouj mh ei˙se÷lqhØ ei˙ß aujth/n.

Luke 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Luke 18:29 oJ de« ei•pen aujtoi√ß, ∆Amhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti oujdei÷ß e˙stin o§ß aÓfhvken oi˙ki÷an, h£ gonei√ß, h£ aÓdelfou/ß, h£ gunai√ka, h£ te÷kna, eºneken thvß basilei÷aß touv Qeouv,

Luke 18:29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake,

Luke 21:32 aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti ouj mh pare÷lqhØ hJ genea» au¢th, eºwß a·n pa¿nta ge÷nhtai.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

John 1:51 kai« le÷gei aujtwˆ◊, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, aÓp∆ a‡rti o¡yesqe ton oujranon aÓnewˆgo/ta, kai« touß aÓgge÷louß touv Qeouv aÓnabai÷nontaß kai« katabai÷nontaß e˙pi« ton ui˚on touv aÓnqrw¿pou.

John 1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

John 5:19 ∆Apekri÷nato ou™n oJ ∆Ihsouvß kai« ei•pen aujtoi√ß, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ouj du/natai oJ ui˚oß poiei√n aÓf∆ e˚autouv oujde÷n, e˙a»n mh ti ble÷phØ ton pate÷ra poiouvnta: a± ga»r a·n e˙kei√noß poihØv, tauvta kai« oJ ui˚oß oJmoi÷wß poiei√.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 5:24 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti oJ ton lo/gon mou aÓkou/wn, kai« pisteu/wn twˆ◊ pe÷myanti÷ me, e¶cei zwhn ai˙w¿nion: kai« ei˙ß kri÷sin oujk e¶rcetai, aÓlla» metabe÷bhken e˙k touv qana¿tou ei˙ß thn zwh/n.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 5:25 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti e¶rcetai w‚ra kai« nuvn e˙stin, o¢te oi˚ nekroi« aÓkou/sontai thvß fwnhvß touv ui˚ouv touv Qeouv, kai« oi˚ aÓkou/santeß zhsontai,

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

John 6:26 aÓpekri÷qh aujtoi√ß oJ ∆Ihsouvß kai« ei•pen, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, zhtei√te÷ me, oujc o¢ti ei¶dete shmei√a, aÓll∆ o¢ti e˙fa¿gete e˙k tw◊n a‡rtwn kai« e˙corta¿sqhte.

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

John 6:32 ei•pen ou™n aujtoi√ß oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, Ouj Mwshvß de÷dwken uJmi√n ton a‡rton e˙k touv oujranouv: aÓll∆ oJ path/r mou di÷dwsin uJmi√n ton a‡rton e˙k touv oujranouv ton aÓlhqino/n.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

John 6:47 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, oJ pisteu/wn ei˙ß e˙me÷, e¶cei zwhn ai˙w¿nion.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 6:53 ei•pen ou™n aujtoi√ß oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, e˙a»n mh fa¿ghte thn sa¿rka touv ui˚ouv touv aÓnqrw¿pou kai« pi÷hte aujtouv to ai–ma, oujk e¶cete zwhn e˙n e˚autoi√ß.

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

John 8:34 aÓpekri÷qh aujtoi√ß oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, o¢ti pa◊ß oJ poiw◊n thn aJmarti÷an douvlo/ß e˙sti thvß aJmarti÷aß.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

John 8:51 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, e˙a¿n tiß ton lo/gon ton e˙mon thrh/shØ, qa¿naton ouj mh qewrh/shØ ei˙ß ton ai˙w◊na.

John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

John 8:58 ei•pen aujtoi√ß oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, pri«n ∆Abraa»m gene÷sqai, e˙gw¿ ei˙mi.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 10:1 ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, oJ mh ei˙serco/menoß dia» thvß qu/raß ei˙ß thn aujlhn tw◊n proba¿twn, aÓlla» aÓnabai÷nwn aÓllaco/qen, e˙kei√noß kle÷pthß e˙sti« kai« lhØsth/ß.

John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

John 10:7 Ei•pen ou™n pa¿lin aujtoi√ß oJ ∆Ihsouvß, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti ∆Egw¿ ei˙mi hJ qu/ra tw◊n proba¿twn.

John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

John 12:24 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, e˙a»n mh oJ ko/kkoß touv si÷tou pesw»n ei˙ß thn ghvn aÓpoqa¿nhØ, aujtoß mo/noß me÷nei: e˙a»n de« aÓpoqa¿nhØ, polun karpon fe÷rei.

John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

John 13:16 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, Oujk e¶sti douvloß mei÷zwn touv kuri÷ou aujtouv, oujde« aÓpo/stoloß mei÷zwn touv pe÷myantoß aujto/n.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 13:20 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, ÔO lamba¿nwn e˙a¿n tina pe÷myw, e˙me« lamba¿nei: oJ de« e˙me« lamba¿nwn, lamba¿nei ton pe÷myanta¿ me.

John 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

John 13:21 Tauvta ei˙pw»n oJ ∆Ihsouvß e˙tara¿cqh twˆ◊ pneu/mati, kai« e˙martu/rhse kai« ei•pen, ∆Amhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti ei–ß e˙x uJmw◊n paradw¿sei me.

John 13:21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

John 14:12 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n, oJ pisteu/wn ei˙ß e˙me÷, ta» e¶rga a± e˙gw» poiw◊ kaÓkei√noß poih/sei, kai« mei÷zona tou/twn poih/sei: o¢ti e˙gw» proß ton pate÷ra mou poreu/omai.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John 16:20 aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti klau/sete kai« qrhnh/sete uJmei√ß, oJ de« ko/smoß carh/setai: uJmei√ß de« luphqh/sesqe, aÓll∆ hJ lu/ph uJmw◊n ei˙ß cara»n genh/setai.

John 16:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.

John 16:23 kai« e˙n e˙kei÷nhØ thØv hJme÷raˆ e˙me« oujk e˙rwth/sete oujde÷n. aÓmhn aÓmhn le÷gw uJmi√n o¢ti o¢sa a·n ai˙th/shte ton pate÷ra e˙n twˆ◊ ojno/mati÷ mou, dw¿sei uJmi√n.

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Conclusion:

The annihilationist contention that the comma is misplaced in Luke 23:43 in the King James Version—and every other available English translation[ii] on the face of the earth—is impossible. To affirm that the comma needs to be moved to after the word “today” is simply a product of theological bias against the Biblical truth that New Testament believers are immediately in conscious bliss when they die. To move the comma requires a rejection of all seventy examples of the “Verily I say unto thee/you” construction in the New Testament. The annihilationist contention that Luke 23:43 should be changed (to “Verily I say unto thee today,”) is not consistent with the Greek syntax of Luke 23:43.

Annihilationists who argue that Luke 23:43 does not say “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise,” are either ignorant of the evidence or have chosen to reject the evidence. Luke 23:43 stands as a clear text in favor of the entrance of the saved dead into immediate conscious happiness. One who denies this truth rejects the Word of the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a course is very dangerous, for the Son of God, who never lies, has said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

TDR

Note: this entire study is also available here.

For more resources on Seventh-Day Adventism, click here.

[i] One notes that in a few of the verses below, when the soi/humin is followed by the hoti indicating direct discourse, the comma found in the English is left out of the Greek. Of course, the reason for this is the very fact of the (usually untranslated) hoti of direct discourse. This does not at all change the fact that the amen lego humin is the end of its thought, and a new and distinct thought follows with the hoti. A pause is still indicated in these verses, and commas are correctly found universally in the King James Version. Anyone who attempted to support the idea that a clause does not end, and a pause is not indicated, in Luke 23:43, or anywhere else in the New Testament, after the amen lego soi/humin structure because of these verses with a hoti of direct discourse, evidences either abysmal ignorance of Greek or deliberate disingenuousness.

It should also be noted that in Luke 23:43 the ∆Amhn le÷gw soi of the Textus Receptus receives support from 99.5% of Greek MSS, while the textual corruption aÓmh/n soi le÷gw follows fewer manuscripts than one has fingers on his hand and is syntactically unparalleled anywhere in the NT or LXX.

[ii] The New World Translation of the Watchtower Society (so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses”) does not put the comma where the Greek requires it. However, the New World Translation is not a translation. The combined coursework in New Testament Greek for the entire Watchtower “translation” committee consisted of a single two credit hour course (and no “translator” had ever taken any courses in Hebrew—not to mention Aramaic—at all!). Thus, their “Bible” does not deserve to be called a translation. Two credit hours of New Testament Greek, by one of seven “translators,” the other six of which had taken as much New Testament Greek as one’s pet dog, cat, or goldfish, does not get the “translation” committee even near to the linguistic capability required to translate the Word of God. This is apart from other evidences of abysmal ignorance by the “translators,” such as the fact that the majority of them were high school dropouts and not even one had even an undergraduate college degree. The Watchtower Society attempts to hide the names and the (lack of) qualifications of its “translators” from the public, but information about them can be obtained: for more details on the New World “Translation,” its gross and despicable corruptions, and its “translators,” see Are You Worshipping Jehovah? available at http://faithsaves.net/are-you-worshipping-Jehovah/

WHAT IS TRUTH

Search Results for: king james version

Recent Posts

INDEX FOR WHAT IS TRUTH

Johnny Manziel, Obscenity, and Evangelicalism

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 4

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 3

Are Accurate Copies and Translations of Scripture-Such as the KJV-Inspired? A Study of 2 Timothy 3:16, part 1

Reviewing Why I Can’t Be A Fundamentalist

The NKJV—Just “Easier to Read,” or an Inferior Translation that, Among other Problems, is Weaker on Sodomy?

Answering the TR (Textus Receptus), Perfect Preservation of Scripture Question. One More Time.

The Ambiguity, Confusion, Contradiction, and License of Universal Church Practice

The Deceit and Tragedy of the Wrong Attribution of Success or a Wrong View of Success in Church Leadership, part three

Post navigation

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

Pages

Recent Comments

Archives

Meta