Home » Posts tagged 'Hebrew' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: Hebrew
Does the KJV Translate Hebrew and Greek Words Too Many Ways?
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only (KJV) debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Is this true? In part 10 of my review of the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of Scripture I point out the severe flaws in this argument by Dr. James R. White against the King James Version, and the KJVO position.
In our debate James White argued in the same way that he did in his book: “[T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word … the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times” (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289). The numbers White cites are inaccurate, and White fails to point out that in the examples he supplies where the Authorized Version (allegedly) translates words in too many different ways in English modern versions such as the ESV, ASV, NRSV, and NET actually have more, not fewer, different translations than does the KJV. James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly. Learn more by watching debate review video #10 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Five)
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
God Gave Words in their Original Languages and Preserved Them
In Scripture
Part of the story of the doctrine of inspiration of scripture and then its translation relates to languages. God immediately inspired the original manuscripts of scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God gave scripture in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. God also used His church in an institutional sense or His true churches to give witness to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This fulfilled the scriptural instruction to keep the Lord’s Words.
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” A jot is the smallest consonant in the Hebrew alphabet. A tittle is a vowel point, which is small. Some evangelicals say the tittle is a part of a Hebrew letter that distinguishes it from another Hebrew letter. Either way, jots and tittles refer to Hebrew letters. That says that God promised to preserve what He gave by inspiration, which is the original text.
In History
Jesus Christ Himself, God in the flesh, says that ‘not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from the law.’ The Lord establishes one particular detail of preservation. That detail is this: He preserves His Words, the very letters, in the language in which they were written. We can see that churches believed this point of Jesus in the London Baptist Confession, when it says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Text, Translation, and Meaning
Churches should and do go to the original texts for their final appeal in all controversies of religion. This answers the question, “How did people understand the passage who heard it in the day of its writing?” The final appeal does not go to an English translation.
Someone could then ask, “Does everyone then need to know the original languages?” The same London Baptist Confession says next:
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read, and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
I did not write Matthew 5:18. I did not write the London Baptist Confession on that point that Jesus made. However, I believe Jesus and what true churches believed and taught on this doctrine. For sure, I’m not abnormal on this.
A bit of logic could come into play. If the true Word of God was an English translation in the 17th century or an edition of it in the 18th century, could true churches believe and live what God said for the previous sixteen centuries? Anyone should ask that. If man lives by God’s Words, it assumes He possesses them. Part of the doctrine of preservation is the doctrine of availability. Denial of general accessibility is denial of God’s promise of perfect preservation of scripture.
Studying the Original Text of Scripture
Meaning
For someone reading this essay today, you should know that you can look up a word in the English translation to find the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word. I know many who put in the effort to do that. Even those who never took one day of a course in biblical languages can know the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic word. In the church I pastor right now, when I refer to a Greek word, a man looks it up on his phone to see. The one, who does not know original languages, checks me out. I welcome it.
Grammar and Syntax
I would expect further study than the meaning of the words in their original language, but that is a very good start. A great one. Yes, people should know grammar and syntax, but I find that a large majority of people do not know grammar or syntax in any language. Some of the people who criticize our use of original languages here do not rely on grammar and syntax either.
For a moment, consider the expertise of grammar and syntax, even in an English version. Isn’t that an expertise too? Does the Bible come with a grammar book? Does scripture come with a syntax guide? It doesn’t. In a sense, someone uses a glossary of extra-scriptural terms to apply to the study of the Bible.
The words “verb,” “noun,” and “adjective” are outside of God’s Word. To be consistent, original language deniers should criticize the requirement of grammar and syntax. “Don’t make me learn the word ‘participle’!” I don’t know; maybe they complain about that too. Perhaps they are grammar deniers as well.
You will miss a portion of the meaning of scripture if you rely only on a translation. It helps to know the range of semantic meaning of a word. You can understand from the original text the tense, mood, or voice of verbs or participles. Going to the original text for meaning will help a student of God’s Word. God gave His Words in those original languages.
Points in the Text Not In Translation
Hebrew Acrostics
Did God give the book of Lamentations in a Hebrew acrostic? Yes. Someone cannot see that in a translation. Does that also affect the interpretation of the book? Yes. The third chapter is a triple acrostic by starting triplets of verses with the same Hebrew letter. This also provides a chiastic structure that tips the point of the whole book in the absolute middle of the book.
Several Old Testament passages structure each section of poetry to start with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Psalm 119 is a well-known example of this, but also Psalms 9-10, 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 145, Proverbs 31:10-31; and Nahum 1:2-8.
Poetic Word Plays
The Lord also used poetic word plays all over the Hebrew Old Testament one cannot see in a translation. Does God expect someone to recognize those word plays? Yes. You will start seeing word plays in the early chapters of Genesis and then continue seeing them all the way through the Old Testament.
In Genesis 1:2, “without form and void” translated tohu and bohu in the Hebrew, which is paranomastic, a rhyming effect. We don’t get this rhyming effect in English. One aspect of beauty or aesthetics are these devices of language. God gives them to us, not to miss them.
“One of his ribs” in Genesis 2:21 and “bone of my bones” in Genesis 2:23 are a Hebrew word play. God (and Moses) reverse the consonants of “rib” and “bone.” It’s intentional and easily spotted in Hebrew, but not in a translation. We are meant to see the life connection between “rib” and “bone.”
God uses an obvious pun between Adam and the Hebrew word ’adamah, meaning “earth.” The Hebrew ’adam means “man.” In the chapter introducing the first man, Genesis 2:5 says, “there was not a man [‘adam] to till the ground [‘adamah].” Later then, Genesis 3:19 says, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust [‘adamah] shalt thou return.” These Hebrew word plays are distinct from a translation.
God cares about these word plays. He used them. They mean something. He has not shelved them for translations of the original text. When someone cannot see an acrostic or poetic word play, He does not witness something God wrote. Any true believer should want to know this. It is a reason why God gives churches pastors.
Different Words
In the King James Version, the translators translated different Greek words with identical English words. They also translated identical Greek words with different English words. Someone would not know that by the translation. I ask you to consider 1 Corinthians 13:8:
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
“They shall fail” and “it shall vanish away” both translate the same Greek word, katargeo. You would not know that by the translation. I believe it is very helpful to know that, even for the interpretation of the passage. “They shall cease” translates a completely different Greek word than the other two in the series, and yet all three are translated differently, as if there are three different words. There are just two, not three.
On the other hand, “miracle” translates two Greek words: semeion (Acts 4:22) and dunamis (Mark 9:39). You would not know that by the English translation. Sometimes, very often, the translators translated semeion, “sign,” as if “miracle” and “sign” might be something different.
Do we decide the words and the meaning by the English translation? Do we now say, there are three different words in 1 Corinthians 13:8? Do we say that miracle is just one word, because that’s the way it looks in the English? Our decisions on these issues come from the original text, not the translation.
Originalism
Obeying God by rightly dividing the word of truth (1 Tim 2:15) requires originalism. Originalism means the original biblical text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that God gave it by inspiration. The Bible doesn’t change in meaning from the original text given to the original audience of scripture. The text means what the author meant and he wrote it in an original language. Scripture cannot mean something different than what it originally meant.
God preserved His Words to fulfill His promise of preservation. He did it for the right understanding of meaning. God also preserved those Words because His communication of meaning comes through those original Words. An accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text is not superior to the perfect preserved text. That translation comes from that text.
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation
2 Timothy 3:16
Three Words
The classic location for the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible is in 2 Timothy 3:16. It reads:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
The first part provides the doctrine, which says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Those eight words translate three Greek words: Pasa graphe theopneustos. Pasa is an adjective that means “all” and modifies the noun graphe, which means “writing” or “scripture.” For instance, the latter’s verb form, grapho, means, “I am writing.” BDAG says the verb means “to inscribe characters on a surface.” The noun refers to the characters inscribed on the surface of a writing material.
The Meaning of the Words
Graphe in a specific way refers to sacred scripture, depending on the context. It is a technical word for scripture. The Apostle Paul employs that technical usage in 2 Timothy 3:16.
Theopneustos is another adjective modifying graphe. It means literally, “God breathed.” The KJV translators translated that one adjective, “is given by inspiration of God.”
Some people use “is” as a reason to say that theopneustos functions like a present tense verb. They use the present tense to say that inspiration continues in a translation. Even the original Authorised Version printed “is” in italics to say it was not in the original text. The translators are communicating that they supplied the word “is.” No one should treat it like it is part of the original text.
Putting together the first three Greek words of 2 Timothy 3:16, “God breathed the characters inscribed on a surface.” It was not the men inspired. It was the writings inspired. God breathed out writings. What ended on the writing surface came from God.
Inspiration, Preservation, and Translation
God also preserved those words He breathed in the original manuscripts. The words He preserved are still the ones God breathed. They remain inspired.
When someone translates God’s inspired words into another language are those inspired? God did not breath out those words. However, if they are translated in an accurate way, a faithful manner, into the host language, those words have God’s breath in them.
The New Testament treats Greek words that translate well the Hebrew words of the Old Testament like they are the words of God. Jesus treats His Greek words of His translation of the Old Testament as if they are the Words of God. However, that doesn’t mean that God breaths out a translation. The former and the latter are two different actions or events.
False Views and the True One
It is important that a version of scripture translate the original language words in an accurate manner. The King James Version translators made an accurate translation of the original language text, both Old and New Testaments. God’s breath is in the translation. In that way we can call it inspired. However, God did not breath out English words. He did not breath out new English words later after breathing out Hebrew and Greek ones.
Part of why it is important to get inspiration and translation right is because of two false views. One is double inspiration. This says that God inspired the King James translation like He did the original manuscripts. Two is English preservation, where God apparently lost the original language words, so He preserved His words anew in the English language. Again, both those views are false.
2 Timothy 3:16 instructs people in the doctrine of inspiration. The only time that inspiration occurred was when holy men wrote the original manuscripts. God inspired every one of their words and all of them.
Ruth 3:15: “he” or “she” went into the city? 1611 & 1769 KJV
Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
James White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)
When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today. I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate. In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them. This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.
The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.
You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View
According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)
A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:
39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)
The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It
Luke 16:18 reads:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.
The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.
Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.
–TDR
James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Inaccuracies
As many blog readers are aware, God gave me the privilege of debating Dr. James R. White, author of The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009, orig. pub. 1995) on King James Onlyism a few months ago (if you have not seen the debate, you can watch it here.). Our specific debate topic was:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
I believe that the debate went well, to the glory of the God who has perfectly preserved His Word and in answer to the prayers of many of His saints. Since the debate, I have been working on a series of debate review videos, a few of which are now live, and many more of which should go live relatively shortly (I would have some new ones live already, but had some issues with audio quality). I must confess that in reviewing the arguments made by Dr. White I have been impressed with their weakness. During the debate itself I was delighted that he did not bring up anything that I was not expecting or that there were not readily available answers, but post-debate review has revealed even further weaknesses with his case. What kind of weaknesses? Subscribe to my Rumble or YouTube channel (or both) to find out when I discuss them there. (I probably will comment on them here at What is Truth? as well, so you can also just keep your eyes on this blog.)
James White has on numbers of occasions indicated that he wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a handful of months, and, unfortunately, the evidences for his rapid composition are most numerous. One example that we discussed here at What is Truth? before the debate was his astonishing affirmation–backed with no written sources or any evidence of any kind–that some King James Only people think Abraham, Moses, and the Old Testament prophets all actually spoke English, not Hebrew. While these people do appear to exist in Dr. White’s imagination, there does not appear to be any documentation of their existence in the real world. Even if one is not King James Only, creating straw-men, inaccurate arguments is not what one would want in a treatment of the issue under discussion.
Another example of the many astonishing and inaccurate claims of nutty radicalism by King James Only advocates appears in Dr. White’s discussion of people who allegedly think various people outside of the original writers of Scripture were inspired. (Biblically speaking, even the original writers were not inspired–their writings, not their persons, were authored by the Holy Spirit without any error; but saying “Peter was inspired” or “Moses was inspired,” while not accurate, is not as nuts as what James White is claiming.) What am I talking about? Consider the following arguments James White employs against King James Onlyism:
Anyone who believes the TR [Textus Receptus] to be infallible must believe that Erasmus, and the other men who later edited the same text in their own editions (Stephanus and Beza), were somehow inspired … [y]et none of these men ever claimed such inspiration. (pg. 96)
We pause only long enough to note that the KJV Only advocate … has to believe that Theodore Beza … was divinely inspired” (pg. 105)
“The KJV translators were not infallible human beings” (pg. 115)
Yet a person who stops for a moment of calm reflection might ask, “Why should I believe Jerome was inspired[?] … Do I have a good reason for believing this?” (pg. 181)
No citation of any King James Only advocate who believes in the inspiration of Jerome, or Erasmus, or Beza, or Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators, appears. James White does quote Edward F. Hills on page 96–specifically denying that the Textus Receptus was produced under inspiration or through a Divine miracle. Quotations by any prominent (or obscure!) advocate of King James Onlyism, or any KJV Only school, or church, or even a kid in the third grade in a KJV Only Sunday School affirming that Jerome, Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, or the entire group of King James Version translators were inspired does not appear. They do not seem to exist in the real world, but only in the imaginary world that contains King James Only advocates who think that Abraham, Moses, and the prophets spoke Hebrew.
James White’s The King James Only Controversy, unfortunately, has many such inaccuracies and misrepresentations. It does not fairly and accurately present the positions of the belief system it seeks to refute. Consequently, while it may convince people who do not know anything about the King James Only movement that being KJVO is crazy, it will not be very effective convincing those who believe in the superiority of the preserved Word in the Textus Receptus and Authorized, King James Version. Rather than being silenced by the power of James White’s critique, they are likely to be disgusted by the inaccurate straw-manning of their belief system.
–TDR
Recent Comments