RSS

Is the King James (or any other) version of the Bible Perfect?

17 Apr

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

I know a couple of men whose love of God and the Messiah is simply undeniable. I have what I regard as a strong relationship to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym, but their relationships impress me as being stronger. I don’t agree with them on every element of theology, but there’s no way to deny the sincerity of their love for God.

Both are convinced that “The Bible is perfect”.

I’m not.

To analyze their statement (“The Bible is perfect.”), we need to first decide what is meant by “perfect”.  I’m going to proceed on the assumption that a “perfect” Bible is one that precisely and accurately carries all of the word of God and only the word of God that He intended us to read and understand.

Second, we need to decide which “Bible” is perfect? According to Biblica, there are hundreds of different versions of the Bible that are published in English.  Each of those versions is different to some degree from the rest.

It seems logical to suppose that there can’t be two versions of the Bible that are both significantly different from each other, and yet, both perfect.  To be “perfect” would seem to be flawless and thus unique.  If any one version of the Bible is “perfect,” over 99% of the remaining versions are different from the one perfect version in some respect.  Thus at least 99% of all the current English versions of the Bible are not “perfect”.

If 99% are logically certain to be imperfect, what are the odds that any one version is perfect?  If there is a “perfect” English version of the Bible, what version could it be?

•  I doubt that any modern version of the Bible (say, American Standard, New International or Contemporary English) would dare to describe themselves as “perfect”.  I doubt that any English version of the Bible published since A.D. 1900 would claim to be much more than “convenient” or “eminently readable”.  If you’re looking for the only “perfect” English translation of the Bible, the only contenders would be those versions first published during the Renaissance such as the Wyclif version (circa A.D. 1409), Tyndale (A.D. 1525) Geneva (A.D. 1560),  and King James Version (first published in A.D. 1611).

Over the past 600 years, the King James Version proved to be the most popular and long-lived.  Insofar as anyone currently points to a “perfect” English version of the Bible, they almost always point to the King James Version.

My friends believe that the King James Version (KJV) was translated under divine guidance and is the one and only “perfect” version of the Bible that’s written in English.  They avoid the other English versions as imperfect. They’ve offered no opinion on whichever versions (if any) of the Bibles written in Russian, Spanish, Ugandan, or Hopi are perfect.

While I don’t deny that God supervised the the original versions of the the books written in Hebrew or Greek that came to ultimately be part of the Bible, I find it improbable that God also supervised the later translations from original languages into English (and also Russian, Spanish, Ugandan and Hopi).

If it’s true that at least 99% of English versions of the Bible are imperfect, then it’s also apparent that God did not supervise the translations of all English versions.  If He didn’t supervise all translations, what evidence is there to prove that He did supervise the translation of one version–say, the KJV?

If we presume that only one version of Bible provides a technically precise translation of the meaning God intended to convey, is it possible that other versions (although technically inaccurate) nevertheless convey some or even all of the spirit that God intended to convey?

Is a version that properly conveys the “spirit” of the Bible still imperfect if it fails to accurately convey the exact text?

Translations Are Inherently Unreliable

I’m not saying that God didn’t supervise the translation of the KJV, but I am saying that such supervision seems improbable.

I’m wary of all translations of any book because they’re always subjective.  When some one or some group translates a word in one language into a word in another, there are usually ambiguities and idioms to contend with that make precise translation difficult if not impossible.  How do you translate “23-Skiddoo” or “cool” from English into Russian?  Slang terms or idiomatic expressions can only be approximated in another language. The choice of idiom used in the second language will always be subject to the education, intelligence and cultural background of the translator.

The problem of translation is further complicated by the fact that most words have several definitions.  Even though we know exactly which word was used, which definition was intended?

For example, the Bible begins with Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heaven and the the earth.”)

Here’s KJV version of Genesis 1:1, written in in English and with Strong’s Concordance numbers to signify the underlying Hebrew word:

“In the beginning H7225 God H430 created H1254 (H853) the heaven H8064 and the earth.H776 

Note that according to Strong’s Concordance, that verse was originally written in five (maybe six) Hebrew words and translated into ten English words. Right there, you can see a potential for trouble.  The fact that it takes ten English words to translate the meanings of five Hebrew words tells us that there’s no one-to-one correlation of Hebrew words to English.  That means for sure that at least some of those five Hebrew words have meanings for which there is no exact equivalent word in English.  The absence of one-to-one Hebrew-to-English words raises doubt about the accuracy of the translation.

More, each of the five main Hebrew words (H7225, H430, H1254, H8064 and H776) have more than one possible meaning.

For example, Strong’s Concordance defines the Hebrew word which the KJV translates as “In the beginning” as:

H7225
ראשׁית
rê’shîyth
ray-sheeth’
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): – beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.

I count seven possible meanings for H7225 (“In the beginning”)–and some of those definitions are fairly different from some of the others.   I also see nine possible meanings in H430 (“God”); at least seven in H1254 (“created”); four in H8064 (“heaven”); and, ten for H776 (“earth”).

If I were to multiply the seven possible meanings for H7225 times the nine possible meanings for H430, times the the seven possible meanings in in H1254, times the four in H8064, times the ten in H776, the result would be 17,640 different ways that that the original string of just five Hebrew words might be translated into English.

I understand that most of those 17,640 possible readings of Genesis 1:1 would be nonsensical.  I understand that the context of Genesis would rule out some of the other possible readings of Genesis 1:1 that were not intrinsically nonsensical. But, without evidence, I still suspect that there could be at least four or five other credible translations of the five Hebrew words in Genesis 1:1 that make just about as much sense as “In the beginning,God created the heaven and the earth.”

This multiplicity of possible meanings is a discomforting idea since it detracts from our desire to believe that the Bible’s meaning is rock solid and “perfect”. Nevertheless, the multiplicity of potential meanings appears to be true.  If it is true, is raises doubt about the “absolute” character of any version of the Bible.  What we read may be God’s intended meaning or it might also be largely a “tradition of men”.

The potential confusion seen in Genesis 1:1 also occurs in virtually each of the other 31,000 verses in the Bible.  If each of those verses had, on average, just two different potential meanings that were plausible, there could be over 60,000 distinctly different English versions of the Bible.

The potential multiplicity of possible meanings in the Bible does not prove that the Bible, any Bible, is imperfect, but it does support that possibility.

(One other point:  My analysis of the possibility of multiple meanings relies on research into the definitions of each of the words in the Bible under the direction of Dr. James Strong in the 1800’s.  The result is called Strong’s Concordance.  Strong’s research and resulting definitions have been generally accepted and relied on by Bible scholars for over a century.

I do not regard the authors of Strong’s Concordance to be saints or prophets.  They were merely scholars who translated every Hebrew and Greek word used in the original books of the Bible into English. Strong’s definitions and their implications may be mistaken.  Nevertheless, Strong is an authority that most Bible scholars appear to rely on, so his work is worth consideration.)

King James

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

I’m not a Bible scholar.  I don’t know if the foundation for the following statement is true or false.  But I’ve heard for at least 30 years that King James reportedly ordered that translation of the sixth Commandment in the Protestant version of Decalogue be changed from the original “Thou shalt not murder” to the KJV “Thou shalt not kill“.

The difference in meanings is enormous.

You can “kill” by accident.  But you can only “murder” by intent.  If the King James Version (“Thou shalt not kill.”) is correct, you will have committed a mortal sin if you lose control of your car on an icy road, hit another car, and thereby cause its driver to die.  Such an accident is certainly not “murder” (there was no intent), but it would constitute a “killing”.

Do you think God wants you to burn in Hell because you lost control of your car on a patch of icy road and thereby caused someone else to accidentally die?  I don’t.

More, if God really commanded “Thou shalt not kill,” why did God subsequently command the Hebrews to kill all of the Canaanites–including all men, women and even children?  Is God contradicting Himself?  Did an unchanging God change his mind?

Or did King James order a mis-translation of the Protestant sixth Commandment?

Almost certainly, the original sixth Commandment was “Thou shalt not murder“.  Perhaps, it only applied to members of the Hebrew nation and/or people of God.  I.e., it was a violation of God’s law to murder members of your family, your community, your nation–but it’s not a violation of God’s law to kill foreigners and/or men not made in God’s image. Thus, God could command the Hebrews to not murder each other, but still order them to kill all the Canaanites.

More, if it’s true that:

1) God declared the Ten Commandment about 1,400 B.C.;

2) God does not change;

3) The original meaning of the 6th Commandment was “Thou shalt not murder,” then,

4) It seems probable that God, Himself, did not and could not have ordered/inspired the King James translators to substitute “Thou shalt not kill” for “Thou shalt not murder.”  Such change would not seem possible for an unchanging God.

If so, if the King James Version of the Bible is imperfect in at least one critical part.

 

“The Synoptic Problem”

The phrase “Synoptic Problem” is used to describe a fundamental problem with the books Matthew, Mark and Luke in the New Testament.  They agree on many points which describe the life and words of the Messiah.  But they also appear to disagree on some of the events of the Messiah’s life and/or the words he spoke.  There’s no doubt that there are apparent contradictions in these three Gospels.

Some argue that these differences are not contradictions, so much as “expanded explanations”–that, what seems to be a “contradiction” in one book is merely an addition to the total record of the Messiah’s earthly life.

Maybe so.

But a fundamental question remains for those who believe that any Bible is divinely inspired and presumably perfect:  if God inspired those parts of Matthew, Mark and Luke that agree as to the facts, who inspired the parts that seemingly disagree?

It may be that apparent contradictions within the Bible may have been “planted” by the Good LORD as devices to test and sharpen our ability to perceive and understand.    It may be that these seeming contradictions aren’t really contradictions at all, but some sort of “additions” to the Gospels.

The explanations and even rationalizations for these apparent contradictions are various and debatable.  But the existence of these seeming contradictions is undeniable.

I’m not going to debate or dissect the “Synoptic Problem” in this article.  If you’d like to learn more, you can enter that phrase into any search engine and you’ll find hundreds of thousands of articles on that subject.   I’ll only say that it’s at least odd that a Bible believed to be divinely-inspired and presumably “perfect” would contain even the illusion of contradictions.  The mere existence of the Synoptic Problem casts doubt on the argument that any Bible is perfect.

 

Idolatry

•  At Luke 18:18-19 (and similarly, Mark 10:17-18) we read,

“And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.”

infer from Luke 18:19 that,if “none is good” except “God,” then it probably follows that none are truly perfect except God.

If it’s true that no one and no thing is perfect besides God, Himself, then even the Bible is not and cannot be “perfect”.

•  The Ten Commandments are first seen at Exodus 20:1-17.  Verses 3 through 5 read,

“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”

In broad strokes,the previous three verses appear to prohibit “idolatry“–the worship of anything other than God, Himself.

I can’t help thinking that my two friends, whose love for God seems obvious and undeniable, come dangerously close to committing idolatry when they claim that the King Jame Version (or any version) of the Bible is “perfect”. If it’s true that no one is perfect but God, Himself, then calling the Bible “perfect” is a mistake or a lie.

More, my friends’ love for the KJV sometimes seems to rival their love of God.  The carry the KJV around with them as a lucky charm, a shield or even a weapon.  I think that their dependence on the KJV might be dangerous if their love for the tangible book that we call the “Bible” rose to a level that could be construed as idolatry.

Those whose love of the Bible begins to constitute “worship” of the Bible may be in danger of worshiping the creation (the Bible) rather than the Creator (God).  To me, that sounds like idolatry–which is prohibited by the Ten Commandments.

  

The Name

The New Testament contains dozens of verses that extol the power of the name of “Jesus”.  For example,

Matthew 1:21—“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

Luke 10:17—“And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.”

John 14:13-14—“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my namethat will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.    If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”

Acts 3:16—“And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.”

Acts 4:12—“ Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. ”

Philippians 2:9-11—“ Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him name which is above every name:  That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Thus, the power and importance of the “name” of the Messiah is undeniable and critical.  By the Messiah’s name,and only by his name, “must” we be saved. What could be more important than that?

But there’s a problem.  According to Strong’s Concordance, the Greek word for “name” used in in every one of the previous six verses is coded and defined as:

G3686
ὄνομα
onoma
on’-om-ah
From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): – called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

Thus, the Greek word G3686 doesn’t necessarily mean “name” in the sense of “Laura,” “Nathan,” “Alexandra” and “Jesus”.  If can also mean “authority”.  For example, in the following two verses, the Greek word translated into English as “name” actually means “authority“.

1 Corinthians 6:11—“ And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”

Acts 2:38—“ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Imagine an old costume drama about King Arthur’s Round Table.  Imagine a relatively insignificant knight coming into a king’s court.  Normally, that insignificant knight would not dare to speak in the court unless spoken to.  But in this case, our insignificant knight boldly announces, “I come in the name of Prince John!”  Our relatively insignificant knight does not mean that he’s impersonating Prince John.  He means that he “comes in the authority of Prince John”.  In other words, Prince John ordered the knight to convey a message to the king’s court.  Because the insignificant knight speaks in the greater authority of Price John, he will be heard and respected.

The example of an insignificant knight speaking “in the name” (actually, in the”authority“) of a more powerful prince is analogous to that of relatively insignificant beings like you or I praying, being justified or being baptized in the name of “Jesus”.  You and I might not be heard or respected in our own authority, but if we are allowed to speak, pray, justify or be baptized and be heard and respected so long as we act “in the name” (actually, in the “authority“) of a more powerful being.  

(Today, something similar may happen if I (“Alfred Adask”) appear in court in the name of “ALFRED N ADASK”.  By appearing in court “in the name of ALFRED N ADASK” I may be appearing in the authority of ALFRED N ADASK–even though that authority is much less significant and less powerful than the authority of the man made in God’s image whose proper name is “Alfred Adask”.  Just as appearing “in the name” of a more powerful person can entitle you to additional respect, appearing in the name of a less powerful person, could cause you to be treated with much less respect.

Imagine our knight appearing in King Arthur’s court and announcing, “I come in the name of the Court Jester!”  He’d be laughed out of court and count himself lucky to escape with his head

In whose name do you appear, when you go to court?)

My point is that the Greek word which the King James translators routinely translated as “name” is actually ambiguous in that it might mean  proper name (like “Laura,” “Nathan,” Alexandra” or “Jesus”) or it might mean “in the authority of” some other being.

•  This ambiguity is no small thing.  For example, the true meaning of the word “name” in the following verse may be critical to your salvation:

Acts 4:12—“ Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. ”

Does that verse mean that you must be saved if you merely mention the Messiah’s proper name?  Or does it mean that you must be saved if you properly invoke the Messiah’s authority?

Merely mentioning the Messiah’s proper name (“Jesus,” right?) is pretty easy.  Y’ say “Jesus” and you’re in.  Simple, right?

But how might we properly invoke authority of the Messiah?  What is the proper formula for properly claiming to pray, speak, appear or be saved “in the authority of the Messiah”?

I don’t know.  But, if Acts 4:12 only refers to the authority of the Messiah, is it even necessary to mention the Messiah’s proper name?

I.e., is it legally sufficient if our insignificant knight comes into court and declares, “I come in the name [authority] of the Prince!” Or must he specify the proper name of whichever prince he’s acting on behalf of as in,  “I come in the name of Prince John Wilbur Guy Horseface Jones!”?

What’s the proper protocol?

If you pray “in the [proper] name of Jesus,” is that enough to guarantee that your prayer will be heard?  Or, in English, should you expressly pray “in the authority of the Messiah”?

•  It may well be that God knows what we mean, even if we don’t know how to say it properly.  If you pray in the name of Jesus or if you pray in the authority of Jesus, God knows what you mean and will hear your prayer.

But if that were true, then if you prayed in any proper name but you meant the Messiah, your prayer might be heard.

For example, I’ve been thinking about publishing a new Bible (we have hundreds of versions; how could one more hurt?) and start a new church for Texans.  (I could make a lot of money selling new Bibles to everyone in Texas.)  See, “Jesus” may be a Mexican name, but it’s not a Texas name.

But “Billy Bob” is popular down here on Texas (and in other parts of the South, too). So I propose to publish a Texas Bible is identical to the King James Version in every respect, except that every instance of the name “Jesus” in the KJV is changed to “Billy Bob” in the new-and-even-more-perfect Texas Bible.  I’ll even cause our Texas church to be called “The Church of Billy Bob”.

And when I’m preachin’ in The Church of Billy Bob, I’ll put on my best Jimmy Swaggart persona, let a few hitches and ecstatic sobs enter my voice as I say, “And Ahh pray . . . in the precious name [sob] of Billy Bob . . . .”

Whatcha think? Who’s with me?!  Who’s willing to pray in the “precious name” of Billy Bob?

No one?

Why not?

Because everybody knows that “Billy Bob” was not the Messiah’s proper name–right?  Isn’t that what’s botherin’ you?

OK–how ’bout “Bubba”? “Bubba” is very popular name on Texas.  How ’bout we pray in the precious name of “Bubba”?

Will you reject that prayer, too?  Because “Bubba” wasn’t the Messiah’s proper name?

OK, OK, OK–how ’bout “Elvis”?!  (You can’t deny that “Elvis is the King”; Colonel Tom Parker said so in his advertising.)  So how ’bout changing every instance of “Jesus” in the Bible to “Elvis” and starting up “The Holy Church of Elvis”!

Imagine the money we could make!  We’d have rock-n-roll ministers wearin’ pompadors and capes, and shakin’ their pelvis as they preached “in the precious name of Elvis”.  The women in audience would swoon in ecstasy.   We could forget passin’ the hat.  We could charge a $100 admission.  I’m tellin’ you we could be fabulously rich if we just started “The Holy Church of Elvis”.

I know, I know . . . despite all the money we could make, some of you probably still feel a little uncomfortable prayin’ “in the precious name of Elvis” because that’s not the Messiah’s true name.

Well, when you have time to see how much money we could make, you’ll probably get over that objection.  But, in the meantime, let me assure you that even though we may be expressly praying in the “precious name of Elvis” (or maybe, “Billy Bob” or “Bubba”) we will at all times mean “in the authority of the Messiah”.

OK?

Darn.  Are some of you antiquated mossbacks still refusing to pray in the names of “Billy Bob,” “Bubba,” or even “Elvis” just because those were not the Messiah’s actual name?  Is that all that’s bugging you?

OK, tough guys–if you won’t pray in the precious name of “Elvis” (or Billy Bob, Bubba, etc.) because that was never the Messiah’s true name, why the heck do you insist on praying in the “precious name of Jesus“?  After all, so far as I can tell, “Jesus” was also never the Messiah’s true name.

The Messiah’s true name wasn’t spelled “Jesus” and wasn’t pronounced “Gee-Zus”.  In fact, I’ll be surprised if anyone can provide evidence that God, Mary, Joseph, the apostles, the disciples, Pontius Pilate or anyone else who ever dealt with the Messiah during his earthly life, ever called him “Jesus” (Gee-Zus).

In fact, there’s a good chance that the Messiah never even heard the word “Jesus” (“Gee-Zus”) pronounced in his lifetime–even in reference to someone else.

Why?

First, I’ve heard (but can’t prove) that the the “J-sound” as heard in the words “John,” “judge” and “Jesus” is not part of the Hebrew tongue.  If that’s true, the Hebrew people could not have named the Messiah “Jesus” and could not even have pronounced “Gee-Zus”.

Second, historians tell us that the letter “J” was not even invented and added to the English alphabet until about A.D. 1,500 (about one century before the King James Version was first published).  If so, the name “Jesus” could not have existed in the English language until about fifteen centuries after the Messiah was crucified.

(In fact, if you’re susceptible to “conspiracy theories,” you might even wonder if the letter “J” and the j-sound weren’t invented for the primary purpose of deceiving the church and Christian people into mispronouncing the one name by which you must be saved (Acts 4:12).  Acts 4:12 appears to mean that if, when you are being judged as to whether your are or are not worthy of salvation, if you holler “Jesus!” your sins must be forgotten and you must be saved.)

However, if that one name is something other than “Jesus” (and you’re hollering “Jesus!  Jesus!  Jesus!) then your salvation might be jeopardized.  I’m not saying you won’t be saved if you mistakenly pray in the name of “Jesus”.  I’m not saying that you can’t be saved if you mistakenly pray in the name of “Jesus”. I’m only raising the possibility that if you pray in the name of “Jesus,” you are not guaranteed to be saved.)

Third (still recognizing that the author of Strong’s Concordance is merely a man rather than a prophet), when we read the New Testament, the Greek word that’s translated into “Jesus” is:

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce’
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: – Jesus.

Note that the Greek version of the Messiah’s name has three syllables (ee-ay-sooce’) and the English version (“Jesus”) has only two.  Thus, Greeks (closer to the time of the Messiah) believed the Messiah’s proper name had three syllables.  Today, most people think the Messiah’s proper name has only two syllables.

It’s apparent that the King James translators translated the “sooce'” sound in the Greek name for the Messiah into “Zus” in “Jesus”.   It’s also apparent that the King James translators decided to combine the first two syllables in G2424 (“ee” and “ay” in “ee-ay-sooce'”) into the single syllable “Je” in “Jesus”.  

If it’s true that (as per Acts 4:12) the proper name of the Messiah is the only name by which we must be saved, the number of syllables in that name must be important.  That proper name might have three syllables or it might have two syllables, but it doesn’t have both two and three syllables.  If you’re betting your salvation on the mention of a two-syllable name that sounds like “Gee-zus” when the Messiah’s proper name actually contained three syllables (ee-ay-sooce’), you may be in big trouble.

Of course, if it’s only necessary to pray or be saved “in the authority of the Messiah” and without express reference to the Messiah’s proper name, it probably won’t matter much if you pray in the three syllable name of “ee-ay-sooce'” or in the two-syllable name of “Gee-zus”.  But, if so, it also shouldn’t much matter if I pray “in the precious name of” Billy Bob, Buba, or Elvis.  So long as we pray in any name and intend that name to mean the Messiah, we’re A-OK–right?

No. Probably, wrong. If our salvation depends on knowing and properly pronouncing the Messiah’s “one” proper name, it should critical that we discover and learn the Messiah’s proper name.

Therefore, just in case the exact proper name is important, let’s see if we can figure out whether the Messiah’s name has two or three syllables.  Let’s reconsider the Strong’s definition that we usually translate as “name”:

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce’
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: – Jesus.

Note that there are three names in that definition:

1) “Jesus” (English–the most recent with two syllables);

2) “Iēsous” (“ee-ay-sooce”; Greek; closer in time to the Messiah’s life with three syllables); and,

3) “Jehoshua” (an English approximation of the original Hebrew name that Messiah may have actually used with four syllables: Je-ho-shu-a).

Note that the number of reported syllables has declined over time from four (Hebrew), to three (Greek) to two (English).

I don’t claim to know which of these three names (if any) is the true name of the Messiah.  I wouldn’t be surprised if a more diligent search for the Messiah’s true name would turn up an original Hebrew name that had five syllables, or maybe even six.

But I can tell you this:  Whatever the Messiah’s proper name really is, I’m convinced that it was not “Jesus”.  And if that’s true, and if Acts 4:12 means, “Neither is there salvation in any other [proper name]: for there is none other [proper] name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” then those of us who pray “in the precious name of Jesus” may be risking our eternal salvation just as much as those who pray “in the precious name of Billy Bob”.

•  I understand that anyone who prays “in the name of Jesus” does so innocently and without any intention to offend.  But Acts 4:12 seems to say that there is no other proper name “whereby we must be saved”.  “No other” sounds like a very strict requirement.    “Jesus,” “Iēsous,” and “Jehoushua”:  if one of those names is the proper name for the Messiah,then the other two names may be worthless or even diabolical if there is truly no other proper name “whereby we must be saved”.

Again, it may well be that Acts 4:12 really means “Neither is there salvation in any other [authority]: for there is none other [authority] under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”  If so, it may be irrelevant whether we pray in the name of “Jesus,” “Iēsous,” and “Jehoushua”.  So long as we intend to pray in the authority of the Messiah, his proper name may not be important.

But why take the chance?  Even if the Messiah’s proper name is technically unimportant, wouldn’t it be more respectful to search out his proper name and use that name in addition to his authority?

Plus, how can you properly claim to act, pray or be saved in the authority of the Messiah if you don’t even know the Messiah’s proper name?

Again, here comes our knight into King Arthur’s court and declares that he comes “in the name of Prince whats-is-face”.  Is “whats-is-face” sufficient to identify the Prince in whose name the knight claims to act?  If he doesn’t know or can’t recall the proper name of his own Prince, does he even have a “prince”?   Or is he trying to deceive and defraud the court by claiming an authority he does not have?

Therefore, it seems incumbent on all of us to discover the Messiah’s proper name as measure of respect for the Messiah and as the basis of a stronger claim on our own salvation.

So let’s go a little deeper into Strong’s definitions.

So far as I know, there is only one word in the first Greek version of New Testament to which Strong’s Concordance assigns the name “Jesus”:  G2424–which, again, reads:

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce’
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites: – Jesus.

Note the reference to the original Hebrew word from the Old Testament coded as H3091:

H3091
יהושׁע יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛ yehôshûa‛
yeh-ho-shoo’-ah, yeh-ho-shoo’-ah
From H3068 and H3467; Jehovah-saved; Jehoshua (that is, Joshua), the Jewish leader: – Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Joshua. Compare H1954, H3442.

It appears that the the deeper and possibly original name Hebrew name that is ultimately translated as “Jesus” in modern English Bibles was “Jehoushua“.

Note that “Jehoushua” is written with a “J” and the letter “J” or its equivalent probably did not exist in the Hebrew language.  That “J” in “Jehoushua” didn’t even exist in the English language until about 1500 A.D.

Note that a more accurate rendering in English of the original Hebrew word coded H3091 might be “Yehoushua”.   I suspect that most people would pronounce that word in English as Yeh-hoosh-u-ah–four syllables.  They may be right.

But I’m told that the “Y” in Hebrew is pronounced “ee”.  and the “e” in Hebrew is pronounced “ay”. Therefore, I’m inclined to pronounce the word “Yehoushua” as “ee-ay-oo-shu-ah”.  Five syllables.

I am not telling you that my pronunciation of the name “Yehoushua” is God’s truth.  I’ll only say that after praying to know God’s name and the Messiah’s name for six years, that’s the name for the Messiah that I was led to.  I still pray for correction if my version of the Messiah’s name is mistaken.

(Who knows?  If I pray for correction for another six years, I may be able to deliver a more informed opinion in A.D. 2020.)

In the meantime, whatever the Messiah’s true name may be, I’m convinced that “Jesus” isn’t even close.  More, I doubt that there’s any convincing evidence that name “Jesus” is anything more than a 500 or 600 year-old tradition of men.

•  My real point in all of this discussion of the Messiah’s proper name is that I can’t see any way that anyone can rationally claim that any English translation of the Christian Bible is God-inspired and “perfect,” if that translation doesn’t even include an accurate representation of the sound of the Messiah’s name.

There appears to be no way that the Messiah’s proper name had only two syllables.  That means “:bub-ba,” “El-vis” and “Je-sus” are out.  (Bil-ly Bob–three syllables–is at least unlikely.) The Messiah’s true name appears to have had at least four syllables (Jehoshua) and, depending on how it’s pronounced, maybe five (“ee-ay-oo-shu-ah”).

If a version of the Christian Bible doesn’t include the Messiah’s proper name, how can it be rationally claimed to be “perfect”?

It can’t.

It could be a good book.  It could be a great book.   It could be the greatest book of all time.  But it’s not a perfect book.

The Bible Isn’t Instantly Convincing

Over the years, I’ve read a lot of books.  I’ve read a number of books that I’ve regarded as impressive and important, but I have no doubt that the Bible is the most important book I’ve read.  More, the Bible is the only book I read repeatedly and on a regular basis and I usually find something new each time I read it.  Sections of the Bible that I’ve repeatedly read and commented on in the past, routinely show me something new when I reread those sections.  The ability of the Bible to teach me something new, each time I read and reread it, strikes me as mysterious and unlike any other book I’ve read.  I see the Bible as powerful.

However, other people have also read the Bible (much as I might read the Koran) with interest but still come away unconvinced that the Messiah was real and Christianity is the only true faith. Some have described the Bible as nothing more than a “charming collection of Jewish fairy tales”.   I disagree, but I have to admit that I did not become a Christian because I’ve read the Bible.  I became a Christian because of actual events in my life that made me aware that God is real.  The Bible helped to explain and clarify those events, but my “conversion” from atheist or agnostic to “believer” was not directly caused by the Bible.

I suspect that many, maybe most, perhaps virtually all, people’s personal conversion to Christianity was also based on actual events in their lives rather than reading the Bible.

My point is that however helpful the Bible may be, it’s not instantly convincing for most people.

The phenomenon of being convinced of the Christian faith by events in our lives rather than by the Bible isn’t new.   Although they may have read documents that later became part of the the current Bible, not one of the Messiah’s apostles read the Bible.  They died at least two centuries before the Bible was first assembled.   They all came to the Christian faith based on actual events rather than reading the Bible.  They didn’t need the modern Bible to be convinced of the worth of Christianity.

So far as I know, the Bible didn’t even exist until sometime after the Council of Nicaea met in A.D. 325.  That means that during its first 300 years, the Christian faith grew from the status of a “cult” composed of the Messiah and 12 men into a powerful force in the western world–without the Bible.  During those crucial 300 years, people converted to Christianity based on events in their lives rather than reading the Bible.  Sure, they may have been reading (or more likely hearing) important parts of what eventually became the Bible, but they couldn’t have been converted to Christianity based on the modern, “complete” Bible because that book did not yet exist.

More, so far as I know, even after the Bible was first assembled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century, it was written, published, and spoken in Latin–a language known to the clergy, but largely unknown to the average Christian–until after Martin Luther published a version of the Bible in German in A.D. 1522.  Thus, the church grew for at least its first 15 centuries without the vast majority of ordinary people ever  reading a Bible.

All of which leads me to infer that the Bible may not be perfect.  If it were perfect, could anyone ever have become a Christian without reading the Bible?  It’s possible, but it does seem unlikely.

If the Bible were perfect, isn’t it at least likely that anyone reading it would be instantly “reborn” as a Christian?  But they’re not.

In fact, there’s more than a little confusion to be found in the Bible and a number of ambiguities, contradictions (some say “mysteries”) that make parts of Christianity subject to debate by people who are passionate in their faith, and yet disagree about the meanings or significance of various Bible verses.  These disagreements lay the foundation for a multitude of of “Christian” denominations such as Congregationalists, Methodists, Lutherans and Baptists.  The Protestants and Catholics don’t even agree on the text of the Ten Commandments!

If any Bible were perfect, it seems at least likely that we would all agree to one single faith.  And yet, based on various interpretations of the same Bible, we have a variety of Christian “denominations”.  Each of these various denominations is honestly and passionately supported by its members.  But each of these various denominations also tends to believe that their version of Christianity is the only one that’s “really true” and therefore they often carry a small contempt for the other “false” denominations of Christianity.

If the Bible is truly perfect–not merely “good” or “great,” but “perfect“–shouldn’t it be instantly convincing?

It’s not.

If the Bible is truly perfect, shouldn’t everyone reading it be compelled to join the same faith?  Shouldn’t every “Christian” who reads a perfect Bible be compelled to believe in the identical principles of Christianity?

But they’re not.

I can’t say it’s God’s truth, but it seems to me that a perfect Bible should’ve resulted in a perfectly uniform Christian faith.  But it hasn’t.

Conclusion

Because,

1) At least 99% of the English versions of the Bible don’t even claim to be perfect, the odds alone suggest that no English version is perfect;

2) The multiplicity of possible translations is so huge that the likelihood that any translation is “perfect” is very low;

3) King James’ changed of the 6th Commandment from “Thou shalt not murder” to “Thou shalt not kill”;

4) Many seem to worship the Bible as an act approaching idolatry rather than read and study it;

5) The true name of the Messiah appears to be missing from virtually every English translation of the Bible–including the King James Version;

6)  The Bible is not instantly convincing and does not produce a single, uniform faith; then,

7) I conclude that no version of the Bible written in the past 500 years (including the KJV) is perfect.

This conclusion does not suggest that the Bible is useless or without value.  I have ten versions of the Bible on my computer.  I used to have seven physical Bibles but five were caught in a fire and destroyed.  I now have three physical versions.

I read a Bible regularly.  I think whichever one I habitually read is the most valuable book I currently possess.  I’ve learned at least as much about man’s law from the Bible as I have from reading man’s laws, codes and court cases.

I’m continuously amazed by the Bible’s ability to teach me new things from chapters and verses I’ve previously read.

I have no doubt that the Bible is valuable, but I don’t believe the Bible is perfect.  I read it, I study it, I write on it.  But I don’t worship any Bible nor do I think it’s safe to do so.  I won’t say that everyone who believes the Bible is “perfect” is an idolater, but I suspect that those who think the the Bible is perfect may be close to committing idolatry.

The Intrinsic Uncertainty of Faith

The problem with faith is that, by definition, it’s always uncertain.  We act in faith because we know that we don’t know all the answers.  We know that we don’t have all relevant information, but we proceed anyway, trying to do that which we believe may be right.

Our uncertainty isn’t simply an external coincidence that often appears in relation to faith.  Instead, that uncertainty is an intrinsic element of faith.  To have absolute knowledge is to know rather than to believe.  To have absolute knowledge is to be without faith.

Without uncertainty, there is no faith.  Where there’s faith, there must also be uncertainty.

Hebrews 11:1 seems to agree:  “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Those things that are “not seen” cannot be known in an objective sense.  Such things can be hoped for and believed in, but without direct knowledge, those hopes and beliefs must be at least partially based on uncertainty.

Claims to find absolute knowledge and absolute certainty in the Bible are, to me, claims of absolute knowledge rather than faith.

I can’t help wondering if those who need the absolute certainty of “knowing” the Bible is “perfect” may actually be weak or immature in their faith and unable to face the uncertainty that’s inherent in all true faith.  Those whose faith is strong don’t require or depend on the apparent certainty of absolute knowledge of the sort that we might seemingly find in a “perfect” Bible.  If we can manage to find true faith, I believe that faith is in the Messiah and the God of the Bible, rather than in the Bible, itself.

Like the Apostles and the people who became “Christians” in the first 300 years after the Messiah’s resurrection, it’s possible to find that faith without the Bible.

Is the Bible useful?  Absolutely.

Is the Bible a blessing?  Yes.

Is the Bible perfect?  I don’t think so.  More, I don’t believe it needs to be.  A “perfect” Bible is conducive to knowledge.  An imperfect Bible is conducive to faith.

 

 
72 Comments

Posted by on April 17, 2014 in Bible

 

Tags: , ,

72 responses to “Is the King James (or any other) version of the Bible Perfect?

  1. cynthia

    April 17, 2014 at 1:51 PM

    Very well put and comprehensive. Greatly appreciate your sharing of your inner flections. Have posted partial quote to “name post” at http://willandtestamenttraining.wordpress.com

     
  2. Joseph LAmarca

    April 17, 2014 at 1:56 PM

    you are nuts !! email me and I will explaine

    Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:57:00 +0000 To: josephlamarca@hotmail.com

     
  3. hskiprob

    April 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM

    I’ve always questioned the ability of 6 or 8 people to round up all the necessary food and animals on the planet, build an Ark large enough to sustain the entire ship for approximately 370 days, physically impossible, as have all those who have done any level of honest analysis. I’ve heard stories that God made the animals go to the Ark but obviously that person has not met my kitty cat Menew.

    I always just assumed that it was a fictional story in an attempt to teach some sort of message to young children, much like we lie to our children about Santa Clause until they’re old enough to catch on to the truth. We are one weird species.

     
    • Adask

      April 17, 2014 at 2:27 PM

      I’m not arguing that anything in the Bible is “fictional”. I’m arguing that some things may be inaccurate and therefore imperfect.

       
      • hskiprob

        April 17, 2014 at 2:54 PM

        Some take the Bible as a literal guide and some take it, like myself as a spiritual guide. If it is inaccurate than it would be imperfect and thus one should not take it literal. All one has to do is look at how the Bible was placed into force and effect under the Roman Emperor Constantine who formed the Council of Nicaea. Thinking that he was not a prominent influential figure on the final version, would be naïve. He and his ruling oligarchy used to feed his adversaries to various wild animals for entertainment. The Roman Catholic Church has been corrupt since it’s origins and was in bed with government all the way up to the US, British and French Revolutions. Thankfully their exploits in pedophilia have come to light over the last couple of decades, hopefully putting another nail in their coffin. I think the Gnostic’s had it right and that each of us is inspired by God in our own way which makes each and everyone of us unique, yet part of God’s people.

         
      • J.M.

        April 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM

        Adask,

        @ >I’m not arguing that anything in the Bible is “fictional”. I’m arguing that some things may be inaccurate and therefore imperfect.

        This is correct. I say this based not from my EDUCATED opinion but from my honestly trying to understand “what’s up.” For just two of MANY examples, the word Easter is written in the Bible. This is the SAME word translated from Pesach & yet everywhere else, it is written, Passover, except for this ONE place & ONE time. Also there IS a word, “fast” written in the New Testament.. Check that word out, & you will be surprised as to what should have been inserted, although, “fast” IS, in meaning, a part of the word that should have been, in my opinion, written. Then again, maybe the Good LORD allowed this to be done as a TEST to see who really wanted to know the truth. I have always been curious anyway, & I searched into the meaning of the word, “fast” & it pleased me to “see” what I discovered. As Toland says, “try it you’ll like it.” At least I did.

         
      • EDOMS THORN

        April 17, 2014 at 5:41 PM

        `

        `

        Al,

        Very good post. That is a question in many peoples mind.

        Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”…
        ALSO found in Deuteronomy 8:3

        The things that we need to do are in these two veres’s.
        1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”.

        II TIMOTHY 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”.
        DIVIDING:
        SC GREEK 3718 “orthotomeo” to make straight, cut, to DISSECT!

        I was attacked by a “Christain Zionst” because he claimed I “Tore the Bible appart looking for errors” But I only do what we ALL should do. I do not look for errors. I seek truth, and understanding.
        PROVERBS 18;1-2 ”Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself”.

        I have wondered for many years why don’t we call Him (Messiah) …”Emmanuel”…
        Emmanuel is the firstname given to us in scripture! What happened?

        Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

        Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
        S.C. G1694 Emmanuel = “God with us”
        Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

        I looked a little deeper Al and this may help you to understand the meaning for the word ‘name’
        S.C. from my hard copy says S.C. 3686 is derived of the base of G1097 “allow, be aware, feel, know, (comp. G3685) through the idea of Notoriety…

        Is it not safe to say that the “NAME” carries with it both Authority and the NAME as the ownership of AUTHORITY? “Christ” means “ANOINTED” which denotes authority from God,

        I am pondering your article further. I may reblog it at my site.

         
      • J.M.

        April 17, 2014 at 6:42 PM

        Re: Name

        Remember, the following is the way I see it

        It is true that the Almighty DID NOT say, “Listen, thousands of years from now when a new language called English comes along, they can pronounce my name as ‘Jehovah’ and that’s fine.”

        Instead, like with any and every personal name, different languages TRANSLATE personal names to fit their lingual tendencies. George becomes “Hor-hey” in Spanish or “Gay-org” in German and no one gets upset.

        It’s not exactly wrong to call the Almighty by the impersonal “God”, just as it’s not wrong to call one’s offspring “Child”. If we want a familiar and close relationship, however, it makes sense to use the personal name of someone we love. The Scriptures encourage us to use God’s personal name.

        The Hebrew name “Yahweh” (or “Yehowah”) does seem to accurately pronounce the divine name. Just as the Hebrew name “Yeshua” (or “Yehoshua”) is translated into “Jesus” in English, the Hebrew name “Yahweh” is translated into “Jehovah” in English.

        The important thing is to use God’s personal name in whatever language you speak, rather than insisting upon the impersonal! The name “Yahweh” is certainly preferable to the non-name “God” or “Lord”, especially if you speak Hebrew. If you speak English, feel free to use the name “Jehovah” or Yahweh, or whatever name you think is right if the name is the most important thing above all else. It is The LAWS of “God” that are more important to me.

        (Psalms 83:18) That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth. < This is just another translation.

        (John 17:26) [Jesus said] I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them

        The so-called "name" of "Allah" has no connection with the Scriptures, Judaism, or Christianity.

        For all of you call on the name of-ers. I have at my disposal about 18 different names. Each Congregation says WE MUST call on the name & EACH group says IT has the RIGHT name & IF we do not call on the RIGHT name we will be thrown into the lake of fire & NEVER DIE because they say "God" gets no pleasure out of the "death" of the wicked. God gets pleasure out of seeing the wicked eternally tortured. This seems to me then, that God IS SADISTIC, if this is true. The "God" I am aware of IS NOT SADISTIC. Anyway, let's say for the sake of a point, that out of all the "Names" I have at my disposal, the 14th name IS the correct one. I have some disturbing news for all of you who say I am wicked, When I "call" on the name of this name & that name & get to the 14th name, BINGO, WELCOME HOME THOU GOOD & FAITHFUL SERVANT. ok

         
      • J.M.

        April 17, 2014 at 8:01 PM

        Adask,

        @ > But “Billy Bob” is popular down here on Texas (and in other parts of the South, too). So I propose to publish a Texas Bible is identical to the King James Version in every respect, except that every instance of the name “Jesus” in the KJV is changed to “Billy Bob” in the new-and-even-more-perfect Texas Bible. I’ll even cause our Texas church to be called “The Church of Billy Bob”.

        THAT’S IT !!! A good name for this Church, The Church of Billy Bob, like apples bobbing up & down in a barrel of water. lol.

         
      • J.M.

        April 17, 2014 at 9:02 PM

        What follows below is another post I made on, I think, the Standing Firm thread, I think. Anyway I would like to see someone bring up a few of what they call contradictions written in the Holy Bible & let’s see if we can resolve those contradictions. IF nobody does, I will put in one or two & use the scriptures to show how they only seem to be contradictions. I will use scripture to show they are not contradictions but will be made clear. Anyway, here is some more info on this “name thing.”

        J.M.
        March 23, 2014 at 4:16 P.M.

        Re: “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

        3686 ónoma – name; (figuratively) the manifestation or revelation of someone’s character, i.e. as distinguishing them from all others. Thus “praying in the name of Christ” means to pray as directed (authorized) by Him, bringing revelation that flows out of being in His presence. “Praying in Jesus’ name” therefore is not a “religious formula” just to end prayers (or get what we want)!

        [“According to Hebrew notions, a name is inseparable from the person to whom it belongs, i.e. it is something of his essence. Therefore, in the case of the God, it is specially sacred” (Souter).]

        My understanding of the word, “name” as used in the sense of, no other “name” under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved, has to to do with the “character” of The Messiah, of his essence. Today, if a “peace officer” knocks on the door & tells us he/she is here, in the “name” of the “law,” we know fairly well what he/she means, at least I think I do.

         
      • J.M.

        April 17, 2014 at 10:36 PM

        Adask,
        psalm 119:97

        Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long. < Love what ???

         
      • J.M.

        April 18, 2014 at 1:03 AM

        Adask,

        JUST ONE of MANY seemingly contradictions or conflicts in in the Holy Bible

        @ >Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

        Well for gosh-sakes. look-e here, looks like we have a “conflict” or maybe even a “contradiction.”

        @ > Mark 15:26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. So far, we have 2 different “sayings.”

        Let’s see if we can muddy it up even more

        @ > John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

        NOW we have THREE different conflicts, or contradictions, or whatever the correct term or word is.

        Well goh-lee, jeepers creepers, look-e here, the following resolved the problems for me

        @ > Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

        Did anyone catch it? Greek, Latin, Hebrew. Actually, I suppose this makes it even more confusing for “some” people to understand.

        I understand what is meant because I’m not smart enough to figger it out that it just ain’t so. My “heart” has a mind of its own

         
      • J.M.

        April 18, 2014 at 8:55 AM

        Alfred Adask,

        I AM giving myself ALL thumbs up, OK ??? If you can find the time, it will take you no more than 5 seconds to READ my COMPLETE message where I said what you said about Roger. It WAS a cut & paste, > Roger is the first man to expressly understand the my purpose for hosting this blog.
        You apparently OVERLOOKED this. My eyesight is FAILING too, but 5 seconds to read something? I said to moon but technically speaking, Alfred said; > Roger is the first man to expressly understand the my purpose for hosting this blog.< THIS IS what YOU , Alfred SAID ORIGINALLY. BE FAIR !!!!

         
      • Adask

        April 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

        1) What makes you think I have time to read every comment on this blog? 2) What makes you think I have an obligation to read every comment? 3) What makes you think you can tell me what to do? 4) What makes you think that you can go out of your way to aggravate virtually everyone on this blog and then complain when they “all” attack you?

        You are fascinating (attractive and repulsive), J.M.. You have sufficient intelligence and knowledge to make a positive contribution to this blog. You also have an obsessive-compulsive personality that alienates almost anyone you associate with. You make it your business to patronize your seeming friends by claiming to “love” them and you attack any who disagrees with you as enemies. You mock, mock, and mock those about you. What does the Bible say about “mockers” at Job 17:2, Psalm 35:16, 2 Peter 3:3, and Jude 1:18?

        Because you refuse to respect anyone other than the image in the mirror (if that), you’ll spend your life alone. Isolation isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I don’t think you can handle it.

        You are constantly seeking, practically begging, for other people’s attention. You shout “Look at me! Look at meee! Look at MEEEEE!” and whenever anyone bothers to look at you in an objective manner, you claim to have been attacked and your attack them.

        Earlier today, you posted an entire article written by Barefoot Bob on my blog. Did you have Barefoot’s permission to post that article? Did it occur to you that you might be required to secure Barefoot Bob’s permission before you posted it? Did it occur to you show Barefoot enough respect to ask permission? Did you have my permission to post someone else’s article on my blog? Did it occur to you to show enough respect for me to even ask if it was OK to print someone else’s article on my blog?

        I know you didn’t ask me for permission. I doubt that you asked Barefoot Bob. But why should you? Why should you show anyone else any genuine respect? Your mantra seems to be “If it feels good, say it!”

        I deleted the article. Don’t clip and paste someone else’s article on my blog again. Next time you do, you’re gone.

        And what makes you think that anyone wants to read every worthless, self-indulgent comment that crosses your mind? No one can say anything on this blog without you making a comment, correction, attack or frivolous remark. You don’t need or deserve the last word on everything that anyone else says in this blog.

        You are a persistent pain in the ass–and that’s not news. Everyone knows. Even you. I’d bet that a score or more who comment on this blog have told you much the same thing. But you don’t have to consider their opinions. You don’t have to consider mine. You just have to talk and talk and talk and talk and somehow you will overwhelm us all with your endless stream of self-indulgent crap. You don’t have to show anyone else any respect, but you can complain when anyone else shows anything other than the utmost respect for you. And even when you write something intelligent, you can always color it with some of your gratuitous commentary about the “wonder” of J.M..

        And you talk to me about being “FAIR!!!!”? Fairness is a two-way street. So is respect. Want respect? Give some. Too much trouble to show genuine respect (not your feigned b.s. about how much you love everyone)? Don’t expect to receive any respect. You inspire contempt with your endless, self-indulgent comments.

        I don’t expect you to consider, understand or believe this comment of mine. I don’t think you can. I think you’re mentally ill. I don’t say that as an insult. I say it as an observation of what appears to be the truth. Perhaps that’s sad, but I don’t feel sorry for you. You seem to insist causing your isolation and celebrating your mental illness. I don’t think you can help yourself.

        But I can help myself. If that help requires you being banned (again?), it can be arranged. While you (and you alone) are “giving yourself ALL thumbs up,” I’m going to give you the big thumbs down (banning).

        Nothing personal, J.M.. You’re just making more trouble than you’re worth. You’re more of a liability than an asset.

        If you can’t figure out a way to show people some genuine respect–even if that means just shutting your mouth–you’ll have to go.

         
      • EDOMS THORN

        April 18, 2014 at 1:20 PM

        `

        `

        Thank you AL! I thought you went on vacation. I not only come to get your thoughts and opinions, I value the thoughts and opinions of the readers just a bit more! They are reflection of the Nation and we need to hear from everyone. But to have to wade through J.M.’s never ending selfish nonsense makes it nearly imposable! It WILL turn people away fro here never to return!

        The following is from. your article “It Works the Same in Every Country” and THAT is what I come here expecting to see! I hope HE will learn to keep it to a minimum!

        …”This blog is intended to be a place where, by reason of using my intellect and by reason of using the intellects of my readers, we can “exercise” our senses so as to develop and “sharpen” our individual capacities to discern between good and evil, right and wrong”…

        “It Works the Same in Every Country”
        https:*//adask.wordpress.com/…/it-works-the-same-in-every-country/

         
      • J.M.

        April 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

        You edited my comment & did not include what I did say completely. You said what you wanted it to say. Toland or Roger said this your party anyway. I hope you enjoyed it. I would appreciate it if you will do what ever is necessary so in case I forget, that I cannot be back on You have time to make a comment about something I said & make it look like something I ONLY said & what you wanted it to say. But you don’t have time to check it out, & correct it?? I said it will take you 5 seconds to read it but you don’t have time for that? Aren’t you somewhat surprised that I stayed around as long as I did? Did you enjoy it? Well hate to tell you this, find yourself another sucker. The party’s over.

         
      • Henry

        April 18, 2014 at 2:04 PM

        Al, please take note of Edom’s admonition.

        If a first-time visitor to this blog finds a comment section resembling the padded cell in a loony bin, containing a pontificating babbler who’s neither informative nor entertaining, the visitor will incorrectly assume this reflects the blog as a whole and probably won’t return.

        We don’t want that!

         
    • J.M.

      April 18, 2014 at 2:51 AM

      Hello Skip,

      I still think of you a lot & I still think you have the qualities I first told you about, about yourself.
      Skip you say,
      @ > I always just assumed that it was a fictional story in an attempt to teach some sort of message to young children, much like we lie to our children about Santa Clause until they’re old enough to catch on to the truth. We are one weird species.

      And our children tell their children the same fairy tales & the beat goes on.

      @ > We are one weird species.

      I agree. My dogs are starting to cry so I have to go.

       
    • EarlatOregon

      April 18, 2014 at 1:52 PM

      .
      .
      .

      The Real Question for hskiprob, is

      How are you going to
      Fix your Relationship to the Creator?

      .
      .
      .

       
  4. Roger

    April 17, 2014 at 2:35 PM

    Great article, Alfred.

    Why would someone assume a translation of scripture has to be perfect?

    Anyone can do a translation. There are no minimum standards that must be met. The worst scoundrels on earth can, and probably do, publish translations of the Bible.

    On the other hand, the scriptures themselves, which consist of the original Hebrew and Greek texts by the wholly inspired authors, are indeed perfect:

    2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

    As to the King James Version, I heard someone who seemed competent and trustworthy on the subject say this is the only translation without internal inconsistencies.

     
    • Anthony Clifton

      April 17, 2014 at 3:18 PM

      Jesus told me that a whole lotta people are completely missing the point….

      good mossback writing notwithstanding, but essentially the entire text from Genesis through
      to Revelation contains an enumeration of the tribes of the children of Israel..[Gen.49 & Rev.7]
      wherein the gods of the Amorites, Hittites, Jebusites, and various other sundry deities
      the world over are to not be worshipped…curiously Today the whole world suffers the indignant
      terrorist {bastard} state of Israel…and America accrues no BLESSINGS [Deut. 28] simply because
      of a mistranslation and or errant teaaching, but how exactly do the Khazar proselytes become all 12 tribes in Genesis 49 ?

       
      • Doug

        April 18, 2014 at 7:10 AM

        but how exactly do the Khazar proselytes become all 12 tribes in Genesis 49 ?

        Lord Rothschild (and two others unnamed) had witnessed Lord Balfour operating unnatural sex acts with pigs on several occasions. They would remain silent if the hog lover would get a “letter” of proclamation from the King of England that would magically convert these Khazarian mongols into Jews (not Israelites or Hebrews) for the purposes of obtaining Arab property.

        So, today we’re all hog lovers, and accept the State of Is(not)Real and the current trespassers as the fulfillment of prophecy so we can rush into the Armageddon everyone is elated to initiate.

        Praise the Lord (Rothschild).

         
    • J.M.

      April 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM

      Roger,

      @> Great article, Alfred.

      wow, I cannot believe my eyes !!! WELL SAID !!! Your entire message. I sincerely mean this. wow

       
    • J.M.

      April 18, 2014 at 1:48 AM

      Roger, Toland, Adask et al,

      Steve Maraboli
      “Let today be the day you stop being haunted by the ghost of yesterday. Holding a grudge & harboring anger/resentment is poison to the soul. Get even with people…but not those who have hurt us, forget them, instead get even with those who have helped us. Especially those who try to help

      “Life appears to me too short to be spent in nursing animosity or registering wrongs.”
      ― Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre

      Confucius
      “To be wronged is nothing, unless you continue to remember it.”
      ― Confucius

      Criss Jami
      “Grudges are for those who insist that they are owed something; forgiveness, however, is for those who are substantial enough to move on.”
      ― Criss Jami, Salomé: In Every Inch In Every Mile

      Steve Maraboli
      “When you hold a grudge, you want someone else’s sorrow to reflect your level of hurt but the two rarely meet.”

      I, J.M.just sent this to myself thought I would share it with “others.”

       
  5. EDOMS THORN

    April 17, 2014 at 3:24 PM

    `

    The topic of “Bible inerrancy” came up in MY world in the mid 1980’s. In my mind you have NOT acknowledged whither you are aware of that or not. YOU DID NOT ANSWER WHEN I ASKED IF YOU THOUGHT I MADE IT UP.

    I do not want to clog up this comment section with to much information. The ADULTS that are interested will DO the research. Here are a few things that are mistranslated/ADDED/OMITTED.

    I provided the FACTS (with links to the origin) concerning the word …”JEW”… in the link above about the Synagogue Of Satan.

    The meaning for the words JUDAH/Judahite and JUDEAN have been “altered” to “FIT” the modern misuse of the word JEW. Jew is the ‘bastardization’ of the word JUDAH. The simple addition of the word, ‘JEWISH’ is a perversion of the Original TEXT. The addition and use of the word ‘JEW’ is for confusion and deception, as with word GENTILE!

    Hebrew word is; …”S.C. 3063 “Yehuwdah” …”The name of Five Israeli Also of the tribe descended from the first, and of its territory: Judah”…
    S.C. 3064 “Yehuwdiy ‘patron from 3063; a Jehudite (i.e. Judaite or Jew), or desc. of Jehudah (i.e. Judah):-Jew”…

    In Zechariah 8:23 “Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.” …” it is S.C. 376 + 3064 Which is “Man” of “Judah”…

    In the New Testament. The word Jew mentioned in. John 4:22? …for Salvation is of the Jews”. is RIGHTLY translated from the GREEK S.C. 2453 it is; “Ioudaios”, pronounced ee-oo-dah-yos and means “JUDEAN; AS A COUNTRY i.e.belonging to Judea” ‘FROM’ S.C. 2448 and 2455?….
    THAT is ALL that is found in the Strong’s Concordance from 1980. Nothing omitted and nothing added!

    As used in Matthew 2:6 S.C. 2448 “Iouda” Judah
    As used in Hebrews 7:14 S.C. 2455 “Ioudas” Judah or Judas

    The word “ISRAEL” occurs 2568 times in 2294 verses in the KJV, and not one time is ISRAEL called “JEW” The Book of Romans was about Gods love for “ISRAEL” for the most part, and the word “JEW” is used 10 time there, and NOT once for ISRAEL!

    //////Now that is the CORRECT Translation for those that care about the truth! It appears that the word JEW in John 4:22 was NOT “JEW” and should have been “JUDAHITES” Based on what I know about EDOM and the Rothschillds creation, The ILLUMINATI and their ownership and control of the majority of the Publishing House’s and infiltration of the Seminaries, that is how we have the word JEW in our Bibles////////.

    Deuteronomy 5:17 “Thou shalt not kill”. comes from the Hebrew …”ratsach”… S.C.7523 MOST causal Bible students understand that the CORRECT translation is …”MURDER”…

    The word “Easter” in ACTS 12:4 comes from the Greek …”pascha”… S.C.3957 that means …”PASSOVER”… Easter is found in the KJV only. Why?

    AND HERE is one that I found in the early 1980’s, because I have known since the third grade that “WORDS HAVE MEANINGS”

    In Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1, LUKE used the “WORD”, “THEOPHILUS” Greek …”Theophilos’… From(on-line) S.C. 2321 …”friend of God”… ALSO …”the person to whom Luke addressed his Gospel and the book of Acts”… BUT there is no reason to believe that LUKE was addressing any one person. I believe that was LUKES way of addressing the CHURCH.

    In my hard copy from 1980 it says nothing about a “person” it ADDS that it is from, …”Themellos” S.C. 2310 Greek …”something put down, i.e. a substruction (of a building, ect.) (lit. or fig.):-foundation.

    IF you were honest I believe that you could add some more.

    Easy on-line Strong’s Concordance.
    http:*//www.blbclassic.org/index.cfm

    EASY on-line KJV Bible.
    http:*//www.biblegateway.com/

    Facts concerning the Origin of the word “JEW”.
    http:*//www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/origin_of_the_word_jew.html

    More on the word “JEW” from a “JEW”
    http:*//www.henrymakow.com/jesus_was_not_a_jew_–benjamin.html

    The SYNAGOGUE Of SATAN: EDOMS Playground
    http:*//www.edomsthorn.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/the-synagogue-of-satan-edoms-playground

    Remove the * from the links.

     
    • J.M.

      April 18, 2014 at 11:42 AM

      @ > The ADULTS

      I am a babe. I am not ashamed to say this. The FIRST time I wrote to you & asked some questions, I said, PLEASE try & explain this to me as tho you are talking to a 5 year old child. I can have the patience of Job, with ANYONE except those who are arrogant & want to talk about how much he or she KNOWS. I don’t know very much. I don’t have much education. But I’ll tell you this AGAIN. I did lose 3 friends. I did not give the time intervals. THEY WERE several years apart. I went to that search bar & typed in Church suicide deaths. You do it sometime. You HURT ME BAD BAD BAD, E.T when you said I AM a LIAR for saying this. This was REALLY A LOW BLOW. YOU WERE HEARTLESS !!!! Still, I get upset easy anyway. I HATE this WICKED WORLD. I just can’t help it. I will say it again. I do believe I am emotionally unstable. But I am battered to death & to the depths of dark despair when you have not, not only you, E.T. but others beat me down over & over. I don’t think I have asked to much of you. well, anyway it doesn’t matter anymore.

       
  6. Jim

    April 17, 2014 at 4:34 PM

    Interesting related subject: First Printed Edition Of The Torah In Hebrew $1,400,000 – $2,000,000 At Christie’s
    http://www.booktryst.com/2014/04/first-printed-edition-of-torah-in.html

     
    • J.M.

      April 18, 2014 at 11:14 AM

      Hi Jim,
      @ > $1,400,000

      I don’t like to use the word cheap, so I’ll ask if this the least expensive version, this Million, four hundred thousand? I may be wrong but I don’t believe every body on this blog chipping in could come up with ten thousand four hundred. Why can’t it be massed produced, if that’s the right term? What is the difference between the Two Mill version & The One mill, four hundred thousand version? Thanks for any info.

       
  7. James Nicholas

    April 17, 2014 at 4:36 PM

    Curiously, I’ve recently read the preface to the King James Version and how the translators intent was to make a good previous translation better. My thought is they we referencing their improvement on the Bishop’s Bible, perhaps in addition to the Geneva Bible. The KJV, for me, can get tedious. I have never communicated that way. That I wanteth and prayeth and so forth is obscure and archaic. Amazingly, the USA clung to the KJV during and after the Revolutionary War, if even that history may be remotely accurate. Fascinating in that King James I commissioned a version at all – perhaps to strengthen a factious Church of England vs. Rome? A good thought provoking article, thank you Alfred

     
    • J.M.

      April 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM

      James,

      @ > . That I wanteth and prayeth and so forth is obscure and archaic.

      It was written in the 16th century. This is how they spoke THEN. Thou, today, is You. But, I know what you mean. What doth it meaneth & all that lingo. I understand.

       
  8. EDOMS THORN

    April 17, 2014 at 6:24 PM

    `

    `

    Al is correct about some of the words in Hebrew having a FEW or more meanings.

    For “Hard Core” study and research, I rely on my Hard Copy pre- 1982 Strong’s Concordance.
    The Blue Letter http:*//www.blbclassic.org/ I have found MANY “changes” in this on-line version, it is great for finding a ‘verse’ by typing in a ‘KEY’ words, but I have found to many errors and omissions.

    Even in my Hard Copy I have found a FEW, errors. i.e.
    Genesis 26:34-35 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite: Which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

    for “JUDITH” S.C. 3067 Jewess; Jehudith a Canaanitiess: Judith”…
    Jew comes from JUDAH and he had not been born yet! So she could not be a ‘Jewess’. ALSO Judith was a Hittite not Canaanite, however the Hittite’s ARE of Cain/Canaan. So was Mr. Strong working on some preconceived IDEAS?

    And this I found while showing that Zebulun had went to the North and may have became NORWAY.
    Gen. 49:13 Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of the sea; and he shall be for a haven of ships; and his border shall be unto Zidon.
    If you look up the word for “border” in S.C. you will find 7 different words that are used for BORDER two of those had to do with “armor” or “clothes” and that was what Mr. Strong used S.C.3411. and so you have to look at the other words that are used with it [Zidon], to come to the word that best fits the whole text. S.C. 8193 Heb, word “Saphah” lip, as a natural boundary, bank sea shore.
    Blue Letter http*://www.blbclassic.org/
    6213-Esau = “hairy”
    1) …progenitor of the Arab peoples…
    WE KNOW Ishmael is the father of the ARABS

    pre- 1981 the correct rendering;
    S.C. 6215 …in the sense of handling; rough (i.e. sensibly felt)

    In conclusion, these “ERRORS” can hinder our full understanding! That is why WE should rely on, “Study, Research, and OBSERVATION.”

     
  9. UglyTruth

    April 17, 2014 at 6:34 PM

    Some more regarding the name:

    Thou shalt fear YHWH thy Elohyk, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
    Deuteronomy 6:13

    I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
    Isaiah 45:23

    And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be delivered:
    Joel 2:32

    And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
    Exodus 23:13

     
    • J.M.

      April 18, 2014 at 7:35 AM

      Ugly Truth,

      @ > And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be delivered:
      Joel 2:32

      What does this mean, “call upon the name of YHWH ? ” How is YHWH pronounced? Help me out, please. purty please??? OR, help somebody else to understand. PLEASE.

       
      • UglyTruth

        April 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

        > What does this mean, “call upon the name of YHWH ?”
        It means to cry out to or to call upon YHWH by using his name.

        > How is YHWH pronounced?
        Like YHWDH, But without the dalet.

        YHWDH is transliterated as Yĕhuwdah and pronounced yeh·hü·dä’
        So YHWH is transliterated as Yĕhuwah and pronounced yeh·hü·wä’

        For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of YHWH, to serve him with one consent.
        Zephaniah 3:9

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        April 19, 2014 at 7:18 PM

        basicaly, it’s pronounced the way you say…

        YEAHWAY !!

        http://biblehub.com/text/john/8-33.htm <—- No Khazars !

        the only true economic battle for truth is don't buy the Lie.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4511405,00.html
        John 8:44
        http://www.roitov.com/index.htm
        Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered,
        Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me,
        ye should have known my Father also.
        These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple:
        and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come
        http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2014/04/hoppin-down-bunny-trail.html
        "THEY" will always tell you there is NO WAY to find out the Truth.

         
  10. Henry

    April 17, 2014 at 7:16 PM

    The inspired authors of the New Testament called Christ by the name “Iesous” (pronounced “yay-soos”).

    This name was familiar in Judea. It appears many times in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament often quoted in the New Testament. In this version, the book of Joshua is titled the book of “Iesous”.

    So, to those who think only one spelling and pronunciation is correct, your search is over.

    What authority overrules the inspired authors of the New Testament, who wrote for our benefit and instruction, in their unanimous practice of referring to Christ as “Iesous”?

    Answer: none.

    It may be that no single name is correct to the exclusion of all the others. But if there is only one correct name, surely the inspired authors of the New Testament used it.

     
    • J.M.

      April 17, 2014 at 7:51 PM

      Henry,

      @ > The inspired authors of the New Testament called Christ by the name “Iesous” (pronounced “yay-soos”).

      I now feel comfortable with YHWH ha Elohiym, as being the Name of the Father, & his “son”

      Isaiah 7:14
      Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

      7:14 Therefore – Because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer to you, God of his own

      free grace will send you a more honorable messenger, and give you a nobler sign. A sign of

      your deliverance. But how was this birth, which was not to happen ’till many ages after, a sign of

      their deliverance from present danger? This promised birth supposed the preservation of that city,

      and nation and tribe, in and of which the Messiah was to be born; and therefore there was no

      cause to fear that ruin which their enemies now threatened. Immanuel > God with us; God dwelling

      among us, in our nature, > John 1:14. God and man meeting in one person, and being a mediator

      between God and men. For the design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which

      Christ should commonly he called, as to describe his NATURE and OFFICE.

       
  11. Agape

    April 17, 2014 at 9:39 PM

    The Scriptures have been around before Constantine/Nicaea and the Roman Catholic Church. To say that those entities created the Bible is a weak argument. People that argue that point just don’t want to believe in the Bible.

    Alfred, I believe you made one vital error in your logic. Just because man may have written down the words for the Scripture doesn’t mean they did so erroneously. Mankind may be imperfect in general, but God is perfect so why is it so hard to believe that God can work through any man (divine inspiration to 40 authors) to do something perfectly? I say God can and God does.

    If you don’t want to believe the Bible as a whole (literally) then there is no reason to believe any of it, period!

    As far as which version? KJV is pretty accurate. The language is a bit old and not very Americanized. ESV is decent and so is the Geneva. The thing is… are these differences enough to say that the Bible is hogwash or are they still close enough to maintain the general spirit of what God wants us to know? I say the latter.

     
    • Henry

      April 17, 2014 at 10:20 PM

      Greetings, Agape.

      > “To say that those entities created the Bible is a weak argument. People that argue that point just don’t want to believe in the Bible.”

      Or, they just don’t want YOU to believe in the Bible.

      > “The language is a bit old and not very Americanized.”

      This is an irrelevant objection, in my opinion. The purpose of a Bible translation is not to be new or Americanized. The purpose of a Bible translation is to communicate the word of God. The KJV does an excellent job of this.

      The KJV was translated around 1600, when the English language had more or less reached its current form. A translation from 1400 would be difficult reading today, but 1600 is no obstacle.

       
    • J.M.

      April 17, 2014 at 10:24 PM

      Agape,

      @ > The Scriptures have been around before Constantine/Nicaea and the Roman Catholic Church. To say that those entities created the Bible is a weak argument. People that argue that point just don’t want to believe in the Bible.

      To some, it is mind over heart. If in the mind it does not fit, then it’s just more B.S. I “thought” the SAME way for a long time, e.g., It just doesn’t make sense, it just does not fit. I KNOW better now.The Messiah became thought of as insane, just like I am said to be. He was accused of having demons too, e.g., performing miracles through the power of Beelzebub. Not very many know that his Mother & his 1/2 brothers & sisters thought he was insane too.It’s hard to stay straight when we have so many condemning us. At least it is for me. moon, where are you? I guess this thread will soon get ugly too, if so, I’m out of here

       
    • J.M.

      April 18, 2014 at 8:32 AM

      Agape,

      @ > If you don’t want to believe the Bible as a whole (literally) then there is no reason to believe any of it, period!

      I agree. I don’t understand a lot of it either, but I don’t regard that which I do not understand as worthless. It is his love book for his Children. I understand thoroughly what is necessary to know. AND, I KNOW I will understand MORE as I YIELD MORE. But tell me Agape, what does the following mean as you understand it ? > and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:?????????

      15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. 2nd Peter 3:15-16

       
  12. MPK

    April 17, 2014 at 10:41 PM

    The words within the bible of God gives one wisdom to whom one can understand within his mind as Jesus said he would send the comforter to all to GUIDE who would want to seek with all there heart and mind the truth and become unto the understanding, to which one would become wise, and learn to sin no more, and to forgive those who are less fortunate in all things in the understanding that God has given us all to be able to understand, if only you set your mind to the task, and ask to be guided, but the many of this generation have become rebels, lovers of thy self, liars, etc.

    No! the time has past and the end time generation must go its way unto its end, and do what must be done liken unto Judas did to the son of God, so will the many of this last generation do unto the nations of people, and unto the remnant that will be left.

    Man has reached that point to rebuild Babylon, bring back the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah out into the open and upon all nations, and the whore that sits on its seven hills is ever drunk with blood of saints is all powerful, but its time is limited, and the antichrist waits for his time to ride into the political arena and save a degenerated generation fallen by its own indulgence in evil ways and acts of the powerful few over the ignorant many.

    What will come shall come, what will be will be. Pray that your eyes be open and ask to be guided to the light of truth, that you may hold onto in the coming times of darkness and that you are of the few who see all things completed.

    I can’t give you what is given to me to understand as you will reject it, as Christ was rejected, for the many who do not understand are not of God the father, and shall reject the truth, and not understand and shall do unto their ways. You are all responsible for all what you do, including keeping your own self ignorant. In your hearts and minds you all know what is good, and what is evil, after all you have the tree of knowledge within you all, and all shall be judged by what you all do, none shall escape, and ignorance is not and never can be used as an excuse for the evil you do and have done and of what others do. You are also your brothers keeper as he is unto you. yet you allow evil to do as it please.

    You say nothing then you are truly in the teaching of evil and have learnt Satan’s creed of being in mind of the three blind monkeys, “See no Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak not of Evil” then be of total ignorance and allow evil to prosper and grow like weeds to choke and kill the wheat before the harvest of God’s time to come.

    There are many way to express to what is given to understand, but it still carries the basic message to know what is to come, and what will be. What is a major crime to GOD? it is to be self ignorant of evil and its ways and its wants and how it corrupts people we place into power.

    People in power are liken birds of a feather, and they do flock together, and they now work towards a common goal, and its by consent or by any means of conquest, which including’s War, Threats, Assignations, Lies, and the people just don’t count and are pawns to be used, abused, and disused, and finally eradicated by mass means’ natural and by manmade ways, poverty, famine, educational and non-educational ignorance, the list goes on. the shame is upon you all for the way the world is, blame no other, but you who call your selves educated and you who call your selves enlighten, yes enlighten by the Darkness, enlighten by your own delusions and self importance, enlighten by others less holy but preach indoctrination of your man made church’s that follow the whore, that lap at the feet of a Man.

    God gives the words, God gives the understanding, God gives wisdom by his guidance to what is his, and shall be, and God gives warning to all before the days come.
    The 144,000.

    MPK.

     
    • J.M.

      April 17, 2014 at 11:33 PM

      MPK

      @ > I can’t give you what is given to me to understand as you will reject it, as Christ was rejected, for the many who do not understand are not of God the father, and shall reject the truth, and not understand and shall do unto their way.

      It is my understanding that when a red letter reply button is available under a comment, & a message appears under that comment, the message is meant for the poster above which is me, Jim,aka J.M. IF I am understanding correctly, what is it you say, I will reject? What is it I am not understanding? What have I posted previously to cause you to arrive at this conclusion, that I am not of God the Father, & I will reject the truth and not understand and shall do unto my own way ?. I have a feeling you, MPK will not respond to these questions. In the thread where the Pope appeared, he said he was speaking to the people from the “heart” Right? I speak from the heart too. Does this say I am a man after the Pope’s own heart? If you think so, this not true. WE ALL speak from the heart.

       
    • J.M.

      April 18, 2014 at 8:22 AM

      MPK,

      What does the following mean, especially, > and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:?????????

      15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

       
  13. J.M.

    April 18, 2014 at 8:45 AM

    Let’s not play games.ok ???

     
  14. PhoenixRISING

    April 18, 2014 at 9:52 PM

    I’m encouraged that many here agree that calling any version perfect is dubious at best. But it gets much murkier when you try and research the original creation of the New Testament. It was a personal search into the origins of the NT, whilst a Christian and pursuing the ‘truth’, that convinced me that it was naive to believe that the NT is the infallible word of God. Now that I see how religion is a tool of control, I am even more convinced that the NT was created and perverted by those who use religion to control people.

    I know Christianity is ‘not’ a religion… well… yes and no. It is not ‘suppose’ to be a religion, but man turned it into one, and well before Emperor Constantine had the NT ‘created’ by decree. By the 3rd century Jesus’s message had already been turned into a religion. The very fact you had Bishops proves this. Jesus came to destroy the religion of the Jews, the very core of his message was you do not need a priest(or bishop, pastor, minister, etc) to access God. There should be NO authority figure between you as an individual and God. This is how people are deceived, when they allow someone else to speak for God.

    Read/reread the Gospels. Identify what his core message is, and the relative few instructions he gave on what a follower/believer/disciple should be doing. Imo it is very important to ‘identify’ who Jesus’s enemies were and what they represented. For this clearly defines what Jesus was about. Jesus was not making a prophetic utterance when he said he would be killed. He was directly challenging the very foundations of Jewish culture. It was his enemies that convinced me that Jesus was a real man.

    For the record I was a KJV reader, and highly recommend blueletterbible.org for studying scripture. I believe there is a Creator, and that Jesus was a real man, but no religion or religious text is an accurate representation of the Creator or was created by the Creator. All religion is a creation of man. I am not trying to discourage anyone from being a follower of Jesus Christ, quite the opposite, but I discourage all from being a religious Christian.

    I believe we are all spiritual beings. I believe the Creator created our spirits to be free. I believe Jesus purpose was to free all people from the different parts of life that enslave us. Sin, unforgiveness, greed, and all the systems man has created to control people; religion, government, law, etc. Peace.

     
    • dejure

      December 24, 2014 at 5:25 PM

      Ray, regarding Christianity, I have, for some time, been troubled with that Christianity did not (could not) exist until after Jesus came to spread his father’s word and make his father’s name manifest. After that, it became a religion and the father whose kingdom Jesus came to talk of was forgotten, or was converted to just another part of Jesus.

      Would I be incorrect saying Christianity appears to be much like Christmas? The latter focuses on Jesus, as a weak baby. Similarly, Christianity seems to focus on Jesus in his fail, human condition. More so if you accept the trinity doctrine.

       
  15. pop de adam

    April 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM

    Hi Al,

    “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    Why was this commandment/statement made? I might understand it as a guard against idolatry or a way to make easier to identify such. Craven images and idolatry are seen as threatening. The statement itself acknowledges the possibility of a plurality of gods. So this God demands primacy, a plurality might have a good idea, but this might be rejected on the premise that it has its’ origins amongst a plurality. Would an omnipotent being really care about such a petty thing, this omnipotence concievably should be able to project the power and energy of a plurality of beings itself. So why would this god care about this plurality of possibilities. Perhaps he wants all the credit himself(vainity)? This smacks of a human frailty, and makes me think this is actually a manipulation by the hand of man.

    This is a decree from a vulnerable position. A true god would have no need for such a declaration, the proof would be the proof. Deeds and results become facts. Declarations can be disproven.

    For an alternative:

    A judge declares “Ignorance of the the law is no excuse to the breaking the law” and we are a people of “laws not men”. Without this judges’ ministrations, in his opinion there would be anarchy and chaos. The fact that they believe this is evidence this chaos exists. If chaos exists how can anyone be faulted for abiding by the rules of chaos? They would have us believe the world is reasoned and orderly but this is refuted by the fact that they exist and are always at war with this expression of entropy. Someone might point it out to them that they are the ones not following the “plan”, they are the one authoring a new one. Who carries out the law in its’ finality? Men(or people, or them, or her).

    We might be ignorant to the letter of the law, but to break it we must knowingly do so. An avalanche can kill a man, however this is not murder.

    Pardon if I have rambled. -Pop

     
    • EarlatOregon

      April 21, 2014 at 2:54 PM

      It is a Notice.

      = Fair Warning

      and Mercy.
      .
      .

       
  16. bobhurt

    April 19, 2014 at 3:02 PM

    Alfred, thanks for the incisive analysis. Bottom line you have demonstrated that the bible is not the word of God, and constitutes an unreliable source of both history and religion. At best it shows the secular history of the Hebrews/Jews and the EVOLUTION of the concept of God and his relationship with mankind collectively and individually IN THE MIND of humans in the areas surrounding the Mideast. According to Thomas Paine, in his Age of Reason, the bible text destroys its own credentials quite aside from questions about its sketchy origins. My dissatifaction with the Bible, the religio-babble of Paul, and the denominational bickering led me to begin a study of The Urantia Book over 40 years ago. As a consequence I recommend it to all truth seekers, particularly those tired of preachers and others threatening hell fire and damnation to all who don’t the crucifixion of Jesus as a pagan human sacrifice to atone for man’s sins so that man might have relationship with God.

     
    • Henry

      April 19, 2014 at 4:32 PM

      “Bottom line you have demonstrated that the bible is not the word of God…”

      Not really. The evidence presented only demonstrates that translations of scripture are not always accurate.

       
    • Adask

      April 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM

      What I’ve attempted to demonstrate is that 1) the Bible is not the exact word of God; and 2) faith is necessarily based on uncertainty rather than a claim of absolute knowledge. If the Bible were perfect, it might be a detriment to our faith. A perfect Bible would supply us with absolute knowledge, but I don’t think it would supply us with any faith.

       
  17. Cody

    April 19, 2014 at 5:31 PM

    A monotheistic religion that cites its passages from its own “scripture” as the authority by which it proves itself true? Wow. Now that’s one circular way to get to the bottom of the truth.

    Anyway, inerrancy supporters have a tendency not to give any credibility from other creation and flood accounts, other than those in the Bible. There are plenty that are older than the Genesis account. “Christian” leaders hide these inconvenient facts from their followers. Is there any reason beyond profit to do so? Is really in the interest of the “truth?”

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalization?s=t

     
    • Henry

      April 19, 2014 at 8:21 PM

      Cody,

      No one, at least no one rational, is arguing that scripture is inerrant ONLY because scripture says so. That would be ridiculous.

      A better scriptural argument to prove that scripture is inerrant PRESUPPOSES a belief that all explicit and unambiguous assertions found in (the original texts of) the Bible are correct.

      Every argument, on any subject, starts with certain presuppositions. In the case of arguments from scripture, one of these premises is usually that the Bible is correct in its explicit and unambiguous assertions.

      For example, as someone mentioned above:

      2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

      This verse of course refers to the original texts of scripture, not the translations.

      If someone wants to claim that scripture, in whole or in part, is not the word of God, then, to be consistent, they must reject at least one explicit and unambiguous assertion of scripture, namely this verse in 2nd Timothy.

       
      • Adask

        April 20, 2014 at 12:20 AM

        What, exactly, was “scripture” when 2nd Timothy was written? According to one source (http://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html), the chronological order of the books of the New Testament is:
        James – 50 A.D.
        First Thessalonians – 52-53.
        Second Thessalonians – 52-53.
        Galatians – 55.
        First Corinthians – 57.
        Second Corinthians – 57.
        Romans – 57-58.
        Philippians – 62-63.
        Colossians – 62-63.
        Philemon – 62-63.
        Ephesians – 62-63.
        Luke – 63.
        Acts – 64.
        First Timothy – 65.
        Titus – 65.
        Second Timothy – 66.
        Mark – 66.
        Matthew – 67.
        Hebrews – 67.
        First Peter – 67-68.
        Second Peter – 68.
        Jude – 68.
        Apocalypse – 68.
        John – c. 85.
        Epistles of John – 90-95.

        Note that, of the Gospels, only Luke was written before 2nd Timothy. More, it’s at least possible that Luke (written in A.D. 63) wasn’t even known to the Paul when he penned 2nd Timothy in A.D. 66.

        For sure, the books Mark – 66, Matthew – 67, Hebrews – 67, First Peter – 67-68, Second Peter – 68, Jude – 68, Apocalypse – 68, John – c. 85, and Epistles of John – 90-95 were alleged to have been written AFTER 2nd Timothy.

        Should we presume 2nd Timothy was prophetic in that its reference to “scripture” even applied to those books of Bible that hadn’t yet been written? Or should we presume that the only “scriptures” referred to in 2nd Timothy were those books written before 2nd Timothy and therefore not to the nine books of the New Testament written after 2nd Timothy?

        It’s even possible that Paul used of the word “scriptures” in 2nd Timothy 3:16 to refer only to the books of the Old Testament.

        I’m not arguing that any of these possibilities is God’s truth. I am arguing that these explanations are possible and that the meaning of 2nd Timothy 3:16 is not necessarily as absolute as some suppose.

         
      • Henry

        April 20, 2014 at 10:06 AM

        It seems to me that by “all scripture” Paul meant, well, all scripture. There’s no sign he was contemplating only scripture recognized as such in his own day, which would imply a lesser status for scripture added later.

        Paul appears to be stating a general truth about the nature of scripture itself, applicable at all times. Also consider that the letter in which this “all scripture” statement appears was intended by God to benefit and instruct mankind even today, when the full New Testament is part of scripture.

         
  18. Peg-Powers

    April 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM

    The Bible is a bibliography…..made up of a set of individual fiction and non-fiction books from which one might piece together a historical and magnificent chain of truth. Our forefathers labored long over this written history and it should be properly appreciated by the progeny it was intended to reach. He who claims the writings are “perfect” is needlessly fooling himself. All the Bibles could be burned tomorrow, yet it would not change one devoted, loving heart which walks and abides in the reality of God’s holy presence, the living word.

    I am truly blessed to read your essay today, Alfred. Thank you.

     
  19. Adask

    April 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

    Henry, if: 1) Paul meant “ALL scripture”–not just the books of the Bible previously written and known before he wrote 2nd Timothy around A.D. 66; and 2) “scripture” meant “God-inspired” or “God-breathed”–then Paul was a prophet who was referring to the complete Bible which wouldn’t even be written, known or chosen until Constantine published what may have been the first 50 Bibles back about A.D. 331.

    Paul presumably knew of some bible-like books that had been written prior to A.D. 66. Did Paul regard any of those early books as “scripture” even though they were later declared to be “apocrypha” ?

    And why did God stop “inspiring” or “breathing” books of the Bible sometime after the first complete Bibles were written in the A.D. 300s? What evidence is there that God didn’t continue to “breathe”/”inspire” even more books after the Council of Nicea and after Constantine published the first 50 Bibles?

    For example, are the books of the Mormons “God-inspired”/”God-breathed”? Did Paul also intend to include the books of the Mormon faith (that wouldn’t be written for at least another 18 centuries) in his A.D. 66 reference to “scripture”? Whatever your answer may be, how do you know?

    Is God still “inspiring”/”breathing” new “scriptures” to this day? Whatever your answer, how do you know?

    Could God still “inspire”/”breathe” new “scriptures” today or at some time in the future? Whatever your answer, how do you know?

    If God did “inspire”/”breathe” another book of “scripture” today or at some future date, how would we know that the new book was definitely “God-inspired”?

    My point, again, is that faith is evidence of things unseen–i.e., faith is always based on some uncertainty rather than absolute knowledge. 2nd Timothy 3:16 leaves lots of room for uncertainty. We are all free to believe or disbelieve 2nd Timothy 3:16, but we are not all free to absolutely know the limits, meaning or truth of that verse.

     
    • EDOMS THORN

      April 20, 2014 at 12:34 PM

      `

      `

      There are many “opinions cocernin the Apocryphal Books, Some source’s do not include the Book of JASHER in the list of books of the Apocrypha. Why is it not considered a part of scripture
      http:*//www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm‎

      Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

      2 Samuel 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

      Michael Hoffman III in “Bible Wars – The Conspiracy Against the Douay
      Rheims Vulgate and the Geneva Apocrypha.” says, in essence, that the
      books of the Apocrypha were removed because they gave us (JACOB) the
      keys to defeating EDOM!
      A small quote from one of his references:
      “A similar emphasis is found in the writings of the Protestant exegete Richard Kelly Hoskins: ‘The history of Jacob from the time of their return from captivity to the coming of Jesus Christ is missing from today’s Bible. It appears that it was universally censored from today’s Bible in the 1830s. The reason that the Apocrypha was
      censored, in my opinion, is that it revealed too much information about how to wage successful war against Esau.’

      Esdras 6:9 …”For Esau is the end of this age, and Jacob is the
      beginning of the age that follows”… That is the N.W.O. and the soon coming KINGDOM Of GOD!

      According to the book of Jasher, Edom’s connection with Babylon started with Esau’s desire to obtain “the valuable garments of Nimrod, with which Nimrod prevailed over the whole land” (Jasher 27:10). Nimrod (HAM’S descendant) was the first tyrant or king over Babylon, the first one after the Flood to establish a “kingdom” and that Kingdom was the first ‘spirit’ of the N.W.O. (Gen.10:9-10). According to the book of Jasher, Esau actually is the one who killed Nimrod and “fought a desperate fight,” with two of his aides and killed them, and then fled with Nimrod’s garments. Did his garments hold some occult power, and did Edom know that? ‘Nimrod’ means “rebellion” or “he rebelled,” from the Hebrew word ‘marad’.

       
      • UglyTruth

        April 21, 2014 at 6:18 PM

        > Did his garments hold some occult power, and did Edom know that?

        Garments belong to the person, the focus on the person describes the superficial or secular nature of the people of Babylon.

         
    • Henry

      April 20, 2014 at 1:24 PM

      Adask said, “…then Paul was a prophet who was referring to the complete Bible which wouldn’t even be written, known or chosen until Constantine…”

      Or, if Paul wasn’t a full-fledged prophet, he was at least inspired by God, which accounts for his foresight. In fact, the plan God had for Paul’s writings continues to the present day.

      What scriptures came after Paul, and how long they did (or will) come after him, is another subject. Likewise for which books Paul did and did not consider scriptural.

      The point as present is, if you count a given text as part of scripture – and you believe Paul (in a statement intended for Christian readers today) when he says “all scripture” is inspired by God – then logic requires you to conclude the text in question is inspired by God.

       
    • EarlatOregon

      April 21, 2014 at 2:41 PM

      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

      To Al Adask

      Re:
      And why did God stop “inspiring” or “breathing” books of the Bible
      sometime after the first complete Bibles were written in the A.D. 300s?

      What evidence is there that God didn’t continue to “breathe”/”inspire” even more books
      after the Council of Nicea and after Constantine published the first 50 Bibles?

      For example, are the books of the Mormons “God-inspired”/”God-breathed”?
      Did Paul also intend to include the books of the Mormon faith
      (that wouldn’t be written for at least another 18 centuries)
      in his A.D. 66 reference to “scripture”?

      Whatever your answer may be, how do you know?

      Is God still “inspiring”/”breathing” new “scriptures” to this day?
      Whatever your answer, how do you know?

      Could God still “inspire”/”breathe” new “scriptures” today
      or at some time in the future?

      Whatever your answer, how do you know?

      If God did “inspire”/”breathe” another book of “scripture” today
      or at some future date,
      how would we know that the new book was definitely “God-inspired”?

      Read Galations in the New Testament

      Galations 1:6
      I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him
      who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

      7 which is not another;
      but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

      8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven,
      preach any other gospel to you
      than what we have preached to you,
      let him be accursed.

      9 As we have said before, so now I say again,
      if anyone preaches any other gospel
      to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

      10 For do I now persuade men, or God?

      Or do I seek to please men?

      For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

      11 But I make known to you, brethren,
      that the gospel which was preached by me
      is not according to man.

      12 For I neither received it from man,
      nor was I taught it,
      but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

      it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .

       
  20. Tony

    April 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM

    Do not have time to read the entire article right now, but even so I want to share a conviction I have carried for a long time.

    I am convinced that God satisfies His purpose partly through the Bible. And I am extremely unconvinced the Bible has to be 100% perfect in order for that satisfaction to take place.

    Blessings,

    Tony

     
    • hskiprob

      April 21, 2014 at 12:23 PM

      I prefer the conviction that God gives us the ability to do as he wishes each one of us to do in our lives and that it is not a one fit all doctrine and thus we are left to have a relationship with God exclusive of those who find themselves overly self righteous in their convictions that want to regulate the lives and affairs of others. The idea that if someone does not believe as the Church does, or some written dogma, that they are therefore infidels, is appalling to me. The God given ability to have common sense, must be for a good reason.

       
  21. Lyndon

    April 21, 2014 at 9:40 PM

    The Bible is a lovely book with some of the best advice a man can go by. I can’t follow it perfectly, and I’ve never seen anyone who can, therefore, to me, it matters little how perfectly accurately it is as an historical record. Why not take the stories as allegory and the spirit/intent as wisdom?

     
    • hskiprob

      April 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM

      Great points Lyndon

       
      • Lyndon

        April 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM

        Thanks hskiprob

         
  22. Tony

    April 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM

    Well, I am going to add a “J.M. related post.”

    I have no idea what article it was, but someone posted a decent reply (no provocation whatsoever) and ended it with “Carry on” to which J.M. replied to the effect that does he think he has the authority to decide whether or not folks can dialogue?

    Taking a well-known expression and using it as a device to stir 100% unnecessary provocation.

    you gotta be kidding me.

    J.M. (in his reply to Al):
    “Well hate to tell you this, find yourself another sucker. ”

    It was never about you. No worries as it’s about none of us.

     
  23. Kelly Craig

    May 20, 2014 at 10:38 AM

    Just a note, or two, as food for thought:

    1) There are many who sought to discredit the Bible. They pointed to scriptures and made light of what they thought could not be. For example, the Bible talked about two rulers in one kingdom and that both ruled a single kingdom at the same time. Only a few decades ago, it was proven this was true. It was a father and son team. Today, we see other examples of “kingdoms” by names like “Fred and Son’s, Inc.”

    2) Gods name was in the King James Bible version countless times. It was removed, however, and replaced with God. In all other places, it is spelled using the lower case (Jesus said there are many Gods).

    3) I speak the same language as people from Louisiana. However, the way each of us pronounce words and names is so different, we have difficulty understanding each other. While many think they know how God’s name (the one Jesus said he made manifest) is pronounced, they do not. Our English language has altered so much people from even a few hundred years ago would be hard pressed to understand us, regardless of what part of the several states we claim as home.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s