KILLING SACRED COWS #1 - PROCEED WITH CAUTION!

With this entry, I am starting a series of blog posts addressing beliefs and doctrines that are widely popular in the Church, but I no longer accept them.  I wanted to wait before putting anything out in the public arena, but I have been challenged by a couple of friends to speak up.  One says the Church needs to let go now of wrong doctrine and come into a clearer view of the Truth.  The other one says that not speaking out can have unwanted consequences, as when someone knows of some danger, but they don’t speak out, and other people are hurt by their silence and inaction.

So the gauntlet has been thrown.  I must respond.

Before I even present the first sacred cow, I have a few comments to make:

People do become attached to doctrines, and they let their doctrines define them.  We must overcome this tendency, because that is one that Jesus and the Apostles had to fight when they encountered resistance from religious people.  Now, I am not calling anyone religious, but even believers who diligently seek after Truth can be deceived by doctrine that sounds good.

So, understand this, I AM NOT ATTACKING YOU!  I am only attacking doctrine that is untrue.  If you are a born-again believer, I care about you.  I want you to know the truth.

If you have difficulty reading my comments, please stop reading and go look at something else for a while.  Give your emotions time to cool down.  Then divorce yourself from your emotional attachment to your doctrine and come back.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the first ‘sacred cow’ doctrine up for slaughter:

THE BIBLE SAYS THAT HEAVEN HAS STREETS PAVED WITH GOLD.

Does it really say that?  If so, where?

The passage that is usually cited for this is in Revelation 21: 10 - 22: 5.  Let’s take a close look at it.

“And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
   “And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.  And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
   “And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.  And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.  And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.  And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
   “And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.  And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.”
(Rev 21:9-22:5 KJV)

Now, I normally use the New American Standard version, but I will use the KJV this time.  I quoted the entire passage to show that I am not taking things out of context, but I will be looking at details that we often overlook.

Is this passage talking about heaven?  No.  Look at the first two verses:

Rev 21:9 "And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.  (10)  And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,"

Notice what the angel said he would show John, and also notice what John said he saw.

The angel said he would show John the Bride, the Lamb’s wife.  No mention of heaven there.

John said he saw the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending OUT OF heaven and coming from God.  Okay, this verse mentions heaven, but it clearly states it is not talking about all of heaven, just the city of Jerusalem.

We often call this the New Jerusalem, but that name is not given in this passage.  However, in Rev. 21:2, John said he saw the city of New Jerusalem coming down OUT OF heaven.  In both verses, 2 and 9, the terms “coming down” and “descending” come from the same Greek word, ‘katabaino.’  This word always carries the idea of downward movement.  In other places, it is rendered as come, go, get, step, or fall down.  What the angel showed John was a city leaving heaven.

But, what is this passage really talking about?  It’s not talking about a place, it’s talking about a people - THE CHURCH!

What is a city without people?  It is just a place that has a lot of unoccupied buildings, or the ruins and remnants of buildings.

I live in Kiefer, Oklahoma.  Despite being a small town, it played a big role in the development of Tulsa from a small city on the Arkansas River into the one-time Oil Capitol of the World.  But Kiefer is not just a place, it is people.  Without people, Kiefer would be a ghost town.  The state of Oklahoma has many such towns.  All you will find of some of them is a road sign that indicates where the town once was, but people may still refer to that area by the name of the town.  Kiefer is not the town it once was, but it is definitely not a ghost town!

Now, when I pay my city utility bill for gas, sewer, and trash service, I take my bill and a check over to city hall, and a PERSON there will take my check, stamp the bill, detach the stub and hand it back to me.  If I were to report a crime in my neighborhood, the Kiefer Police will show up to investigate.  If I report a fire, volunteer firefighters from Kiefer will come to put out the fire.

I guess you get my point by now:  People make a place into a city, and not the place that makes a people.

But who are these people that John is talking about?  They are us, The Church!

For a moment, let us consider these verses:

“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”
Rom 7:1-4 KJV 

This passage tells us that we are married to Christ.  But is that individually, or collectively?  Or both?  It is both!

Now, we know from Pastor Dave Roberson’s teaching on the Born Again Trail, that Romans 7 is talking about a Jew who is not born again and is still under the Law of Moses.  These verses then show us that Jews who are born again are no longer under, or married, to the Law of Moses.  They are now married to Christ.

But what about Gentile believers?  Aren’t we married to Christ also?  Yes we are!

Now, consider Galatians 3.  I won’t quote the whole chapter here because I need to make you do your own homework anyway, so go read it now, and come back.  I will direct your attention to verses 6 - 9 and 26 - 28.

Paul wrote this letter to Christians in Galatia who had been seduced into subjecting themselves to the Law of Moses.  To free them from this false responsibility, Paul made the following points:

1. Salvation, healing, and the miraculous works of the Spirit come through faith, not Law.

2. Abraham operated in faith before the Law, and those who operate in faith share in Abraham‘s blessings.

3. The Law was temporarily added to Abraham’s covenant because of man’s sin nature, and the Law was a tutor to point people, especially Jews, towards Christ.

4. If you are in Christ, you do not need the Law to obtain or even maintain your relationship with God, no matter who you are, and you are not only God’s child, you are Abraham’s child as well, and a participant in Abraham’s covenant.

Therefore, if God makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile for those who are in Christ, and if born-again Jews are married to Christ, then born-again Gentiles are also married to Him.

(Side note - a marriage is also a covenant.)

Okay, so I’ve talked about us being married to Christ, but what does that have to do with the city of New Jerusalem being the Church?  Look at Eph. 5: 22 - 32:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.   For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.   Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;   That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.  He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

This passage makes quite clear that The Church = The Bride of Christ.  Now, consider that Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians were written BEFORE Revelations.  The Apostle John, having lived in Ephesus towards the end of the first century, must have known what Paul had already written concerning The Church being The Bride of Christ.  So, when the angel told John about the Bride of the Lamb, John immediately knew he would be seeing The Church.

In case you need me to spell it out more clearly:

The Bride = The Wife of The Lamb = The City of New Jerusalem

Jesus Christ = The Lamb

Therefore

The Bride, The Wife of The Lamb = The Bride of Christ = The New Jerusalem = The Church

So, the image of The City of New Jerusalem is a symbolic representation of the Church.  I won’t go into details of what each item represents, except for one, but I need to say one more thing about this in context.

Consider the first 3 verses of Rev. 21 -

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.  And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.  And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.”

John saw The New Jerusalem AFTER the creation of The New Heaven and The New Earth.  The New Jerusalem is a picture of The Church in The New Creation, after The Millennium!  In this City of New Jerusalem, God is going to come to live with us!

Now, let’s take a closer look at Rev. 21:21:

“And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.”

Ok, now we are getting around to the “Streets of Gold.”  But did you take a really close look at the second half of that sentence?  It doesn’t say “streets“, it says “STREET!”

And the verse doesn’t even mention pavement.  You can have a street without pavement.  Ever see a Western?, Not many paved streets in the Old West back then.  You can also have a pavement without a street.  Most parking lots are paved.  Modern cities usually require parking lots to have a sealed or paved surface.

So, the STREET of The New Jerusalem is not paved with gold, it is gold!

The Greek word translated “street” is ‘platus’ or ‘plateia.’  It means a wide road, street or place.  I haven’t searched it out yet, but this word might have been adapted into Latin and Spanish, and become the basis for the English word “plaza.”

Now, consider the dimensions of The New Jerusalem.  Here I will refer to the NASV, because it has already converted the dimensions into modern measurements.

Rev 21:15-16 NASV  "The one who spoke with me had a gold measuring rod to measure the city, and its gates and its wall.  (16)  The city is laid out as a square, and its length is as great as the width; and he measured the city with the rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal."

Now, this describes a cube.  The length of each edge of each side of the cube is 1,500 miles long.

Let’s consider what these measurements would mean if this were a physical cube.

The Contiguous 48 States, also known as the Lower 48 by people in Alaska, is about 3,000 miles across.  Placing a 1,500 mile x 1,500 mile x 1,500 mile cube on top of those states would cover half of that area, extend well up into Canada, and reach well into outer space.  For reference, the troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere where weather occurs, is only 12 miles thick at the equator, and 6 miles high at the North and South Poles.

Imagine that, a city that would cover most of North America, it extends well beyond the atmosphere, and it has ONLY ONE STREET?!?

Still think that this passage is describing a physical city?

Like I said, I would describe only one of the symbolic representations in the passage about the City of New Jerusalem.  I’m not going to blast away a false doctrine without bringing out Truth to replace it.

What does this “street of gold” represent?  It represents the divine nature of The Church, or the born again spirits of believers who make up the City of New Jerusalem. 

In the Bible, God set much of the symbolism in the Old Testament, especially in the Tabernacle of Moses.

The Tabernacle of Moses itself was a tent with two chambers, and that was surrounded by an outer court.  The two chambers were the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.

The only metals used in the outer court were bronze and silver, and no gold was used or seen in the outer court.  Gold was the only metal used inside the two chambers of the Tabernacle, where the priests would minister in or before God’s presence.  Every piece of furniture there was either made entirely of gold, or completely covered with gold.  Therefore, gold is closely associated with God’s presence, and represents divine nature.

If you want a more in depth explanation of the symbolism incorporated into the Tabernacle of Moses, I can recommend a book, Let Us Draw Near, by Judson Cornwall.

Now, what about the people who died, went to heaven, and then came back, or they had a dream or vision of heaven, and they describe what they had seen as matching the popular doctrine?  I don’t care what they had seen.  I’m not going to deny that they saw what they said they had seen, but I’m not going to base doctrine on what anyone SAYS he has seen if it doesn’t measure up to the Word.

Col 2:18-19 NASV  "Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,  (19)  and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God."

Now, I am not dismissing teaching visions and dreams.  These help to explain and clarify Scripture, but not establish doctrine.

I know that many songs have been written about heaven, and they often mention streets of gold, but I remember hearing only one song from long ago that almost got it right.  That song said that heaven will be heaven because Jesus will be there.  Actually, Jesus is already there.  He is also here, and in our hearts as well.

Now, one final issue to examine concerning this doctrine: Just how dangerous is it?  What harm is there in believing that heaven has streets paved with gold?

At the very least, it is a distraction that draws attention away from Jesus.  Ever hear of that accusation made against some believers that they are so heavenly-minded that they are no earthly good, meaning that they are so focused on heaven that they will neglect even the most basic earthly needs of others?  The appeal of walking on "streets of gold" blinds them to the needs of people around them.   I remember hearing of someone on a missionary trip that tried to hand out Bibles to an impoverished area, but the people refused them saying, “We can’t eat your Bibles.”  That does not measure up to the example of Jesus, Who healed, delivered, and even fed multitudes.

At the worst, this doctrine reflects carnal thinking that allows believers to accept or continue to believe other false doctrine.  Too many believers today have an escapist mentality fed by beliefs like this.  Who wouldn’t want to escape a dreary or dreadful life of poverty, hunger, sickness, injury or violence to go live in a mansion in a city with streets of gold?  No wonder so many people also fall for the false prosperity teachings, for they too are carnal doctrines that offer people an easy escape from their woes.  Acceptance of one carnal doctrine makes acceptance of other carnal doctrines easier.

And speaking of escapism, wait until I get into Sacred Cow Doctrine #2!

Gay Marriage - Different Angle

OK, so I see a lot of bellyaching and grousing by Christians about the Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage.  Much of the same rhetoric gets regurgitated and repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Well, I prefer to look at this issue from a different angle.

First of all, what is marriage?

The typical response from many Christians and conservatives is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Then they go on to say that the gays are redefining marriage and this constitutes an attack on the family and the laws of God.

Well, the first part is right, but it doesn't go far enough.   As for the rest, we'll see....

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but what kind of a union?

Some with a scholarly background might say, "Ah! A covenant!"  Right they are.... but what kind of a covenant?

A marriage is a BLOOD COVENANT.

A blood covenant is made by the mingling of the blood of the parties making the covenant.   The ceremonies and rituals for making blood covenants vary from place to place and culture to culture, but since ancient times all cultures have had knowledge and practices revolving around blood covenants.  Common to all blood covenant ceremonies is that the participants will shed their own blood, or the blood of a substitute, into a vessel where the blood of all participants is mingled together.  This mingling of blood equals the joining of the life forces of the participants.  Through blood covenants, allies can become family, and even enemies can become family.

The one exception to the shedding of blood in making a blood covenant is marriage.  In a marriage, the mingling of blood comes through sexual intercourse.  This only happens when the male seed encounters the female egg.

Now the eggs don't always get fertilized and lead to the beginning of a new life, but that is not the main event under consideration.  The mingling of blood through sexual intercourse is.  This is why a marriage is not consider consummated, or completed, until sexual intercourse has occurred.

Of course, this mingling of blood doesn't happen between two men, or two women.

So, no mingling of blood, no blood covenant.  No blood covenant, no marriage.

In case your can't see where I'm heading with this, let me say it plainly: Gay marriage doesn't exist!  Ain't no such thing!

Taking two people involved in a homosexual relationship, and sanctifying it with a ceremony, and calling their relationship a marriage is like taking a pig, putting horseshoes, a saddle, and halter on him and calling him a horse!  Just dressing him up that way and calling him a horse doesn't make him one. 

So, to me, they can pass all the laws they want, have all the court cases and decisions they want, even have referendums creating laws that say two people of the same gender can get married, and that alone doesn't make it so.  All the laws and court decisions are nothing but LIES!  If Christians are to be upset about anything regarding the Supreme Court decision, they should be upset over the LIE!

But, then again, is this something Christians should get upset over?  How many times do we see politicians, of all political persuasions, get caught in a lie?  This has happened so much, we don't even get upset over it anymore.  We even joke about it.  "When can you tell if a politician is lying?  When his lips are moving!"

For Christians, the biggest concern we should have about gays is not that they are trying to validate their lifestyle through so-called marriage, but that they are spiritually dead.  If they die physically while spiritually dead, they face eternity without God.  The biggest threat of "gay marriage" then is not to families, or the concept of family, but to God's family.  Gay people who think they are okay with God, but are not, are outside of God's family, in this life and in eternity.  God wants them in His family, but lies that make homosexuality acceptable keep people out of His family.  As long as people think they are already okay with God when they are spiritually dead, then they see no need of Jesus.

That is what we should be most concerned about relating to gays - the loss to the family of God by gays not being born again.

You want to see an end to the "gay problem?"  Then pray.  Pray for revival.  Pray for the gays.  Pray for them, not just as a group, but specifically for any individual that you know is gay.  Pray that the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to see Jesus!

LOST IN THE TRANSLATIONS?

A preacher I admire recently said something that disturbed me.  He spoke about the connection between the renewing of the mind and the development of dendrites, or neural connections, in the human brain.  He added that research has shown that reading the King James Version of the Bible is the best way to develop dendrites.
   I didn’t have a problem with those comments.  In fact, I found them to be quite interesting.  What he said next did disturb me.
   He turned to a particular passage in the New Testament where the KJV uses the word “of” in a key phrase, but some translations use the word “in.”  He then stated that the “in” translations were abominations!  That disturbed me, because I use one of the “in” translations, and I regard it as more reliable than the KJV.
   I know some will see my last statement as controversial.  But don’t dismiss or condemn me until you have read all I have to say.

The first point I need to make is that no English translation is perfect.  That includes my favorite as well as yours.  They all have flaws.
   How can I say that?  Just consider all the English translations ever made, from those produced before the KJV and after the KJV up to today.  You will find dozens.  If someone had made a perfect English translation, why would they see the need to produce another?
   I know that my favorite, the New American Standard, is not perfect.  Let me show you where they made a mistake.
   In the passage where Paul talks about his thorn in the flesh, he says a messenger from Satan was sent to torment him, to stop his exaltation.  Now the traditional religious view is that Paul was becoming “puffed up” with pride over all the revelation knowledge he received, and the demon came to humiliate him.  The NASV seems to uphold this because it says, “Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me -- to keep me from exalting myself!” (2Cor. 12:7 NASV)  Other translations say, “… lest I should be exalted above measure.”
   I believe the NASV translators were influenced by tradition.  But is the traditional view correct?  As Al Borland used to say, “I don’t think so, Tim!”
   If Paul was exalting himself in pride, wouldn’t that be just what the devil wanted?  He knows that pride leads to a fall and destruction (Prov. 16:18, John 10:10).  If Paul was getting proud over his revelations, the devil would have left him alone, or he would have sent the demon to help speed up the process!
  Also, consider this passage, not only in the context of the letter where it occurs, but also context of Paul’s writings and life.
   The passage about Paul’s thorn in the flesh is in 2 Corinthians.  Paul wrote this letter to answer charges that he was not a true apostle.  He first wrote 1 Corinthians to deal with several problems in the Corinthian church.  I’m sure some didn’t like Paul’s correction, so they began to question his authority.  This opened the door for the false apostles to either come into the church, or to rise up from within their ranks to proclaim themselves as apostles and to take away Paul’s influence over the church.
   Even though he didn’t want to, Paul had to compare himself to the false apostles.  Instead of trying to impress the Corinthians with tales of mighty accomplishments, he enumerated his struggles on their behalf and for the Gospel’s sake.  He preferred to boast about his weaknesses, because God’s power accomplishes more through human weakness than through human strength.  That doesn’t sound like pride to me.
   Now, consider what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians.  As I said earlier, Paul dealt with several issues in the Corinthian church.  But all the issues had a common root:  spiritual immaturity.
   When dealing with the misuse of spiritual gifts, he said he would show them a better way, right before he begins talking about love in the 13th chapter, more popularly known as the Love Chapter.
  Towards the end of the Love Chapter, Paul makes a statement about putting away childish things.  In other words, he was talking about growing up.  What does that have to do with love?  Plenty!  Love is the mark of spiritual maturity.
   Humility is one of the characteristics of love (1 Cor. 13:8).
   Long before Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he had learned his lesson about humility.
   We often fail to realize that the Paul received his first revelation on the road to Damascus.  Before then, he had knowledge of the Scriptures, but not knowledge of the Truth.
   Right after his conversion, we see Paul at Damascus and at Jerusalem, debating with the Jews and presenting proof that Jesus was the Messiah promised to them long ago.  But what we don’t see is any record of salvations, healings, deliverances, or other miracles through Paul’s ministry.  Why don’t we see that?  Because Paul was operating in pride over the revelation knowledge he received.
   The only thing Paul accomplished through that approach was being run out of both Damascus and Jerusalem (Acts 9:20 - 30).
   After Paul left Jerusalem, he spent time in his hometown, Tarsus, praying, fasting, meditating, studying, worshiping, etc.  We don’t see him engaged in ministry again until Barnabas comes to fetch him to Antioch to help out with the Gentile church, not as an apostle, but as a teacher (Acts 11:19 - 26).
   I’m sure Paul gained many revelations at Tarsus, but he had already learned his lesson about pride.  If he was still operating in pride, he would have insisted the church at Antioch recognize him as an apostle.  After all, wasn’t he called to be an apostle during his Damascus road experience?  But Paul was not an apostle from the beginning.  He had to grow into his calling.  When he came to Antioch, he submitted to Barnabas and served the church as a teacher first.
  So, the passage about Paul’s thorn in the flesh wasn’t about Paul exalting himself because of his revelations, but it’s about Satan’s trying to stop God from exalting Paul in the Kingdom!
   So, no English translation is perfect.  That includes the King James version.  Now, if you have a problem with that statement, consider this:  Prayer Center preachers are some of the biggest critics of the KJV that I have seen!
   You probably know what I’m talking about.  First, they have the whole big ‘S’ - little ‘s’ thing about when the NT is speaking about the Holy Spirit or the believer’s born-again human spirit.
   Also, how many times have you heard a Prayer Center preacher read from the KJV and then say, “Well, that’s a little King Jamesy”?
   “King Jamesy”?  What’s wrong with “King Jamesy”?  Aren’t they as much as saying the KJV needs to be translated from Elizabethan English into Modern English?
    Besides that, when they do the “King Jamesy” thing, they usually go on to explain what the Bible is saying, and when they do, they often say the very same thing the NASV says.

So, which translation should you use?  That is ultimately up to you and the Holy Spirit.  Until He speaks to you, all I can do is to give you some information and advice to help you make the best decision you can.
  We’ll look at the original language texts used for translation, and the two approaches to the translation process.

Before someone can translate a document from one language into another, they must have the original text, or if the original is not available, a standardized text in the original language.
   The original texts of the Bible books no longer exist, but plenty of handwritten copies (manuscripts) do.  Some of the manuscripts are nothing more than fragments that might contain a few words, phrases, or sentences.  Some contain a nearly complete or complete book.  Some contain more than one book.  Some contain a complete Old Testament or New Testament.  Very few contain a complete Bible.
   Scholars have examined and compared these manuscripts to create the standardized original language texts used for translation.
   As they compared these manuscripts, they had to resolve variations in wording in some phrases.  The primary factor they would consider is how many manuscripts contained each variation, with the most weight given to the most common variation.  Other factors would include the visual quality (legibility) and the age of the manuscripts.
   The age of the manuscripts is also a factor in why scholars began to produce new translations.
   In the 1700’s and early 1800’s, explorers and archaeologists discovered additional manuscripts that were not known about, and therefore unavailable at the time of the King James translation process.  Also, many of these manuscripts were older than the manuscripts available in the early 1600's.  So, the scholars had to produce new original language texts.  More modern translations use these new standardized texts.
   If you don’t think this is important, consider this analogy:  What if we had no original manuscripts of Shakespeare’s writings, or copies dating back to his lifetime?  How could Shakespearean scholars and fans reliably know what he wrote?  Wouldn’t they go through the same process that Bible scholars went through to produce the original language texts for the Bible?  Wouldn’t they give the most weight to the oldest copies available?

Once scholars have produced a reliable standardized text, translators have to choose one of two approaches to translation: word-for-word, or thought-for-thought.
   Word-for-word is just what it sounds like it is.  The translator works word by word, taking one word at a time.  He first looks for a direct equivalent for each word, and if one is not available, then he will use his knowledge of the original language to pick a word or words that best represents or expresses the meaning of the original word.
   In the thought-for-thought approach, the translator looks at more than just one word at a time.  He looks at an entire phrase, clause, or sentence.  If that phrase occurs in other literature in the original language, then the translator is likely to use the rendering used in the translation of that other literature that contains that phrase.  The translator would do the same if the phrase was a common expression used by native speakers of that language.  The translator could also use a common English expression if one already exists that comes close to the phrase in the original language text.  Otherwise, the translator would have to the best he or she could, using his or her best understanding of the original language.
   The word-for-word approach is generally more literal than the thought-for-thought process.  Some consider the thought-for-thought approach to be not much more than a paraphrase.
   The thought-for-thought translations are generally easier to read, but the word-for-word translations are more reliable for establishing doctrine.

Most modern translations will explain in a Preface or Introduction which process was used, as well as which texts were used into the translation.  I’m sure you can find the same information online.

Beyond this information, I offer the following advice:
   Don’t’ accept any translation wholesale.  As I said earlier, all English translations are flawed.  Pick one you consider the most reliable to use most of the time for reading, study and meditation, but leave yourself open to consider what other translations say.
   One the other side of the same coin, don’t exclude any translation unless it is biased towards the doctrines of a particular group.  I can think of a few like this, but I won’t say which ones right now.
   I do see a two-sided danger in restricting yourself to only one translation.  On the one side, you leave yourself open to any errors in that translation.  On the other side, you cut yourself off to the truth presented in other translations.
   Even though I prefer the New American Standard, I don’t totally reject the King James version either.  In some cases, I see the KJV expresses truth in a better fashion than the NASV.  I have been using the NASV for quite a while now, and I see it generally does a better job with verb tenses, and in some places, the wording in the NASV is stronger than in the KJV.

Considering all this, why do some hang on to the KJV?  I believe I know the answer.
    Years ago, I studied computer programming at a junior college.  The head of the computer department had years of experience programming computers in the business world.
   During one class, he began to discuss the capabilities of different computer languages.  Someone asked why so many companies continued to use COBOL, one of the older high-level languages, while more capable languages had become available in recent times.  His answer: Inertia.
   Inertia is resistance to change.  He went on to explain that many companies had invested large amounts of money in hardware, compilers, and programmers’ salaries and they were reluctant to dump all that to invest in new hardware, compilers, and programmers.
   In a similar manner, people have invested time, money, and probably emotion the KJV.
   A related issue is why some preachers condemn modern English translations.  I’m sure some only want to control their followers, and they have no true concern for the truth or for their followers’ well-being.  However, I am sure that the preacher who sparked this article is concerned about the spiritual growth of believers.

Controversy over translations is probably not a new thing.  In the First Century, the Jews had 3 versions of the OT (Hebrew, the Greek Septuagint, and Aramaic)… and the Samaritans had their own version as well.  I wouldn’t be surprised if controversy over these versions had crept into the Church.

If you have already settled on a translation to use, please be open to considering other translations in your study of the Word.  If you haven’t settled yet, please do some research, consider the information I have presented here, pray and listen to the Holy Spirit.

Assimilating Books by Groups

I have been taking a different approach to assimilation - assimilating books by groups.  This really isn't anything new.  Gary Carpenter has talked about assimilating the Gospels together to get a good image of Jesus, and to get a good image of the Father because Jesus is the express image of the Father.

I started with the books of John: the Gospel of John, the 3 letters of John, and Revelation.  I admit I had a purpose in mind for reading these books together.  Many modern scholars believe that John did not write all of them.  They say that he wrote the Gospel and the 1st letter, but not the other letters and Revelation.  They say another John, called John the Elder wrote 2nd and 3rd John because that is how he identified himself.  They say a third man called John the Revelator wrote Revelation.  I believe John wrote all 5 books credited to him.

One of the reasons they give for believing that different men wrote these books is a difference in writing style that is evident in usage of the Greek language.  Now I am a writer, and have been for several decades.  I'm sure my writing style and usage of words has changed over the years, so I say John's writing style could have changed as he aged.  Also, consider one of the major rules of writing: consider your audience.  You don't write a children's book with the same style and vocabulary that you would use in a doctoral thesis!  John could have adapted his writing style according to the purpose of each book.

Also, I was looking for themes common to all of John's writings.  Ever notice how some ministers have a theme or themes to their ministry?  Smith Wigglesworth and Kenneth Hagin are known for their faith teaching.  R. W. Schambach was known for power.  Dave Roberson is known for tongues.  If the writings ascribed to John had common themes, that would go a long way towards supporting his authorship.

I expected to find themes of Truth, Light, Life and, of course, Love.  I found them, and more.

Then I did the writings of Luke together: the Gospel of Luke and The Acts of the Apostles, as a prelude to the letters of Paul.  Of course, Luke was not only Paul's companion for a good portion of his ministry, he provides us with the most information about Paul.

Now before going on, I need to remind some of you, and inform the rest of you of what I have done with the books of the New Testament to make them easier to read:

http://lightseekerok.blogspot.com/2011/08/using-technology-to-assimilate-word.html

Because I have prepared these books this way, I usually do one book a month, reading it once everyday if it is not too long.  The longer books I might take a portion at a time, such as half of the chapters or pages one day and then the other half the next.

When I went through the books of John, I followed a different schedule.  I have the 3 letters in a single document, so I always read them together.  I put all three documents (the Gospel, the Letters, and Revelation) in my smaller binder for the group reading.  I counted the total number of pages, which came to a number divisible by 3.  The number of pages for Revelation was close to equal to one third of the total.  So, for the first month, I would read a portion of the Gospel of John one day, the rest of the Gospel and the Letters the next day, then Revelation on the third day.  I repeated that cycle for the month, then spent a month reading just the Gospel, one month readings the Letters, and one month reading Revelation.  The spent another month reading all the books on the same schedule that I used the first month.

Right now I am working my way through the letters of Paul, but not as a group.  That would take too long.  But within the letters of Paul, I plan to do some groups.

Now, I do have the letters to the Corinthians in one document, and have done the same for the letters to the Thessalonians and Timothy.  I have also created a document for the letters of Peter.

I have already gone through Romans and the Corinthian letters and I am currently reading Galatians.  I probably will not reread Corinthians again for a while, but I realized very recently that I need to go through Romans and Galatians again as a group, with Hebrews included.


If you wish to try this approach yourself, here's my recommended list of book groupings:

Books of John - the Gospel of John, the 3 letters of John, and Revelation

Books of Luke - the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles

Letters of Paul-
              Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews  (even if you don't believe that Paul wrote Hebrews, it does cover related subjects)
              1st & 2nd Cornithians
              Prison letters: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon
              1st & 2nd Thessalonians
              Pastoral letters: 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus

Gospel of Matthew, James, Jude  (Jewish perspective common to these books)

Gospel of Mark, 1st & 2nd Peter  (Mark was Peter's relative and ministry companion)

Zandstra-isms

I have had the privilege of listening to my friend Doug Zandstra speak at the Family Prayer Center in Tulsa several times.  Now Doug is an evangelist, so he mostly exhorts, edifies and encourages people when he speaks.  However, once in a while he drops a nugget of wisdom that amazes me.  So, I believe we can benefit from some "Zandstra-isms."

"caSINo"   Need I say more?

When talking about God speaking to him, he said, "I know it was God talking to me because the devil never calls you 'Son' - he calls you SCUM!"

Then from this morning, while talking about praying for a man who had cancer, "Get MAD at the devil!  MAD means Miracles and Deliverance!"

Can't wait to hear what else will come out of his mouth!  I hope to have more Zandsta-isms to post soon.

And Now, A Word About Words

In the modern church in America, we do see problems.  I won't go into details, but if you've seen any news lately, on your own, you can think of reports about famous preachers caught in sexual scandals, financial shenanigans, or engaging in abusive, controlling behavior towards their staff, followers, or church members.

All these problems have one source - the flesh.  Now some would ask, "What about the Devil?  Doesn't he create problems for believers?"  Yes, he does, but only by appealing to the unmortified flesh of believers.

Through my recent Bible reading, and comparing what I see there with what I see in the church today, I believe I have discovered a problem that might contribute to some of the other problems in the church.  This problem is very subtle in the way it affects the church.

So, what is the problem?

We have substituted man-made religious meanings for New Testament words.  In other words, we use NT words with different meanings than what was given them in the NT.

How bad a problem is this?

In some cases, not too bad.  With some words, we haven't really changed the meaning too much, but just enough that we have lost some aspect of their original meaning, so that we have a gap in our understanding that hampers us from walking in the full truth of God's Word.

In other cases, the discrepancy between modern church usage and NT usage puts us in a position of nearly contradicting God's Word.  Sometimes, the modern meaning isn't contradictory, but foreign to what the word means.

Consider the incident recorded in Matthew 15: 1 -9:

Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders?  For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."  And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.'  But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," he is not to honor his father or his mother.'  And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.  You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.  BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "
(Matt. 15:1-9 NASB)


In this passage, the religious people got onto Jesus because His followers weren't performing the religious, traditional, ritualistic method of hand washing before meals.  Jesus responded by telling them what He thought of their religious traditions!

Now, you might wonder what traditions have to do with words.  How are traditions passed down?  By words!

The religious people invalidated God's Word through their words!

If you still don't see the danger of changing the meaning of words in God's Word, consider what Satan first said to Eve: "Indeed, has God said...."  (Gen. 3: 1)

The reason why this problem could contribute to other problem is that we could be operating in the flesh, but we think we're okay because we're using words taken from the Bible.  We think that we are saying the same thing the New Testament is saying, but we're really not.  On the flip side of this danger, we have become so accustomed to the religious meanings, when we read the NT, we think it's saying the same thing we are.

Now, you might think I'm just trying to get picky about words.  I hope I'm not.  I don't want you to stop using scriptural words; I want you to use them with understanding.

Which words am I talking about?  Stay tuned...

GOD IN A BOX

I used to hear people talk about how religion puts “God in box,” that is, how religious people put restrictions on God: God can't, God won't, God doesn't do certain things, or He doesn't do things in a certain way.   In reality, they just put restrictions on what they believe God will do, and thus restrict what they can receive from Him.

Now, I am sure that the Scriptures are clear that God doesn't lie, that He cannot lie, He doesn't change His Word, and He never does anything contrary to His Word.  How can someone who is Truth lie?

But sadly, many people do pass up God's blessings because of these restrictions they put on God.  Another name for these restrictions is 'unbelief.'

Now where did this 'God in a box' concept come from in the first place?

Surprisingly, the answer is: GOD!

Ever hear of the Ark of the Covenant?   Ever wonder what that was all about?

The short answer is that God wanted a way to be with His people, the Israelites.  He couldn't manifest His presence all the time among them, for no man at that time could stand to be around such a holy being.  So, he gave them a plan for a tabernacle (tent) that would house the Ark of the Covenant, a special gold-plated box that would represent God's presence.   Along with the Tabernacle and the Ark, God instituted a priesthood and a sacrificial system to allow people to come before Him, and He could then dwell among them. [Exodus 25 - 30]

[A preacher name Judson Cornwall wrote a book years ago about the construction of the Tabernacle of Moses and the Ark of the Covenant, and all the symbolism involved that points to Jesus and the New Covenant.   The title of the book is Let Us Draw Near. If you want to know more about the Tabernacle and the Ark, I highly recommend that book.]

Now, God is not limited by space or distance.   You do not have to be geographically close to a special box or structure for God to hear and answer your prayers.  Even after the construction of the Ark and the Tabernacle, the Old Testament contains many stories of God working miracles in places not close to the Ark.

By the time Jesus appeared, three things dominated Jewish thought: the Law of Moses, the Jerusalem Temple, and the coming Messiah.

They focused on the Law because they saw their neglect of, and disobedience to, the Law as the cause of the Babylonian Captivity and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

They focused on the Temple because it was the successor to the Tabernacle of Moses, the Law spoke so much about the Tabernacle and the priesthood, and they had fought so hard to maintain the sanctity of the Temple.

They focused on the Messiah because they wanted a Deliverer to rise up and lead them out from under the Roman Empire.

Because of their focus on these things, when the true Messiah, Jesus, arrived, they could not see that God was manifesting Himself through this carpenter's son, this itinerant rabbi, Who did astounding miracles, and said things that were even more astounding than His miracles.   They could not see that He was God in the flesh. [John 1:14; Matthew 1:23]

So, now the “box” that held God's presence was the body of Jesus of Nazareth!

After the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, the New Birth became possible.   Anyone who now believes in Jesus is born again into God's Kingdom. [John 3:1 – 8, 13 - 17]

Jesus also promised he would never leave us or forsake us, that He would not leave us as orphans.  He is in US! [Matthew 28:20; John 14:18; Colossians 1:26 - 27]

Now, God is not just in one “box,” He is in many “boxes!” [2 Corinthians 4:7; 1 Corinthians 6:19 -20]

So, the “God in a box” concept is not a bad thing, as long as each born again believer sees himself as a “box” where God dwells.

Now, I see many believers trapped by the Old Testament style “God in a box” mentality – that God dwells in church buildings, that you can only experience His Presence in a church building, etc.

How did this mentality enter into the Church?

A little study on the English word, “church” gives us a clue.   That word comes from a Greek word, “kyriakos.”  That word comes from two other Greek words that mean “lord” and “house.”   It literally means “Lord's house.”

Is this the same word used in the Greek New Testament? No. As far as I know, it never appears in the GNT.

Greek was the predominate language of the Early Church for the first several centuries.   However, the Church never owned any buildings for the first 200 years or so.   Christians would meet in homes, schools, amphitheaters, lecture halls, or anywhere they found a place that was suitable.   When the Church began to buy or erect their own buildings, they called them "kyriakos", the Lord's Houses.

Over time, because of the origin of the word, “church” became associated more with buildings than with people.   Church leaders began to teach that God dwelt only in those buildings.   So, that's how the OT style “God in a box” mentality came into the Church.  After all, isn't a house or building just a big box?

But this association of “church” with buildings does not line up with what the New Testament really teaches.

The Greek word that is translated as “church” in English is “ekklesia.”   It means “a called out assembly.”   An assembly of what?   Building materials?   After all, aren't buildings assembled out of boards, bricks, blocks, pipe, wire, etc.  But these materials are not called out.   You would question the competence of a carpenter who called out, “Here boards! Come here so I can cut you into the right length, and nail you into place.”

So, what is being assembled?   People!

In Acts 19, Luke uses the word “ekklesia” to refer to the crowd in Ephesus that demonstrated against Paul's ministry.   This word occurs in verses 32, 39 and 41. In verses 30 and 33, Luke uses the word “demos” to refer to the same group.   This word means “people.”   We use it in the prefix of the words “demographic” and “democracy.”

Why would Luke use the word “ekklesia” to refer to this crowd of people?   They were called out by the guild of coppersmiths that made household shrines to Diana (or Artemis), the goddess worshiped by the Ephesians.  The coppersmiths called out this assembly of people to protest the preaching of Paul, because he was leading people away from Diana to Jesus.  As people turned from Diana to Jesus, they stopped buying shrines, and that hurt the coppersmiths' business.   They wanted to let it be known they didn't like this, and they wanted help in expressing their displeasure, so they called out an assembly of those still faithful to Diana.

I could say more about the “ekklesia” of Jesus, but that is for another time.  My point in bringing this up now is that when the New Testament uses the word “church,” it is not talking about a building.  The NT never, never, never, never, and I mean not ever, not at any time whatsoever, and I am absolutely, positively certain that the NT never uses the word “church” to refer to a building.  It ALWAYS refers to people!

Now, like I said earlier, the “God in a box” concept is not necessarily bad as long as we change the concept. We hear a lot today about thinking outside the box.   I say, “Let's rethink the box!”

Not only is each born again believer a “God-box,” but we collectively, as the Church, are the “God-box!” [2 Corinthians 6:14 – 18; Ephesians 2: 19 – 22; Revelation 21:1 - 3]