Our American culture does not understand that knowing the Bible is far more than just knowing the verses. We must understand some nuances of the Jewish culture in which the Bible was written.
God wrote to all of us in terms of the understandings of the Jewish mindset. Our western mindset views things very differently from how the Jews thought and what Christ meant in many of His writings.
One example of this is the marriage expectations of the Jews based on God's commands.
In the Jewish tradition children were betrothed to one another by their parents at a young age. when approaching marriage age the woman had the freedom to decide not to marry the man the parents had chosen for her.
When the couple who had been betrothed became of marriageable age there was a year "engagement" period that was called the courting stage of the betrothal. During this time if either party in the betrothal was found to have been unfaithful there was a certificate of divorcement required to get out of the engagement and it could only happen in cases of unfaithfulness.
This is the custom Christ spoke of in Matthew when He said "except for fornication", fornication is a description of "before marriage."
Because the western mindset didn't know the customs of the Jews in the time of Jesus they do not understand that Christ was not giving an out for adultery in marriage, but only in the engagement period.
In the other gospels Christ does not add this exception because they were written to gentiles who did not have this custom of divorcing from an engagement.
When God said He hates divorce He was not just stating a feeling, He was declaring that it was a serious sin against Him to divorce.
Those who use that Moses gave permission for divorce are refusing to admit that God allowed it because of "the hardness of their hearts." So anyone who is justifying divorce is declaring they have a hard heart that refuses to obey God.
When the people were given what they wanted that displeased God they were coming out from under God's blessing and protection. How can this ever be a good thing, to defy God to get what we want and then expect anything from Him.
There have been those who have become angry with me for speaking against divorce because all of them had some excuse or other why their situation was different from everyone else's.
The truth is that most divorces are not for adultery, however even if they were there is no permission from God. Adultery is very harmful but it is not unforgivable. When we make a vow in front of God He expects us to keep it no matter what. There is room for scriptural separation for the purpose of prayer and fasting but never divorce.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 "…10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. "
No human being is completely sinless in marriage. Pride wells up in a heart when someone cheats on them. It is more about "no one does that to me" mentality than it is "we are having a problem that needs much prayer and fasting."
I have known many couples who had sins in their marriage, some adultery, others were things like neglect or emotional and physical abuse. In short everyone has sin in marriage some things worse than others, we don't abandon our spouse because they are sinful, we pray, we fast, we do things necessary to bring the spouse to their senses, but we stand by them to help them return to righteousness.
This mentality of throwing people away because they don't measure up is not from God. Jesus Christ does not leave us when we mess up, He disciplines and removes blessings for us to see He will not speak to us any longer as long as we are in sin. To be returned to fellowship with our Savior we must confess to be cleansed. 1 John was written to believers.
1 John 1:9 1
"9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
If we love our God first and our spouses second far more than we love ourselves then we will do whatever is necessary to stay with the one we promised to stay with for the rest of our lives. We never know if our faithfulness in spite of their sin will cause them to repent one day.
1 Corinthians 7:15-17 "…15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him go. The believing brother or sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 17 Regardless, each one should lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is what I prescribe in all the churches.…"
These verses do not allow for divorce, the word "bound" here has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with no longer being under their authority. We do not have to consider the desires of someone who is no longer living with us. As long as that one who leaves is alive they remain our spouse and we must not remarry.
Mark 10:8-9 "…8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
This verse is saying no man can undo or dissolve the glue God used to blend two people into one. Just as no man can undo their salvation once God has made them a new creation.
God makes two people one in marriage and He makes man a new creation when they are born again. In both cases no man can undo that blending. Man is blended with his wife and the born again believer has been blended with Christ.
Remarriage is adultery if there is a remaining living spouse. Its really very simple when we are seeking truth. These things only become complicated when someone refuses to believe God.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Socialism When a Country is Finished with God
Lamb & Lion Ministries:
"Socialism always flourishes in a secular society. And the reason is simple. Here's how Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union explained it in a recent article: "...Socialism goes hand in hand with abandoning God and worshiping the idol of an ever-growing government."
"History attests to the fact that people are always willing to surrender their freedoms for the promise of security. That is exactly what Socialism does. Beware!"
"Socialism always flourishes in a secular society. And the reason is simple. Here's how Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union explained it in a recent article: "...Socialism goes hand in hand with abandoning God and worshiping the idol of an ever-growing government."
"History attests to the fact that people are always willing to surrender their freedoms for the promise of security. That is exactly what Socialism does. Beware!"
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Honoring and Respecting the Wives
When a man loves and honors his wife as he should in most cases the woman will follow even if she is not saved, at least in my generation. The problem is that too many husbands think leading means dominating with coercion. I have known many men like this, they are disrespectful and mean to their wives to "force" them to obey. The Bible never teaches a man to force but rather to lead by example.
Ephesians 5:28-30 "28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. "
1 Peter 3:7
"7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered."
If men treated their wives with a great deal of compassion and love the women are often won over by that kind of love. I have only known a few men who were kind like this, most I have known think wives are to be used and treated like children. Of course that's been my experience but I fear it is common.
Treating a woman as though she is lesser because she was made to be the tender sensitive one, by God that is, is to deny God's creation.
Sadly women reacted to the ill treatment by rebelling against God rather than fasting and praying for their husbands. There are some good husbands but most of the world is unsaved and blind to the love of God, therefore they will not understand what "loving your wife as your own body" looks like.
Ephesians 5:28-30 "28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. "
1 Peter 3:7
"7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered."
If men treated their wives with a great deal of compassion and love the women are often won over by that kind of love. I have only known a few men who were kind like this, most I have known think wives are to be used and treated like children. Of course that's been my experience but I fear it is common.
Treating a woman as though she is lesser because she was made to be the tender sensitive one, by God that is, is to deny God's creation.
Sadly women reacted to the ill treatment by rebelling against God rather than fasting and praying for their husbands. There are some good husbands but most of the world is unsaved and blind to the love of God, therefore they will not understand what "loving your wife as your own body" looks like.
Matthew 7:15-20 "A Tree and Its Fruit"
15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So then, you will know them by their fruits."
16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So then, you will know them by their fruits."
Monday, August 19, 2019
Beware of Worshiping a Translation of the Bible! We Worship only Christ
There are far too many debates about the KJV of the Bible than there should be, not because debating it is wrong but because many people are placing their trust in a translation instead of in Christ.
I read different versions because I know that no translation is inspired. Even the KJV of the Bible states in its forward that it is not perfect. Also an inspired word would not need updating. And I might ask "Authorized by Whom", when so many are saying they only read the 1611 Authorized version, you will find no where in that Bible that God authorized it. Nor will you find anywhere in the Bible that God commanded all men everywhere to read the KJV of the Bible. Not one scripture can be found to support this.
All this debate over translations are meaningless and could discourage a non-believer from ever picking up a Bible. Satan loves this. If you like the KJV wonderful read it, but do not cause division by fighting over translations when God never spoke about it. It is the Holy Spirit who enlightens when we read, which ever version that may be.
In nearly all of the different translation the differences are minor and do not change the meaning of the context. I might add too that God's Word is not "copy written" as are all of the translations.
The very last sentence of this preface to the KJV of the Bible says, "may this translation improve." Anything that is inspired does not need to imporove.
PREFACE TO THE KING JAMES VERSION
1873 EDITION
The most time-honored and widely used edition of the English Bible is the translation of 1611, commonly known as the Authorized Version or King James Version (KJV). But
though it has served as the standard translation for millions of users through nearly four centuries, there has never been a standard edition to which all printings are conformed.
"No two early printings of the KJV were identical—not even the two printings of 1611—
and no two modern settings are identical, either. These differences are due to accidental
human error as well as to intentional changes by printers and editors, who sought to
eliminate what they judged to be the errors of others and to conform the text to their
standards of English usage. This said, most differences involve only spelling,
punctuation, and italics, and few variations materially affect the meaning of the text.
As early as 1616 there were systematic attempts to revise and standardize the KJV.
Other important early editions were issued by Cambridge in 1629 and 1638. In the
eighteenth century, the two great English universities (who were also officially chartered
printers) commissioned thorough and systematic revisions. The edition of Dr. F. S. Paris
was published by Cambridge in 1762 and that of Dr. Benjamin Blayney by Oxford in
1769. Though far from perfect, these remained the standard editions until The
Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873.
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible began with the simple plan of arranging the text of the
KJV according to the sense of the literature: arranging the prose sections into
paragraphs and the poetic sections into parallel lines. This simple plan, however, was
enhanced by the editor’s desire to create the most thorough standardization of the text
ever attempted. To this task Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener devoted seven laborious years: 1866
to 1873.
Because the translators’ original manuscript no longer exists, the KJV text must be
established by consulting the earliest settings. Dr. Scrivener compared at least 15 early
settings and important revisions, including both settings of 1611; Bibles of 1612, 1613,
1616, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1634, 1638, 1640; and the significant editions of Drs. Paris
(1762) and Blayney (1769).
In his 120-page introduction, Dr. Scrivener addressed the various features of the KJV he
worked to standardize:
Marginal notes. The KJV does not contain explanatory or doctrinal comments but does
include annotations “for the explanation of the Hebrew and Greek words.” In the Old
Testament of 1611, there are 6,637 such notes. The more literal meaning of the original
Hebrew or Aramaic (“Chaldee”) is expressed in 4,111 notes, indicated by the
abbreviation “Heb.” or “Chald.”; 2,156 give alternate renderings, indicated by the word
“Or”; 63 give the meaning of proper names; 240 harmonize parallel
passages; and 67 refer to various readings in the Hebrew manuscripts used by the
translators.
In the New Testament of 1611, there are 765 marginal notes. Alternate translations are
given in 583 notes, indicated by the word “Or”; 112 provide a more literal rendering of
the Greek, indicated by the abbreviation “Gr.”; 35 are explanatory notes or brief
expositions; and 35 relate to alternate readings in the Greek manuscripts used by the
translators.
Significant notes from later editions have also been included in square brackets [ ].
There are 368 additional notes in the Old Testament (for example, Gen. 1:20) and 105 in
the New (for example, Mat. 1:20,21).
Many of the best King James Version Bibles include a significant system of cross
references in addition to the translators’ notes. Cross references are indicated by letters
(a, b, c, etc.), while translators’ notes are indicates by numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.).
Italic type. Italic type was used in the KJV, as in the Geneva Bible, to indicate words in
the English translation that have no exact representative in the original language. Dr.
Scrivener, following many earlier scholars, noted that the KJV translators were
noticeably inconsistent in their use of italics, sometimes even in the same paragraph and
verse. To cite one small pattern from the 1611 edition, Leviticus 11:20 has “upon all
foure,” while for the same Hebrew 11:21 and 42 have “upon all foure,” and 11:27 has “on
all foure.”
Dr. Scrivener carefully analyzed why italic type was used throughout the KJV, reduced
this analysis to 14 major principles, and then applied these principles with meticulous
consistency throughout the entire Bible. A substantial portion of the editor’s “seven
laborious years” was devoted to this significant improvement.
Punctuation. Later printings of the KJV added a great deal of punctuation to the editions
of 1611. Dr. Scrivener restored the major punctuation (periods, colons, parentheses,
question marks) of 1611, and used commas and semicolons to help divide longer
sentences into more manageable units for reading.
Spelling and capital letters. Spelling of proper names and common words was very
fluid in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: “Inquire” and “enquire” were
interchangeable, as were “ceiling,” “cieling,” and “sieling.” Most differences between
modern settings of the KJV and early settings involve standardization of spelling. Dr.
Scrivener’s general rule was that whenever a word was spelled more than one way, he
conformed all occurrences to the standard spelling of the late nineteenth century.
Proper names, on the other hand, vary according to their spelling in the original
languages, so “Elijah” throughout 1 and 2 Kings and in Malachi 4:5 becomes “Elias”
throughout the New Testament, as in Matthew 11:14 and 17:3. For the benefit of modern
readers, three spelling patterns are changed in this edition that are not changed in
Scrivener’s edition: twenty-nine occurrences of “mo” and “moe” are conformed to “more”;
four occurrences of “unpossible” are conformed to “impossible”; and “neesed” in 2 Kings
4:35 is spelled “sneezed.”
Paragraphs and poetry. According to Dr. Scrivener and other scholars, the paragraph
marks (¶) were unequally and inconsistently distributed, and they disappear altogether
after Acts 20:26. So, while consulted, the original marks were not always followed in The
Cambridge Paragraph Bible.
Hebrew poetry is characterized by rhyming of thoughts rather than rhyming of words. In
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, as well as in most modern translations, lines of similar
or contrasting content are set in parallel lines to show this parallelism of thought. In
Psalm 1, verse 5 has two lines of similar parallelism, while verse 6 has two lines of
contrasting parallelism:
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous:
But the way of the ungodly shall perish.
The best King James Version Bibles use a verse setting, that is, each verse begins a
new line and each verse is set as an independent unit. Paragraphs are indicated with the
traditional paragraph mark (¶).
The best King James Version Bibles also conform their setting of the King James or
Authorized Version to its most highly regarded edition: The Cambridge Paragraph
Bible of 1873, edited by F. H. A. Scrivener. As in the case of the first edition of the
version of 1611, this is done out of “zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by
devising any thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others” (“The
Translators to the Reader,” the preface to the version of 1611). With the original
translators, we hope our efforts will be “welcomed,” not “with suspicion” but with “love,”
and that the reissue of this edition will contribute to improvement of this great treasure of
the English-speaking church.
JOHN R. KOHLENBERGER III
I read different versions because I know that no translation is inspired. Even the KJV of the Bible states in its forward that it is not perfect. Also an inspired word would not need updating. And I might ask "Authorized by Whom", when so many are saying they only read the 1611 Authorized version, you will find no where in that Bible that God authorized it. Nor will you find anywhere in the Bible that God commanded all men everywhere to read the KJV of the Bible. Not one scripture can be found to support this.
All this debate over translations are meaningless and could discourage a non-believer from ever picking up a Bible. Satan loves this. If you like the KJV wonderful read it, but do not cause division by fighting over translations when God never spoke about it. It is the Holy Spirit who enlightens when we read, which ever version that may be.
In nearly all of the different translation the differences are minor and do not change the meaning of the context. I might add too that God's Word is not "copy written" as are all of the translations.
The very last sentence of this preface to the KJV of the Bible says, "may this translation improve." Anything that is inspired does not need to imporove.
PREFACE TO THE KING JAMES VERSION
1873 EDITION
The most time-honored and widely used edition of the English Bible is the translation of 1611, commonly known as the Authorized Version or King James Version (KJV). But
though it has served as the standard translation for millions of users through nearly four centuries, there has never been a standard edition to which all printings are conformed.
"No two early printings of the KJV were identical—not even the two printings of 1611—
and no two modern settings are identical, either. These differences are due to accidental
human error as well as to intentional changes by printers and editors, who sought to
eliminate what they judged to be the errors of others and to conform the text to their
standards of English usage. This said, most differences involve only spelling,
punctuation, and italics, and few variations materially affect the meaning of the text.
As early as 1616 there were systematic attempts to revise and standardize the KJV.
Other important early editions were issued by Cambridge in 1629 and 1638. In the
eighteenth century, the two great English universities (who were also officially chartered
printers) commissioned thorough and systematic revisions. The edition of Dr. F. S. Paris
was published by Cambridge in 1762 and that of Dr. Benjamin Blayney by Oxford in
1769. Though far from perfect, these remained the standard editions until The
Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873.
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible began with the simple plan of arranging the text of the
KJV according to the sense of the literature: arranging the prose sections into
paragraphs and the poetic sections into parallel lines. This simple plan, however, was
enhanced by the editor’s desire to create the most thorough standardization of the text
ever attempted. To this task Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener devoted seven laborious years: 1866
to 1873.
Because the translators’ original manuscript no longer exists, the KJV text must be
established by consulting the earliest settings. Dr. Scrivener compared at least 15 early
settings and important revisions, including both settings of 1611; Bibles of 1612, 1613,
1616, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1634, 1638, 1640; and the significant editions of Drs. Paris
(1762) and Blayney (1769).
In his 120-page introduction, Dr. Scrivener addressed the various features of the KJV he
worked to standardize:
Marginal notes. The KJV does not contain explanatory or doctrinal comments but does
include annotations “for the explanation of the Hebrew and Greek words.” In the Old
Testament of 1611, there are 6,637 such notes. The more literal meaning of the original
Hebrew or Aramaic (“Chaldee”) is expressed in 4,111 notes, indicated by the
abbreviation “Heb.” or “Chald.”; 2,156 give alternate renderings, indicated by the word
“Or”; 63 give the meaning of proper names; 240 harmonize parallel
passages; and 67 refer to various readings in the Hebrew manuscripts used by the
translators.
In the New Testament of 1611, there are 765 marginal notes. Alternate translations are
given in 583 notes, indicated by the word “Or”; 112 provide a more literal rendering of
the Greek, indicated by the abbreviation “Gr.”; 35 are explanatory notes or brief
expositions; and 35 relate to alternate readings in the Greek manuscripts used by the
translators.
Significant notes from later editions have also been included in square brackets [ ].
There are 368 additional notes in the Old Testament (for example, Gen. 1:20) and 105 in
the New (for example, Mat. 1:20,21).
Many of the best King James Version Bibles include a significant system of cross
references in addition to the translators’ notes. Cross references are indicated by letters
(a, b, c, etc.), while translators’ notes are indicates by numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.).
Italic type. Italic type was used in the KJV, as in the Geneva Bible, to indicate words in
the English translation that have no exact representative in the original language. Dr.
Scrivener, following many earlier scholars, noted that the KJV translators were
noticeably inconsistent in their use of italics, sometimes even in the same paragraph and
verse. To cite one small pattern from the 1611 edition, Leviticus 11:20 has “upon all
foure,” while for the same Hebrew 11:21 and 42 have “upon all foure,” and 11:27 has “on
all foure.”
Dr. Scrivener carefully analyzed why italic type was used throughout the KJV, reduced
this analysis to 14 major principles, and then applied these principles with meticulous
consistency throughout the entire Bible. A substantial portion of the editor’s “seven
laborious years” was devoted to this significant improvement.
Punctuation. Later printings of the KJV added a great deal of punctuation to the editions
of 1611. Dr. Scrivener restored the major punctuation (periods, colons, parentheses,
question marks) of 1611, and used commas and semicolons to help divide longer
sentences into more manageable units for reading.
Spelling and capital letters. Spelling of proper names and common words was very
fluid in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: “Inquire” and “enquire” were
interchangeable, as were “ceiling,” “cieling,” and “sieling.” Most differences between
modern settings of the KJV and early settings involve standardization of spelling. Dr.
Scrivener’s general rule was that whenever a word was spelled more than one way, he
conformed all occurrences to the standard spelling of the late nineteenth century.
Proper names, on the other hand, vary according to their spelling in the original
languages, so “Elijah” throughout 1 and 2 Kings and in Malachi 4:5 becomes “Elias”
throughout the New Testament, as in Matthew 11:14 and 17:3. For the benefit of modern
readers, three spelling patterns are changed in this edition that are not changed in
Scrivener’s edition: twenty-nine occurrences of “mo” and “moe” are conformed to “more”;
four occurrences of “unpossible” are conformed to “impossible”; and “neesed” in 2 Kings
4:35 is spelled “sneezed.”
Paragraphs and poetry. According to Dr. Scrivener and other scholars, the paragraph
marks (¶) were unequally and inconsistently distributed, and they disappear altogether
after Acts 20:26. So, while consulted, the original marks were not always followed in The
Cambridge Paragraph Bible.
Hebrew poetry is characterized by rhyming of thoughts rather than rhyming of words. In
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, as well as in most modern translations, lines of similar
or contrasting content are set in parallel lines to show this parallelism of thought. In
Psalm 1, verse 5 has two lines of similar parallelism, while verse 6 has two lines of
contrasting parallelism:
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous:
But the way of the ungodly shall perish.
The best King James Version Bibles use a verse setting, that is, each verse begins a
new line and each verse is set as an independent unit. Paragraphs are indicated with the
traditional paragraph mark (¶).
The best King James Version Bibles also conform their setting of the King James or
Authorized Version to its most highly regarded edition: The Cambridge Paragraph
Bible of 1873, edited by F. H. A. Scrivener. As in the case of the first edition of the
version of 1611, this is done out of “zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by
devising any thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others” (“The
Translators to the Reader,” the preface to the version of 1611). With the original
translators, we hope our efforts will be “welcomed,” not “with suspicion” but with “love,”
and that the reissue of this edition will contribute to improvement of this great treasure of
the English-speaking church.
JOHN R. KOHLENBERGER III
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)