Archive: bible translations

WATER BAPTISM and PURIFICATION (Part 2 of 2)

A question that came to us:

“If we are still to practice water baptism today, what scripture teaches that it is no longer a purification (Jn. 3:25) and washing (Acts 22:16) by sprinkling or pouring but burial in water to symbolize death, burial, and resurrection?”

(This is the second part to the question’s answer. You can read Part 1 here.

My short answer:
Water baptism is not a sacrament, or means of obtaining salvation. Baptism of a believer is a personal decision that identifies (by a picture or visual representation) the believer with the gospel he professes to believe.

The gospel in this Church age is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our justification under the New Testament. This gospel does not symbolize a future remission of sins under the New Covenant God promised to Israel, such as John’s and Peter’s baptism (Jeremiah 31:31; Luke 3:3, 24:47; Acts 2:38; Joel 2:28-29).

Water baptism in the Church age looks back on the finished and complete work of Christ, which was applied effectually by the Holy Spirit, at the moment the believer trusted Christ. It is important to note that water baptism does not look directly back to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ—it looks back to the work of the Holy Spirit when the believer was baptized into Christ—which in itself, indeed, is based on the past Person and Work of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. (Romans 6:3-4). The believer’s salvation and justification is “no more of works” “not of works” and “not by works of righteousness” (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:9; Titus 3:5).

At the same time, when the believer trusted Christ alone, the Holy Spirit baptized him into the body of Christ, of which Christ is the Head (1 Corinthians 12:13-27). Therefore, water baptism is by immersion (going down into a ‘watery grave’, and coming up out of it): and the only mode that can picture the gospel of grace: identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Water baptism may be public or private but the intent is always to identify the believer with the gospel revealed to Paul for this age, and to mark his fellowship with all other believers in Christ.
It is a vivid illustration that can be done anywhere, anytime, in any culture. When the gospel of grace (salvation without any work by man–all is dependent upon Christ) is preached, water baptism renounces all other ‘gospels’ and proclaims that any other means of salvation are false.

The biblical meaning of water baptism has been so perverted, ignored and neglected by so many for so long, water baptism is no longer an offence to false gospels and religious systems in the USA and other parts of the world.

The detailed answer:

PREVIOUS STUDY ON PURIFICATION AND BAPTISM

In our first study we covered the general process of purification, its elements, and the fact that baptism and purification were not synonymous. In this final study we look at the second part of the question: Do we have any scriptural justification to baptize converts that is a burial to symbolize death, burial, and resurrection?

I attempt to cover a large body of material here without needless jargon or long technical terms with the intent to not only answer the question above but to also use it as part of our Bible school curriculum. My focus is on the average Bible student and is intended to be an introduction to the voluminous and complex subject of translation and interpretation from a source language (Greek) to a target language (English). At the same time I hope to give a reasonable, logical, and scriptural answer to the question. It is of utmost importance to know what constitutes “baptism”. Is baptism an act or a condition that results from a particular action? In other words, when one is ‘baptized’ does that mean the candidate was dipped, submerged, immersed, or simply overwhelmed? When one is baptized, must water be the element used? “He was baptized by John in the river of Jordan.” Does that mean he was “dipped in water and brought up” “sprinkled with water, or had water poured over him so profusely, that he was entirely wet?” “The disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost”—must that mean the baptism was with water? When a person is “baptized” does it mean the baptism was ‘because of’ a prior event or looking forward ‘for’ a future benefit?

“Baptism” and “Baptized” (verbal forms and adjective) have been miserably ill defined by many so-called ‘scholars.’ This is the result of a flawed definition of baptism; one that never met the demands of normal literal interpretation of scripture. First error: To discover what the word “baptism” meant, ‘scholars’ searched Classical Greek for how the terms, baptism and baptized were used in the writings of ancient secular Greek authors. Second error: Depending on the particular religious view of the researcher, the definition of baptism was determined from select accounts, while any opposing account was simply left unreported. The majority of accounts that agreed with the researcher’s predetermined ‘correct definition’ overruled any account of disagreement.

Therefore, to put it in plain speech, when the researcher was Presbyterian, ‘baptism’ was determined to be sprinkling or pouring. When the researcher was a Baptist, ‘baptism’ was determined to be immersion or dipping. Both ignored the context where baptism was used in the Bible, and both believed the interpretive authority lay in the secular Classical Greek usage, instead of context and usage of the term in the Bible itself. Both approaches concluded that “baptism” was an ACTION (sprinkling or pouring or dipping or immersion) rather than a CONDITION. The misconception lingers today and has affected Bible interpretation by many.

The definition of baptism must include several key elements, all determined by the context and usage found in the King James Bible (KJB). The KJB is an accurate translation of the koine (common) Greek text into the English language and thus reflects the divine definition. A consistent definition and meaning of “baptism” must consider “where” “when” “how” and to “whom” the term is used in the word of God. Proper definition of baptism embodies the message it accompanies, the method employed, the mode of action, as well as the messenger or the “baptizer”.

The Greek of the New Testament was not written in Classical Greek; the NT Greek is what is called ‘koine’ (common) Greek and was not the Greek of the secular Greek authors such as Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Hippocrates, etc. God set His own definitions and interpretations apart from man by usage and context in the KJB.

NT Greek was the language of the common man and not the language of the ‘scholars’. Not only that, NT Greek has properties that go beyond the normal speech and usage of the koine Greek. The KJB is based on what is called “Biblical Greek”. Even the English of the KJB has certain elements not used or spoken in the English language by anyone from 900-2015 a.d.; therefore, the KJB is Biblical English and one only finds the definitive meanings of terms in their usage and context in the KJB.

For several reasons, I believe the error of substituting or transliterating baptismois as “baptisms” instead of the translation of “washings” in Hebrews 9:10 is a glaring example of ignoring Bible usage and context. It is simply the result of ‘uniform translation’ (the assumption that all Greek words that are the same, must have the same meaning.) In following this assumption, all ‘modern translations’ such as the NIV, have perverted the meaning of critical Bible words.

The KJB employs context and usage to define critical Bible words. Methods God uses are: common translation, which is dependent upon words between Greek and English context and usage that are necessary for proper grammar and syntax. For example: common words such as a, an, the, is, am, to be, go, to, for, in, at, body, people, etc. This not to say that gender, verb tenses, adverbs, prepositions, adjectives, etc., are not important and that translation does not necessitate Greek/English grammar rules. The most unusual feature of proper communicative translation between Greek and English is transliteration of certain words in specific contexts. Whether a word is to be translated or transliterated is determined by its import of a doctrinal matter as well as near or far context. Transliteration in effect creates a new term by putting the English equivalent of the Greek letters such as βαπτισμοῖς= baptisms. It is a divine marker to indicate the need for biblical context and usage alone to define it. Typical Greek vocabulary and grammar reference books are of no help in discovering what it means. (The Greek vocabulary tools on such words have been manipulated by Classical Greek usage rather than how the Bible uses the term).
The word baptism (along with all its various grammar forms) is not found in the Hebrew or English Old Testament. There are “divers washings” involving water just as the KJB says, but there is no usage of “baptisms”. The KJB recognizes the problem of transliterating baptismois as “baptisms” in Hebrews 9:10 and employs the translation, “washings” which is defined on the rule of biblical context.
Here is the reason: if the OT “washings” is synonymous with NT baptisms, a doctrinal error of extreme importance is introduced. The various ‘water baptisms’ of tents, pots, pans, cups, toes, and animal guts would be on the par with not only the baptism of NT believers, but also John’s baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ!

God reveals seven baptisms in the NT with a variety of recipients, messengers, modes, and meanings—not a single one is named a baptism in the OT text.

Baptism from the beginning (Exodus; 1 Corinthians 10) was identification with Moses as God’s spokesman and professed agreement with his message from God. The waters of the Red Sea never cleansed or even touched those under Moses leadership—they all went through on “dry ground”. Remember, this “baptism” at the Red Sea was never called that in the OT. Paul brought it into the Corinthian letter because of their misuse of the purpose and meaning of water baptism. A single baptism (Red Sea) existed before the Law and God never confused baptism with “a purification rite” under the Law. This baptism preceded the Law dispensation and involved a “mixed multitude” that included Jews and Gentiles, some truly dedicated to Moses leadership and some mere professors, as was proven later when times got hard and they rebelled. The rule of first mention establishes the basic meaning.

The use of water in such Law matters as the priests, etc., was a dedication and identification to their office and duties. Water took no sins away nor did it immediately remit any sins; water if used, was a part of several elements and actions: a process.

God “sent John to baptize” and he followed no OT Law instruction or traditions of the Jews. (John 1:33).

WATER BAPTISM TODAY

“If we are still to practice water baptism today, what scripture teaches… (it is)… a burial in water to symbolize death, burial, and resurrection?”

There is no scripture that ‘teaches’ water baptism is essential to salvation or successful Christian living today. When ‘baptism’ is seen to be immersion in every instance in the NT, the interpreter has accepted the wrong conclusion that baptism is an ACT, rather than a condition that is the result of an action. This false assumption is based on Classical Greek usage in secular writings and not the Bible Greek (koine) usage and context. Therefore, when we read, “they were baptized…” the meaning is that the people were put into a place and a particular action of pouring, immersion or submersion occurred, which resulted in the condition of them being described as “baptized”.


Baptism is defined in its most basic definition by the rule of first mention. (See 1 Corinthians 10:1 with Exodus, “baptized unto Moses”). Baptism, by whatever mode, (sprinkling, pouring, immersion, etc.) is identification with the messenger and his message. And, the mode may be in a figurative sense such as when Jesus spoke of His coming substitutionary death, (“I have a baptism to be baptized with.” Matthew 20:22-23) refers to a submersion into a certain situation. When we say, “He was baptized by fire in the first battle…” we mean he was placed in a situation he had never been in before and experienced things he had never experienced prior to that situation. We do not mean he was literally in fire. But when the context of a baptism contains such words as “baptized in Jordan” “in and out of water” “baptized by John”, context demands it is a literal event.

“Baptized unto Moses,” means those who followed him through the Red Sea accepted Moses as God’s leader, His spokesman, and agreed with Moses’ message. That baptism was literal but the mode and meaning were certainly unusual! No one got wet. The ground was “dry”; at least dry enough so that the Israelites were not impeded by mud and sinkholes, the waters of the sea itself were “divided”. Exodus 14:21-22 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

They were not encompassed or touched by water on every side, unless one wishes to insist that the atmosphere had water in the form of vapor above them. The “cloud” was not above them but before and behind: “…and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:” (v.19). The whole experience is described as being “baptized unto Moses.”

Baptism, as used in the context of Paul’s ministry, is certainly important for us today. God selected him as the “apostle to the Gentiles” and revealed to him God’s program for the Church. His ministry was not just a continuation of the same message and ministry of Peter and the twelve apostles before him. Certain aspects of his ministry are the same as previous periods of time but there are several that are unique to the present doctrine and practice. God’s program for all eternity is consistent throughout and in total harmony. And in our Bible study, we must never ‘split’ up the Bible so that certain portions of scripture are of less value than others, but neither should we insist that everything in the Bible is to be followed by everybody during all periods of time.

WHAT DOES PAUL TEACH REGARDING BAPTISM?

Paul never commands or denies water baptism in all his epistles (13 in total: Romans-Philemon) although he did baptize converts. Paul never changed his message of salvation by grace, without works. This can produce nothing but one of two conclusions: (a.) Paul was ignorant for a period of time in his ministry, or (b.) that water baptism is not essential to salvation and carries some other meaning than that found in Luke 3:3 and Acts 2:38 ‘for the remission of sins’.

Paul connects water baptism with the testimony or profession of a Christian and never with salvation. In his letter to the Corinthians, he deals with their carnality and poor spiritual practice but never questions their position in Christ. To understand this, we must look at the context of 1 Corinthians 1.

1Cor. 1:4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
1Cor. 1:5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
1Cor. 1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
1Cor. 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Cor. 1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Cor. 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

(There is no question here as to whether Paul is writing to confirmed, lost professors or to those who are saved. He thanked God for them, they are “enriched by Him (Christ)”, Their “testimony” of Christ was confirmed—not necessarily perfect—in that they had many gifts, and they were “waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”)

1Cor. 1:10 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Cor. 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Cor. 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Cor. 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

(However, they had some problems of carnal divisions and contentions. The Corinthians had divided themselves into various ‘denominations’: “I am of Paul”—those that separate Paul’s ministry apart from Peter’s ministry to the extreme, ’Neo-Bereans’??—“I of Apollos’, ‘scholarly crowd’??—“of Cephas”, RCC??—“I of Christ”, so-called Church of Christ?? It is this problem he addresses. Their carnality was marring their testimony.)

1Cor. 1:14 ¶ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1Cor. 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1Cor. 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

(Paul is not confessing his problem with understanding baptism here—as the Neo-Bereans of today claim—Paul is not trying to figure out what he believes, he is correcting the Corinthian’s problem! Since water baptism pictures the union of the believer with Christ and his fellowship with other believers in Christ, the practice of division among the Corinthians was not consistent with their position in Christ. Paul, by inspiration here, also strongly indicates that water baptism is not commanded, nor is it of such importance that records of who is baptized by who must be maintained; Paul did not. Baptism is a picture that professes relationship and fellowship. The Corinthians were not ‘living up to’ their profession.)

1Cor. 1:17 ¶ For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

(Again, Paul is not finally coming to the realization that he should never baptize—another ridiculous interpretation by those who oppose water baptism in this age. Water baptism is not a part of the gospel he preached. The gospel of the grace of God does not require that you cover water baptism or any work by man. John the Baptist was “sent to baptize” and his baptism proclaimed that Israel would receive “remission of sins” in the future. Peter preached the same message and his baptism was “for the remission of sins” in the future. Both John and Peter demanded that those who believed their message must be baptized. That baptism looked forward to the future day when the nation would be “born again” and their sins remitted—final dealing with their apostasy under the New Covenant.)

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

(Nicodemus was a ‘master of Israel’—teacher, and a prominent leader of the nation. Jesus’ question was a rebuke to Nicodemus, had he never read and believed all the OT promises of the future New Covenant?)

Jer. 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer. 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer. 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Joel 2:28 ¶ And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Acts 2:37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
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.
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

(John the Baptist and Peter, while not understanding the full meaning of the suffering of Christ, they knew the OT promises of the coming New Covenant and the ‘pouring’ out of God’s Spirit, along with the OT’s many references to water being a symbol of the word of God: cleansing, refreshing, growing, and even judging.)

1Cor. 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

(Paul mentions “the cross” several times in his letters. In 1 Corinthians 1:17 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” With v. 18, “the preaching of the cross” connects “the gospel” and “the cross”. Whereas, John and Peter did not mention “preaching of the cross”; John was puzzled regarding the death of Christ on the cross; Peter, knowing that Christ was crucified, mentions the death of Christ—not as a blessing to anyone—but as a sin of Israel’s leaders, who with “wicked hands” killed the “Prince of life” Acts 3:15.)
Today, those who do not see the primacy of the “cross” in the gospel of the grace of God are apt to add other things or requirements to the “preaching of the cross.” Men add baptism, church membership, good works, even understanding ‘mysteries’, giving, and even some level of refraining from practices such as gambling, sports, entertainment, etc., and call these things “preaching the gospel”. One can stand on a street corner all day long with biblical terminology signs: “Repent or Perish” “Go to Church or the Devil Will Get You” “Get Saved”, “Pray For America” “Get Baptized” or political statements such as: “Abolish the Supreme Court” “Elect Hillary” “Arrest Hillary” “Impeach Obama”–none of them have anything to do with “preaching the gospel”. We are not saying it is wrong to stand on the street with a sign, or that all of the above imperatives are good or bad; none of them are the gospel.

There is nothing sinful or ungodly about being baptized, praying, giving, going to church, or being concerned over political and social issues. Every preacher should have such concerns, but God did not ‘send us’ to baptize, pray, give, or dedicate all our efforts to a thousand other worthy matters. If I “send” my son to the store to buy a gallon of milk, he may drive the car, say ‘hello’ to several on the way, look at the store’s candy display and even buy a “KitKat”—but if he forgets the milk—he did not do what I sent him to do.

–Dave Reese August, 2015

WATER BAPTISM and PURIFICATION (Part 1 of 2)

WATER BAPTISM and PURIFICATION (1)

(Part 1 of 2 Parts)

A question that came to us:

If we are still to practice water baptism today, what scripture teaches that it is no longer a purification (Jn. 3:25) and washing (Acts 22:16) by sprinkling or pouring but burial in water to symbolize death, burial, and resurrection?

PURIFICATION

The error of equating or relating OT ‘purification’ to NT water baptism has caused much confusion. The terms are neither synonymous nor are they related in any way. In other words, water baptism was never Bible purification and never a part of the process of purification. Over the centuries after God gave the Law to Moses, the Jews’ religion became a mixture of rabbinical interpretations and traditions that added to the Law of Moses hundreds of non-scriptural requirements and perversion. By the time Jesus came to earth, the religious leaders of the nation of Israel had added to, subtracted from, and changed so much of the Law of Moses that His sternest rebukes: “hypocrites”, “blind leaders of the blind” “whited sepulchres” “vipers” etc., were reserved for the religious leaders of Israel. The Law feasts were no longer “feasts of the LORD” but designated by a term never found one time in the OT: “feast of the Jews” (John 5:1; 6:4; 7:2). By inspiration, Paul called his past religious life as a leading Pharisee, Hebrew of the Hebrews—the “Jews’ religion” (Galatians 1:13-14).

There is no justification to make all First Century doctrines and practices of the Jews a valid argument against plain, direct, inspired statements of the Bible. Those who use Jewish practice to vilify the Bible practice of water baptism are either ignorant of scripture or they are religious crooks.

Inspired Bible purification was a process involving various definitive actions, elements, over a period of time. One passage of several illustrates the process:

Num. 19:16 And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.

(Notice purification cannot be done by even a single act of ‘washing’—it took 7 days)

Num. 19:17 And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:

(The ashes had been prepared much earlier from a burnt heifer)

Num. 19:18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:

(Hyssop is dipped, sprinkled, not only on all the persons but on the tent and all the vessels—a long process)

Num. 19:19 And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.

(Purification never took place in one moment or 1, 2 or 3 days. It took 7 days, previous dipping and sprinkling of water, washing clothes, taking a bath, and one could only be pronounced clean on the even of the 7th day. Any future reoccurrences had to begin the process all over again. How, by any stretch of the imagination, could this be equated with NT baptism?!?)

We only need go to the OT and note “the feasts of the LORD” and compare those with the “feasts of the Jews” in the NT (John 5:1; 6:4; 7:2) to realize that the Jews had perverted the Law of Moses to such a degree that none of the feasts in the NT are called “feasts of the LORD” anymore.  Temple worship had also been degraded to a “den of thieves” (Luke 19:46). The gospel accounts are replete with the Lord’s rebuke to leaders of Israel and their apostasy from the Law of Moses. It is no wonder then to find the Jews questioning “some of John’s disciples” about purification.

John 3:25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying

BAPTISM

Heb. 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The correct and basic rule of Bible interpretation is usage and context in the King James Bible (KJB). All skepticism of the justification and meaning of a believer’s water baptism in this present age stems from two corrupt sources: (1) the very questionable Greek translation (LXX) of the Hebrew Old Testament in which the Egyptian based ‘translators’ put “baptism” in every Hebrew text for “washing”. Gullible and careless handlers of the word of God say, “See, there is proof washings are baptisms.” (2) The second source, founded on the first error, replaced the KJB’s translation of ‘baptizo’ (and its various forms) with a Greek definition from secular Classical Greek. The Greek of the New Testament was not written in Classical Greek; the NT Greek is what is called ‘koine’ (common) Greek and was not the Greek of the secular Greek authors such as Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Hippocrates, etc. God, in the Bible, set His own definitions and interpretations apart from man.

NT Greek was the language of the common man and not the language of the ‘scholars’. Not only that, NT Greek has properties that go beyond the normal speech and usage of the koine Greek. The KJB is based on what is called “Biblical Greek”. Even the English of the KJB has certain elements not used or spoken in the English language by anyone from 900-2015 a.d.; therefore, the KJB is Biblical English and one only finds the definitive meanings of terms in their usage and context in the KJB.

For several reasons, I believe the error of substituting or transliterating baptismois as “baptisms” instead of the translation of “washings” in Hebrews 9:10 is a glaring example of ignoring Bible usage and context. It is simply the result of ‘uniform translation’ (the assumption that all Greek words that are the same, must have the same meaning.) In following this assumption, all ‘modern translations’ such as the NIV, have perverted the meaning of critical Bible words.

The word baptism (along with all its various grammar forms) is not found in the Hebrew or English Old Testament. There are “divers washings” involving water just as the KJB says, but there is no usage of “baptisms”. The KJB recognizes the problem of transliterating baptismois as “baptisms” in Hebrews 9:10 and employs the translation, “washings” which is defined on the rule of biblical context.

Here is the reason: if the OT “washings” is synonymous with NT baptisms, a doctrinal error of extreme importance is introduced. The various ‘water baptisms’ of tents, pots, pans, cups, toes, and animal guts would be on the par with not only the baptism of NT believers, but also John’s baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ!

God reveals seven baptisms in the NT with a variety of recipients, messengers, modes, and meanings—not a single one is named a baptism in the OT text.

Baptism from the beginning (Exodus; 1 Corinthians 10) was identification with Moses as God’s spokesman and professed agreement with his message from God. The waters of the Red Sea never cleansed or even touched those under Moses leadership—they all went through on “dry ground”. Remember, this “baptism” at the Red Sea was never called that in the OT. Paul brought it into the Corinthian letter because of their misuse of the purpose and meaning of water baptism. A single baptism (Red Sea) existed before the Law and God never confused baptism with “a purification rite” under the Law. Baptism superseded the Law dispensation and involved a “mixed multitude” that included Jews and Gentiles, some truly dedicated to Moses leadership and some mere professors, as was proven later when times got hard and they rebelled. The rule of first mention establishes the meaning.

The use of water in such Law matters as the priests, etc., was a dedication and identification to their office and duties. Water took no sins away nor did it immediately remit any sins; water if used, was a part of several elements and actions: a process.

God “sent John to baptize” and he followed no OT Law instruction or traditions of the Jews. (John 1:33).

WHAT ABOUT ANANIAS?

Ananias remarks about baptism came from his previous religious training and not from God. God never told Ananias to ‘wash away Paul’s sins’ by baptism. Here is what God said:

Acts 9:10 ¶ And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

Acts 9:11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

Acts 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

Acts 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

Acts 9:14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Acts 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

You will notice that Ananias ADDED baptism to the word of God. Paul, in Acts 22:16, simply gave accurate testimony of what Ananias said, and by no means should be assumed to be Paul’s present agreement with the Jews religion or Kingdom doctrine. In addition, Paul was ALREADY A CHOSEN VESSEL (Acts 9:15) before Ananias ever met him or imposed the washing! Had Ananias never showed up, Paul would still bear the Lord’s name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

(There are two more parts to the question: John’s mode of baptism and what justification we have to make water baptism a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We will deal with those in the remaining installment that follows next week.) —August 16, 2015.

THE “THOU” AND “YOU” IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE

The Bible was translated into English over a period of 500 years, the process began in part c. 1000 a.d. and culminated with the Authorized Version of 1611. Along with Hebrew, English is the only other major language that developed at the same time as its Bible. The difference is that the Hebrew language of Israel had no other written literature prior to the Pentateuch; the early Anglo-Saxon had few sources but with Gutenberg’s moveable type printing (1349 a.d.) modern English had many printed sources from Europe.


Although not a major intent by the variety of English translators, many helps to Bible study found their way into the English Bible. In addition, the King James Bible of 1611 contains several critical linguistic helps, otherwise unknown to those without knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. This study covers one of those helps: the number of the second person pronoun.


Why does the King James Bible (KJB) have “thee” “thou” “thy” etc., and also have “you” “your”, etc.,? Primarily, because the 54 translators (1604-1611) were concerned with translating the pure words of God. Misunderstanding of this feature abounds, chiefly because those who study grammar and literature in the secular field, fail to see that the KJB was not written in strict English of the 15th century. The English in the KJB is a form of English not spoken by anyone in any century; it is Biblical English. Read the sermons and other writings by even the KJB translators, and you will find their usage of English is markedly different from their translation of the Hebrew and Greek into English.


“In late Middle English and early Modern English, the singular pronouns thou, thee, and thine (like the French tu forms) served as markers of intimacy and informality. (Thou was the subject form, thee the object form, and thy/thine the possessive.) In contrast, the plural you (like French vous) signified politeness and respect–or downright submissiveness: “Social inferiors used you to their superiors, who reciprocated by using thou” (The Oxford History of English, 2006).


This was true regarding common English usage, but the Bible is not common English. Others have imagined that “thou” “thee” “thy” “thine” were used only when speaking to Deity. This was misunderstood due to the fact that the “t” pronoun signifies a singular pronoun and rightly used when addressing God, who is one LORD. (Deuteronomy 6:4)


When the KJB reader sees a pronoun beginning with “t”, it is singular; a “y” is plural. Hebrew and Greek have distinct singular and plural identification of the second person pronouns, so does the KJB. Translation of the word of God demands the utmost ability and care to be sure the target language carries the same meaning as the former. This may not seem to be important at first glance, but Bible doctrine hangs on the proper understanding of the difference between whether one person is spoken to or a plural number is addressed.


One example is in Luke 22:31-32:


31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy

brethren. (King James Bible, AV 1611)


(NOTE: Some may object that the KJB also inserted words that were not in the Hebrew or Greek texts. Although not the purpose of our study here, the KJB actually has six reasons for italicized words. All languages have peculiarities that make a word for word translation impossible. These are understood in the base language, but in translation to a target language there must be added words that make the original intent and meaning clear. The KJB put all such words into italics, thereby showing the honesty of the translators to the reader and providing another amazing Bible study principle. Compare Deuteronomy and Matthew: Deuteronomy 8:3 with Matthew 4:4. The Hebrew has no “word” in the language, it is understood by the Hebrew reader. Greek does have “word” and it is essential to the Greek and English. When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Greek, He removed the italics and thereby proved the inspiration and authority of the future KJB OT quote!)


KING JAMES BIBLE: 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (PLURAL–all of the apostles), that he may sift you (PLURAL) as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee (SINGULAR-Peter), that thy (SINGULAR-Peter) faith fail not: and when thou (SINGULAR-Peter) art converted, strengthen thy(SINGULAR-Peter) brethren. (KJB)


NIV: 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”


NIV ANALYSIS: 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked (“HAS ASKED” AND “HATH DESIRED” ARE DIFFERENT) to sift (THE FORCE OF “HAVE YOU” REMOVED. SATAN DESIRED THE PERSONS, THE “SIFTING”WOULD OCCUR AFTER HE HAS THE PERSONS) all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon,(CONFUSING THE NUMBER OF PRONOUN, THE NIV HAD TO INSERT “SIMON” WHICH IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back (“TURN BACK” IS NOT THE SAME AS “CONVERTED”), strengthen your brothers.”


AMPLIFIED BIBLE: 31 Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan has asked excessively that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain, 32 But I have prayed especially for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, strengthen and establish your brethren.


AMPLIFIED BIBLE ANALYSIS: 31 Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! (“LISTEN” IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) Satan has asked excessively (“EXCESSIVELY” IS ADDED TO GIVE THE SIMPLE “ASKED” INTENSIVE FORCE) that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain, (AMP. BIBLE MISSES THE POINT OF “HAVE YOU” JUST AS THE NIV DOES. THE GENERAL “GRAIN” IS NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECIFIC “WHEAT”. ALSO, THE TERM “WHEAT” IN OTHER PASSAGES IS ESSENTIAL TO PROPER INTERPRETATION.)
32 But I have prayed especially (“ESPECIALLY” IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, (“TURNED AGAIN” IS NOT THE SAME AS “CONVERTED”) strengthen and establish (“ESTABLISH ” ADDED) your brethren.



Other errors and the same in ALL the so-called translations could be mentioned, but the point is

  1. Accepted the doubting attitude of what God said: “Yea, hath God said…”(Genesis 3:1)
  2. Added words to what God said: “…neither shall ye touch it…”(Genesis 3:3)
  3. Subtracting words from what God said: “…surely…”(Genesis 3:3)
  4. Changing what God said: “…surely…” changed to “…lest…”(Genesis 3:3)
  5. Accepted the “new” translation: “Ye shall not surely die…”(Genesis 3:4)


“Updated” and “new”, as well as “easy to understand” English translations since the late 1700’s have done nothing but remove the pure words of God from the readers, and substituted careless, confusing and deceptive terms that hide those words, words the Lord Jesus Christ deemed so important, He said:

“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.” (Matthew 4:4)

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

“5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)


Is the KJB hard to understand? Someone said: “What bothers me about the Bible is not what I don’t understand, what bothers me is all that I do understand.” The KJB is rated today at 5th grade reading level–it was 3rd grade thirty years ago. I know two former Bible college students, who in their adult years learned to read by the King James Bible.– Dr. Dave Reese

Psalm 12: Preserved Men or Preserved Words?

A student wrote:


Dr. Reese,
I have heard/read Dr. G and Dr. R say that Psalms 12:7 in the Hebrew texts means a preservation of the word of God, but then I have seen where non-KJB believers say that it does not. For example.

“The Hebrew of the verse allows the pronoun to be first person plural (us) or first person masculine singular (him) but not third person plural (them).”

I know some say that verse 7 is referring back to verse 5 rather than verse 6. When you have time could you give me a brief exposition of the 8 verses in the passage and what it means in “the original Hebrew text”? (Alexandrian lingo)

Thank you very much. –EHC


Psalms 12:
[1] Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
[2] They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
[3] The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
[4] Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
[5] For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
[8] The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

Answer

Dear EHC: Here are my final remarks on Psalm 12. If you received an earlier one, replace it with this.

Psalm 12:7 does refer to the words of God: all of God’s words from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.
The critics of a present inspired Bible that can be held in your hand must attempt to deny any passage that states such an infallible authority exists. They do not believe inspiration went past the original; all modern scholars hold that only the originals were inspired, but that any preservation was left entirely in the hands of human instrumentality. This is a humanistic attitude toward the word of God and treats His Book as any other book. This provides the “need” for these Bible scholars to decide which Hebrew and Greek MSS and readings are accurate. None of them believe an exact copy of the inspired words of God is in existence anywhere. They are still searching for the truth.

In an attempt to appear scholarly, many who profess to believe the King James Bible meet the critics halfway. They claim that only the originals were inspired, citing the supposed present tense error of the KJB in 2 Timothy 3:16 “is given” and correcting it to the past tense (“all scripture was given by inspiration”), and that certain OT texts (Hebrew Massoretic Text) and Greek MSS were superintended by God’s providence to keep His words. They call the superintendence “Preservation”. In this way, they are able to say inspiration was confined to the originals but that God superintended His word so that in the Hebrew Massoretic text and the Greek Majority Text, we have the preserved (but not inspired) words of God in Hebrew and Greek. This allows Biblical scholars to determine the correct translation of the merely “preserved” Hebrew and Greek words. Of course, this means the King James translation as all translations, are susceptible to error. This allows the “Bible believing scholar” to determine the translation since “the KJB did miss the correct translation in a few places.”

Their problem is this: In hundreds of places throughout the OT and the NT text in your hand, the King James Bible claims to be the very word of God. There is no biblical statement or example of any person in the KJB text that even hints that all translations are subject to error. Every preacher in the KJB, including Jesus, believed the Bible in his hand and did not mention “a translation” of any kind.
if the KJB is not God’s inspired words, the King James Bible in English, it is the greatest fraud ever in the history of mankind. In treating the Bible as any other book or even as only the preserved word of God, the “scholars” conveniently justify their offices and deluded men provide them with a livelihood. To admit that God’s word is the KJB so that we have all of His inspired words today, would put 99% of all higher critics along with the KJB “scholars” out of their easy chairs onto the street.
This is why you will find modernist and professing KJB “believers” critics of Psalm 12 that claim the Hebrew can not support the third person “them” but will support the first person masculine singular “He”. They think they have it all sewed up. However, God put fox traps in the Book for every critic with a heresy. The Bible critic can’t see these because of their spiritual blindness. Unless a man approaches the King James Bible with childlike trust, believing it is God’s word, it remains a closed Book. Attack the word of God and it reveals your sin. Once the critics learn from a real KJB believer where the trap is, if they don’t repent of their sin, they won’t ever really spiritually see or receive it, but with a head (not heart) knowledge, they simply adjust their position to go around it.

One trap for the “Hebrew expert” here in vss 6-7 is that although there are a plural number of “words of the Lord”, it is also true that all of these words are bound into a singular unit and also called, “the word of the Lord” or “the word of God.”

For example:

“3 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,…( then follows the covenant promises to David–many “words of The Lord” in several verses to vs 15)….
15 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.” (‭1 Chronicles‬ ‭17‬:‭3, 15‬ KJB).

“After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” (‭Genesis‬ ‭15‬:‭1‬ KJB).


The Bible is: “the word of God” “the words of God” “the words of the Lord” “the word of the Lord”, plural yet also singular!

Not only that, the words of the Lord are called “scripture” (an emphasis on the writing of the words) and are designated with Personality: “HE”.
HE speaks (before we can read) and HE raises men up and shows HIS power in them for a designed purpose. HE has mercy on those with childlike faith and HE hardens the reprobate’s heart. A foolish man can not see that the Bible is a present living, life giving Book with Personality because his sin blinds his heart and mind.

“17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” (‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭17-18‬ KJB).


(This, no doubt, had to be Moses’ words, who knew both Hebrew and Egyptian, translated into the Egyptian language to Pharaoh, who did not know Hebrew–a translation that was called “scripture”).

“The Hebrew” who was consulted by the critics on Psalm 12 did not know enough Bible to be qualified as an authority on the words of the Lord.

Like all interpretation of Bible verses, verse 7 must not be studied apart from the context of Psalm 12. A major theme of the Psalm is “words of the Lord” versus the words from the lips, mouths, tongues and words of vanity from wicked men.

As far as vs 7 being a reference to preserving God’s people, I have always wondered since hearing that argument, why does the Psalm refer (vs1) to the godly man ceasing and the faithful failing–if vs 7 means God PRESERVES THEM FROM CEASING AND FAILING?

And, why would a critic allow that God could keep a man but think that something is wrong with God keeping His words? How does God save, bring about a new birth, and keep a man, apart from the ever present living word of God?

“23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (‭1 Peter‬ ‭1‬:‭23-25‬ KJB)

The “T’s and Y’s” in the KIing James Bible

The Bible was translated into English over a period of 500 years, the process began c. 1000 A.D. in part and culminated with the Authorized Version of 1611. Along with Hebrew, English is the only other major language that developed at the same time as its Bible. The difference is that the Hebrew language of Israel had no other written literature prior to the Pentateuch; the early Anglo-Saxon had few sources but with Gutenberg’s moveable type printing (1349A.D.) modern English had many printed sources from Europe.

Although not a major intent by the variety of English translators, many helps to Bible study found their way into the English Bible. In addition, the King James Bible of 1611 contains several critical linguistic helps, otherwise unknown to those without knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. This study covers one of those helps: the number of the second person pronoun.

Why does the King James Bible (KJB) have “thee” “thou” “thy” etc., and also have “you” “your”, etc.,? Primarily, because the 54 translators (1604-1611) were concerned with translating the pure words of God. Misunderstanding of this feature abounds, chiefly because those who study grammar and literature in the secular field, fail to see that the KJB was not written in strict English of the 15th century. The English in the KJB is a form of English not spoken by anyone in any century; it is Biblical English. Read the sermons and other writings by even the KJB translators, and you will find their usage of English is markedly different from their translation of the Hebrew and Greek into English.

“In late Middle English and early Modern English, the singular pronouns thou, thee, and thine (like the French tu forms) served as markers of intimacy and informality. (Thou was the subject form, thee the object form, and thy/thine the possessive.) In contrast, the plural you (like French vous) signified politeness and respect–or downright submissiveness: “Social inferiors used you to their superiors, who reciprocated by using thou” (The Oxford History of English, 2006).

This was true regarding common English usage, but the Bible is not common English. Others have imagined that “Thou” “Thee” “Thy” “Thine” were used only when speaking to Deity. This was misunderstood due to the fact that the “T” pronoun signifies a singular pronoun and rightly used when addressing God, who is one LORD. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

When the KJB reader sees a pronoun beginning with “t”, it is singular; a “y” is plural. Hebrew and Greek have distinct singular and plural identification of the second person pronouns, so does the KJB. Translation of the word of God demands the utmost ability and care to be sure the target language carries the same meaning as the former. This may not seem to be important at first glance, but Bible doctrine hangs on the proper understanding of the difference between whether one person is spoken to or a plural number is addressed.

One example is in Luke 22:31-32:
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (King James Bible, AV 1611)

(NOTE: Some may object that the KJB also inserted words that were not in the Hebrew or Greek texts. Although not the purpose of our study here, the KJB actually has six reasons for italicized words. All languages have peculiarities that make a word for word translation impossible. These are understood in the base language, but in translation to a target language there must be added words that make the original intent and meaning clear. The KJB put all such words into italics, thereby showing the honesty of the translators to the reader and providing another amazing Bible study principle. Compare Deuteronomy and Matthew: Deuteronomy 8:3 with Matthew 4:4. The Hebrew has no “word” in the language, it is understood by the Hebrew reader. Greek does have “word” and it is essential to the Greek and English. When Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in Greek, He removed the italics and thereby proved the inspiration and authority of the future KJB OT quote!)

KING JAMES BIBLE: 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you (PLURAL–all of the apostles), that he may sift you (PLURAL) as wheat:
32 But I have prayed for thee (SINGULAR-Peter), that thy (SINGULAR-Peter) faith fail not: and when thou (SINGULAR-Peter) art converted, strengthen thy(SINGULAR-Peter) brethren. (KJB)

NIV: 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
NIV ANALYSIS: 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked (“HAS ASKED” AND “HATH DESIRED” ARE DIFFERENT) to sift (THE FORCE OF “HAVE YOU” REMOVED. SATAN DESIRED THE PERSONS, THE “SIFTING” OCCURS AFTER HE HAS THE PERSONS) all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon,(THE NIV HAD TO INSERT “SIMON” WHICH IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back (“TURN BACK” IS NOT THE SAME AS “CONVERTED”), strengthen your brothers.”

AMPLIFIED BIBLE: 31 Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! Satan [e]has asked excessively that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain,
32 But I have prayed especially for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, strengthen and establish your brethren.
AMPLIFIED BIBLE ANALYSIS: 31 Simon, Simon (Peter), listen! (“LISTEN” IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) Satan [e]has asked excessively (“EXCESSIVELY” IS ADDED TO GIVE THE SIMPLE “ASKED” INTENSIVE FORCE) that [all of] you be given up to him [out of the power and keeping of God], that he might sift [all of] you like grain, (AMP. BIBLE MISSES THE POINT OF “HAVE YOU” JUST AS THE NIV DOES. THE GENERAL “GRAIN” IS NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECIFIC “WHEAT”. ALSO, THE TERM “WHEAT” IN OTHER PASSAGES IS ESSENTIAL TO PROPER INTERPRETATION.)
32 But I have prayed especially (“ESPECIALLY” IS NOT IN ANY GREEK TEXT) for you [Peter], that your [own] faith may not fail; and when you yourself have turned again, (“TURNED AGAIN” IS NOT THE SAME AS “CONVERTED”) strengthen and establish (“ESTABLISH ” ADDED) your brethren.

Other errors and the same in ALL the so-called translations could be mentioned, but the point is made: the modern translations have done nothing but repeated the same sin of Eve in Genesis 3.

  • Accepted the doubting attitude of what God said: “Yea, hath God said…”(Genesis 3:1)
  • Added words to what God said: “…neither shall ye touch it…”(Genesis 3:3)
  • Subtracting words from what God said: “…surely…”(Genesis 3:3)
  • Changing what God said: “…surely…” changed to “…lest…”(Genesis 3:3)
  • Accepted the “new” translation: “Ye shall not surely die…”(Genesis 3:4)

“Updated” and “new”, as well as “easy to understand” English translations since the late 1700’s have done nothing but remove the pure words of God from the readers, and substituted careless, confusing and deceptive terms that hide those words, words the Lord Jesus Christ deemed so important, He said:
“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.” (Matthew 4:4)
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)
“5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:19)

Is the KJB hard to understand? Someone said: “What bothers me about the Bible is not what I don’t understand, what bothers me is all that I do understand.” The KJB is rated today at 5th grade reading level–it was 3rd grade thirty years ago. I know two former Bible college students, who in their adult years learned to read by the King James Bible.

Part two- PHILEMON (Illustration of the second person pronoun in the KJB)

1 Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer,
2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers,
5 Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints;
6 That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

Why ‘Thee’ and “You” vss. 1-6?

1. Philemon is the leader. (church meets in his house) “unto Philemon”, but “to Apphia, and Archippus”.
2. The letter is a personal request to Philemon and of special interest to him.
v.6 The best “communication of thy (Philemon’s) faith requires “every good thing which is in you”(all the church. No man should try to be isolated, a secluded worker in Christ Jesus.)
7 For we have great joy and consolation in thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by thee, brother. “Bowels” from “bowl”, the major organs of body protected by the skeletal frame, shoulders, backbone, ribs, pelvis. Emotions and feelings stem from here. (heart rate, stomach unsettled, largest nerve network of body in the digestive system–called the “Second Brain”.)
8 Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient,
9 Yet for love’s sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.
“enjoin” is to command, “beseech” is to make a plea, or request.
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me:
12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels:
13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: 14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly.
15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever;
16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?
17 If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;
19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.
20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.
21 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.
22 But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.
23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus;
24 Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.
25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

The book is the last of Paul’s epistles and records a living illustration of 2 great doctrines in this age of grace: Imputation and Justification. Romans 5:6-9. Onesimus (name means “profitable”), a servant in Philemon’s house stole something valuable. He ran away and was arrested in Rome. Paul, in prison for preaching the gospel, led Onesimus to the Lord. Paul writes this letter to Philemon and sends it to Philemon by Onesimus. Paul illustrates imputation by taking the cost of replacing the goods upon himself. Philemon is to receive Onesimus with as much love as he would have given to Paul, had Paul been able to come. Philemon is to receive Onesimus now as “above a servant, a brother beloved.” That is Justification. The debt is paid by another (imputation) and the previous offender is accepted, above and beyond what he was before (justification).

Wycliffe’s Contribution to the King James Bible

Approximately 1325, John Wycliffe and his followers called Lollards, translated the Latin Vulgate into the fledgling English language. Although the Latin text had some corruption, the work of Wycliffe was a major step in bringing about the word of God into English. English in the twelfth century was a developing language and struggling to gain standardization. It was not unusual to cross a stream and find a Saxon dialect unknown to those on the other side. Nevertheless, Wycliffe’s work was monumental: the word of God was now out of the Roman domain and into the hands of the common man in England.

Wycliffe insisted the the Latin was of no value locked up by the Roman clergy; as a result, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced him a heretic. The hatred was so caustic they called him “the devil’s instrument” “church’s enemy” “people’s confusion” schisms’ broacher” “heretic’s idol” “hypocrite’s mirror” “hatred’s sower” “lies’ forger” “flatteries’ sink” and many more.

The Roman Catholic Church hated him so much that they eventually dug up his bones, burned them, and scattered his ashes in the Thames River. Years later, one commented, that although his ashes were strewn in the Thames, his influence like his ashes rode the Thames into the sea and spread the word of God over all oceans of the world and touched every continent.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND PAUL’S LAST TRIP TO JERUSALEM AND IMPRISONMENT IN ROME- THE CONTEXT AND USAGE OF THE WORD “SPIRIT” IN PAUL’S TRIPS TO JERUSALEM AND ROME (2/2)

6. GREEK manuscripts are in two classes: “UNCIAL” (all capital letters) or “cursive” ( a running type of all small letters). Therefore, there are no “capitalized words” such as “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” in any Greek manuscript. All ideas of capitalization are absent. English capitalizes proper pronouns, Greek does not. Therefore, when you read “spirit” or “Spirit” you are reading not a translation but an interpretation or version, which is only accurate in your King James Bible that is based on the context and usage of “Spirit” or “spirit”.

7. APPLY what we have learned thus far to Paul’s trip. The applicable cases are as follows:

A. “Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.” (Acts 20:23)

B.  Acts 20:23 “topneumatohagion” (reading of Textus Receptus Greek manuscript). I have separated the letters from before and after “the Holy Ghost”. Keep in mind all Greek manuscripts are “run on” and letters/words/sentences are not separated. This task is left up to the reader or translator.

TO give you an idea of what is involved, I have copied Acts 20:21-23, prior to any word separation or verse numbering:

“διαμαρτυρομενοςιουδαιοιςτεκαιελλησιντηνειςτονθεονμετανοιανκαιπιστιντηνειςτονκυριονημωνιησουχριστονκαινυνιδουεγωδεδεμενοςωπνευματιπορευομαιειςιερουσαλημταεαυτησυναντησονταμοιμη ειδωςπληνοτιτοπνευματοαγιονκαταπολινδιαμαρτυρεταιλεγονοτιδεαμεκαιθλιψειςμενουσιν”

EVEN this is a modern font and does not exactly reflect the running, handwritten cursive. Also, chapter, verse numbering and word separation in any Greek NT was added many years later to facilitate reading. Some know-it-alls even have the gall to presume to correct that which God has blessed for over 500 years. Thousands of men with more education and spiritual fruit than these modern critics have accepted the chapter/verse numbering without question.

THE literal word for word translation of the Textus Receptus Greek (“topneumatohagion”) is “the (to) spirit (pneuma) the (to) holy (hagion).” In cases such as this, where “pneuma” (spirit) has “hagion” with it, there is no doubt and beyond question that this refers to The Holy Spirit. Our KJB correctly translates the phrase by following Bible context and no worldly definitions, “the Holy Spirit” thus referring to the Third Person of the Godhead or Trinity. The Holy Ghost DID NOT FORBID Paul going to Jerusalem–He only warned that “bonds and afflictions” awaited Paul.
YOU don’t need Greek to know this, just read it in English. The student now notices that the KJB puts another “odd” word for “pneuma” here: GHOST! This happens in certain cases referring to “the Holy Ghost” and has a definite meaning and blessing for the Bible believer.

IN the NIV you will find “ghost” 6 times, 2 in the OT and 4 in the NT. The NKJV, which some silly folks think is the same Bible as the KJV, has “ghost” only 2 times. Since all modern versions such as the NIV, NKJV, etc., are dumbed down versions for dumbed down English readers who have allowed Halloween and Casper in corrupted English to totally define “ghost” for them —they stumble off into la-la land with their “Halloween bibles”, while observing the “holy” (hallo) “evening” (ween) to the devil and the dead. Another study will cover the Biblical meaning and difference between “Holy Spirit” and “Holy Ghost” ( both refer to the same  Divine Person, the Third Member of the Godhead, but in different operations).

C. The Greek word “pneuma” ALSO CAN mean “wind” and “hagion” can mean “special or set apart”. So, ignoring CONTEXT and using the terms like the Greek world used them, the words could just mean “a special wind” or “power” thus eliminating the Holy Spirit from the verse. This is the exact method used by the Jehovah Witnesses in their “New World Translation” to eliminate the Personality of the Holy Spirit even though the context (other usage) demands the Holy Spirit is just as much a Person and God as the Father and the Son. (John 16:7-ff)

D. The point is that in this warning in Acts 20:23 that bonds and afflictions await in Jerusalem, there is no prohibition or implication in this reference that Paul was not to go to Jerusalem.

E. Acts 21:11 is the same construction as above in Acts 20:23. There is no doubt that in both cases the Holy Ghost DOES NOT prohibit Paul from going to Jerusalem but only GIVES CONFIRMATION to not only what Paul already knew awaited him, but also to others that they might pray for him as he faced these future “bonds and afflictions.”

“11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.” (Acts 21:11-14 KJB)

THEREFORE, we read that Luke and the others, hearing this prophecy by Agabus, did not want Paul to suffer these things. However, when they saw that Paul already knew what awaited and it meant nothing to him to suffer for The Lord Jesus, they ACCEPTED HIS JERUSALEM TRIP, saying, “The will of the Lord be done.” They did not say, “OK Paul, have it YOUR way!”

F. Acts 21:3-5

3 Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre: for there the ship was to unlade her burden.
4 And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.
5 And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed. (Acts 21:3-5 KJB)

“diatoupneumatos”  Here we have a different wording from the other two. IF WE WANTED TO PLAY THE GREEK GAME we could very well argue that this reference is NOT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT AT ALL BUT SIMPLY MAN’S SPIRIT, “through (dia) the (tou) spirit (pneumatos)”.”TO HAGION” is not in the passage!! Since LUKE DOES NOT RECORD THE SAME DESIGNATION HERE AS IN TWO PRECEDING INSTANCES ON THE SAME SUBJECT, we could translate it to be simply their spirit involved with the prophecy.

BUT I WILL NOT!  The English text reads “the Spirit” (because “hagion” holy, is not in the text) and I believe this is the Holy Spirit here. The answer is right before us in the context.
NOTICE the reference in verse 4 and 5: “And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem and when we had accomplished those days…” Why not allow that the words “should not go up to Jerusalem” refer to the seven days Paul and Luke waited? What kind of person is it that finds fault with the Bible at every opportunity?

Observe the word order:
1. Finding disciples–we tarried seven days–( why wait seven days? There is no other reason for tarrying a whole week other than what Dr Luke mentions) who said to Paul through the Spirit–that he should not go up to Jerusalem—And when we had accomplished those days (What days? The only reason in the context to mention 7 days is the delay in going to Jerusalem), we departed and went our way;
2. THEREFORE, if Paul was out of the will of The Lord and I use that “IF” only for sake of argument. Every person who believes Paul was out of God’s will in going to Jerusalem, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS WITH SCRIPTURE:
1. Why did Luke continue with Paul, if Paul was disobeying God?
2. Was Luke also out of the will of The Lord?
3. Why did those disciples, (with wives and children) who supposedly told him not to go to Jerusalem at all, GO OUT OF THE CITY AND PRAY WITH PAUL?
4. Were they also now out of the will of the Lord?
“…and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.”
5. As a result of Paul going to Jerusalem and on to Rome, we have his prison epistles: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Titus, and Philemon. Are we to think these were written by a DISOBEDIENT APOSTLE?
6. WHERE DID PAUL EVER CALL HIMSELF “A prisoner as a result of MY disobedience?” OR “a prisoner of Rome?”
ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE PAUL WAS OUT OF GOD’S WILL IN GOING TO JERUSALEM AND ON TO ROME MUST ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AS WELL AS TWO OTHERS.

1. Will you tell us where these words are found, who said it and what the omitted words are: “a prisoner of _____.  ______ ” ?
2. I will make this one easier. Just fill in the blanks and then tell me if the Lord said Paul did a good thing or a bad thing in going to Jerusalem.
In Jerusalem: “And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast ________  ___  ___  ___ __________, so must thou bear _______ also at ______ . (Acts 23:11 KJB)
3. On the ship to Rome during the storm:

“21 But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss.
22 And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship.
23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,
24 Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.
25 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.” (Acts 27:21-25 KJB)

SINCE THE ANGEL OF GOD SAID TO PAUL:
“.God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.”
I have been JOYFULLY “sailing with Paul” through the air over the USA, South America, China, Mongolia, and water between the islands of the Philippines, preaching THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD TO ALL MEN EVERYWHERE for the past 50 years. Though we may at times be bound by men, we are always “the prisoner of Jesus Christ”.

“Wherein I suffer trouble, AS an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.” (2 Timothy 2:9 KJB)
NOTICE THE “AS an evil doer”. Don’t you critics of Paul’s trip to Jerusalem-Rome think you ought to confess you have been “an evil doer” in attacking the word of God and accusing His Apostle to the Gentiles, and repent 180°?

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND PAUL’S LAST TRIP TO JERUSALEM AND IMPRISONMENT IN ROME (1/2)

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND PAUL’S LAST TRIP TO JERUSALEM AND IMPRISONMENT IN ROME

THE “scholars” never like to have the tables turned on them but I learned over 40 years ago that so-called “Greek rules” are easily manipulated if one has a mind to do so. Believe me, the Greek spouters are regular as clockwork in doing just that.

HERE are some “insider tips” when you have a blustering doctor poo-pooing your lack of education. Keep in mind that Grandma who reads English and has lived in her KJB all her life knows more of God than any pipsqueak Hebrew or Greek scholar. And you can take that to the bank!

LET’S list what the “Greek experts” never talk about when they want the rules to bend their way.

1. NO RV, ASV, NASV, NIV, NWT, OR GREEK etc., etc. user who corrects the KJB by it, believes he has the infallible, inerrant, perfect words of God IN HIS HAND, in ONE BOOK. They are “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7 KJB). They are not convinced that what they have fits this description:

“6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalms 12:6, 7 KJB)

(The ignorant critics even try to remove the contextual rule in Psalm 12 to refer to people—rather than GOD’S WORDS)

2. KJB CONTEXT ALWAYS TRUMPS THE GREEK RULES. There it is. When push comes to shove, that is the high card in the “Greek says this or that” or “The NIV has the best reading” game. God put that infallible feature in the KJB and it is also true in any language. If you want to understand what a Yanomami (S.A. Amazon jungle), Zhuang (SW China Minority), Spaniard or German says, you must know THE CONTEXT: HOW THE WORDS HE SPEAKS ARE USED WITHIN THAT CONTEXT OF CONVERSATION. And, If you have ever played Rook, Hearts, Canasta, or Poker (Chinese or American), you know what “trump” means.

3. EVERY GREEK GRAMMAR, LEXICON and CONCORDANCE when it differs from the CONTEXT of usage in the KJB, defines its words by a form of Classical Greek. Classical Greek is man’s language with senses, usage, and meanings developed over hundreds of years. Think of what the centuries of debauchery and “man-boy love” did to that Greek language! The Greek language of the NT has been “purified” by God and is BIBLICAL GREEK, a form of Greek NOT spoken by anyone on the street from B.C. Socrates to a Greek taxi driver on Cyprus in 2013.

4. SURE, there are similarities between SPOKEN GREEK and GREEK IN THE BIBLE during the first century. But there are many MAJOR differences. For example, LOVE. All Greeks had “eros” love (erotic sexual implications) and “phileo” love (family and friends, country, etc.) BUT NONE OF THEM KNEW ANYTHING OF THE WORD “agape”. “Agape” is a Greek word for love FOUND ONLY IN THE NT. GOD PUT IT IN THE NT BECAUSE IT REFERS TO SPECIAL DEFINITIONS OF LOVE.

5. AND–here is a kicker–WHEN A PERSON TALKS OF “LOVE” IN ENGLISH (without knowing the ENGLISH CONTEXT of the KJB) he knows nothing of what it means and how God uses it.

I KNOW that from experience because before I was saved, I sang about “Love” in scores of bars. “Oh baby, love me tonight” and “Loves gonna live here again” “Love me tender” “Love me darlin’ just tonight”. We just “love” NY, fried chicken, a fireplace, girls, wife, cat, dog, and many more. I KNEW NOTHING OF THE LOVE IN THE BIBLE AND MY CORRUPT ENGLISH LESSONS HAD CORRUPTED ME.

I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE BIBLE NOW. Notice I said “THE BIBLE.” Once I learned a little Greek and was able to compare the usages of love and agape in the KJB, I KNEW THAT EVERY BIBLE THAT MISTRANSLATES AGAPE IN 1CORINTHIANS 13 AS “LOVE” IS CORRUPT AND CAN NOT BE THE PURE WORD OF GOD. The context and usage of “agape” in the KJB defines the meaning. “Agape” as defined by context and usage in the KJB is CHARITY: the bond of perfectness between believers who are obeying God. Put “love” in 1 Corinthians 13 and “love” in John 3:16 because “agape” is the Greek word in both places, and you have no real Bible understanding of either passage–you just think you do. ANY NIV OR OTHER BIBLE USER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE VARIUS MEANINGS OF AGAPE. YOU ONLY GET IT IN THE ENGLISH KJB.

ALL languages man speaks and uses are corrupted simply because “all have sinned” (Romans3:23) and even saved people can not keep “pure words” due to the presence of the “old man” in every believer. Non-biblical carnal English usage for the past 400 yrs has even corrupted the meaning of love and charity.

This fact is the reason GOD INSPIRED THE BIBLE WRITERS TO WRITE :

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21 KJB)

GOD PROMISES HIS WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY:

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35 KJB)

Now, if His WORDS shall not pass away, WHERE ARE THESE WORDS NOW? The educated idiot says, “Uhhhh….in heaven.” Why you gnat brained son of doubting Thomas—have you never read the hundreds of times in the Bible where God speaks to man and tells him to do exactly, TO THE VERY WORDS what He says? God did not write the Bible for Himself, give it to man, then take it away, tucked forever on some iCloud shelf.

RULE: ANY MAN WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THE KJB IS THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, DOES NOT BELIEVE WHATEVER BOOK HE CAN HOLD IN HIS HAND IS THE PURE WORD OF GOD.

6. OTHER specific words such as “blood” “church” “baptism” “testament” “covenant” “angel” “cherubim” plus a hundred or so more, must not be defined by Classical Greek usage. That is by no means the only danger; grammar, syntax, and the very construction and association of all Biblical words with each other are mutilated by those who use “Greek” to correct the KJB or proudly point to the “clarity” of their “new” translation. Another example: Every Greek grammar and lexicon allows Homer and other heathen Greeks to define the Greek word “baptizo” (baptize) instead of allowing the context of God’s word to define it. Every time you use a Bible “study help” such as Strong’s or Young’s Concordance you are using a source that depends upon heathen definitions more often than God’s definitions from the Bible itself. NT Greek is Biblical Greek and like the English King James Bible, it is a language never entirely spoken by anyone, anywhere. The Biblical English in the KING JAMES BIBLE WAS NOT SPOKEN BY ANYONE FROM 1200-1611 A.D. God purified the Bible words by usage and context in the King James Bible itself. (For a more thorough study, see “God’s Dictionary” available in the Right Division bookstore.

7. GREEK manuscripts are in two classes: “UNCIAL” (all capital letters) or “cursive” ( a running type of all small letters). Therefore, there are no “capitalized words” such as “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” in any Greek manuscript. All ideas of capitalization are absent. English capitalizes proper pronouns, Greek does not. Therefore, when you read “spirit” or “Spirit” you are reading not a translation but an interpretation or version, only accurate in your King James Bible which is based on the context and usage of “Spirit” or “spirit”.
http://right-division.com/bookstore/products/gods-dictionary-how-worldy-wisdom-supplanted-bible-term-definitions-ebook/
PART TWO WILL APPLY THESE PRINCIPLES AND OTHERS TO THE CONTEXT AND USAGE OF THE WORD “SPIRIT” IN PAUL’S TRIPS TO JERUSALEM AND ROME.

THE BOOK OF BOOKS

NOT only is the King James Bible the word of God, it is the literary masterpiece of the world’s literature.

SHAME on the “higher criticism theologians” who freely correct and mangle the words of God in their new translations. Literary students (literati) by their acceptance, quotations and literary use of the KING JAMES BIBLE words and phrases actually are more scriptural than these bumbling religionists.

THE KJB is the epitome of English language, syntax, style, grammar, prose, poetry, structure and dramatic order—head and shoulders above all books in the world. For their recognition and appreciation of its value in literature, the literary students and accomplished authors are to be commended above their critical theological counterparts.

AN example of an English master of literature is Charles Dickens (February 7, 1812 – June 9, 1870). He was a student of the King James Bible. Although he had little formal education (he left school at the age of 12 to work in a factory due to his father being thrown in the debtor’s prison) he became a prolific author of many works such as A Christmas Carol, Tale of Two Cities, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist and Great Expectations. These are only a few examples of his mastery of literature.

THERE are over 365 evident uses of the words and phrases of the KJB in his works.

TRANSLATING NEW ENGLAND IDIOMS AND THE HEBREW BIBLE

What does a Rhode Island idiom have to do with the Bible? Actually, a lot. The question “Would you like a cabinet?” does not refer to a wooden box with doors; it is a milkshake. Since it is made by a blender that is normally stored in a cabinet–the ice cream and milk blend is called a “cabinet.”
 
The language phenomenon is a metalepsis or a metonomy and it is a natural result of all language development and richness; the English language excels in the formation of the figures. In many cases, like this in the Northeastern US, a variety of idioms are developed in one region that do not exist in another region although both regions speak the same language.
 
Another metalepsis example is the British English “He drank his house”. It means he sold his house, plus he drank the drink he bought with the house income. We put house, money, then drinking the liquid to represent the whole process!
 

Look at Ecclesiastes 12:5.

“Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:” (Ecclesiastes 12:5 KJV)

Notice the phrase. “and desire shall fail:” Literally, the Hebrew text is “the caper-berry shall fail.”

The Revised Version of 1881 reads: “and the caper-berry shall fail”

The New American Standard Bible (1965) reads: “and the caperberry is ineffective.”

 
It is easy to see above that both the RSV and the NASV translated the Hebrew, literally. The translation conveys no meaning and is simpleton activity. Just as the Texas visitor to Rhode Island would sit and blink when asked if he would like “a cabinet”, the Bible reader wonders what in the world does “caper-berry shall fail” mean. Correct translation is not word for word in such cases because there are language idioms which carry meanings deeper than the surface phrase. The sense of the language must be translated or else there is nonsense. Accurate translation demands that, as much as possible, the target translation must convey the same understanding to its reader that it conveyed to the reader of the source language. This requires accurate knowledge of both the source language (in this case Hebrew) and target language (English) including the idioms and all figures of speech.
 
The RSV translation was ridiculed and eventually most modern translations, NIV, New Century, etc., capitulated and agreed with “the old, out-dated, archaic King James Bible. The KJB had it right 250 years before the critics caught on.
 

Let’s examine the metalepsis in the Bible translation.

Introductory phrase: “Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high,

1. and fears shall be in the way,

2. and the almond tree shall flourish,

3. and the grasshopper shall be a burden,

4. and desire shall fail:

All of these build to the concluding major statement:

“because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: “

 
The Hebrew “caper-berry shall fail” is like our English “cabinet” and “house” example above. Caper-berry is put for the condiments made from it, then condiment is put for the appetite or food created by it.
 
Another figure of speech “and the almond tree shall flourish” is a conceptual metaphor (one domain stands for another domain). At first glance one might think “flourish” is a good condition and is in opposition to the other terms (afraid, fears, burden, fail, etc) which very definitely indicate failure and decay. But the appearance of many white blossoms on the almond tree is actually near the end of the tree’s purpose. The almond tree’s blossoms are white, like the hair of the aged and they quickly fade and fall.. Those who are familiar with almond trees know the metaphor.
 
Accurate translation of the Old Testament is impossible if the Hebrew idioms are ignored. Hebrew is rich in idioms and figures of speech. The metalepsis (desire shall fail) and metaphors are not the only translation features at work in the KJB text. There is use of the figure, polysyndeton. Ecclesiastes 12:5 has a series of phrases connected with the conjunction “and”. This series is a polysyndeton, a figure of speech meaning “many connectors” for the purpose of bringing an increasing force of related statements to a crescendo of expression. This translates in a correct scriptural sense and is also a magnificent literary device that makes reading and hearing a pleasure. ( The polysyndeton is an often used feature in the Hebrew text. This can easily be seen in the KJB’s faithful and majestic use of “and” in Genesis 1:1-ff.)
 
–Dave Reese

 

Back to Top