The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at KARM.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick live. Francis.
Taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Good afternoon, everyone. I am Luke Wayne, filling in for Matt Slick today. I work with Matt at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. That's KARM.org, C-A-R-M dot O-R-G, and would, you know, ask you guys to be praying for Matt. He's had a little bit of a sickness this week, but we are praying he's on the road to recovery and praying he'll be on the men's and back in with you guys on Monday. In the meantime, in God's providence, we had planned for me to be on here anyway, and I'm excited to be here answering you guys' questions.
For those of you who might have missed it yesterday or by way of reminder, tomorrow we have a special guest coming on. I'm going to be interviewing a good friend of mine, Chris Martinson from Utah's Voice for the Voiceless. This is a Christian ministry that does front lines work engaging with the issue of prenatal infanticide, or what we would normally call abortion. They do sidewalk gospel ministry out in front of abortion facilities, sharing the gospel and pleading for the lives of unborn babies, and we've seen lives change through that. And then they also minister to the material needs and practical needs of single mothers who are in difficult situations to help alleviate the temptation to turn to that way out. And they also, at the same time, also engage in the political sphere, meeting with local city hall members and state representatives attempting to advocate for just laws, and attending town halls and being, as the name says, voice for the voiceless, for those who cannot speak out for themselves. And so if you want to know more about how Christians can engage in the political sphere or sidewalk gospel ministry on this important issue, this is an episode you are not going to want to miss. So I really hope a lot of you guys will not only listen tomorrow, but join in.
Call in, ask Chris your tough questions, and he is a great guy devoted. I list all these things that the ministry does, and it sounds like, oh, they must be a big organization. It's actually a small group of devoted guys who work full-time jobs and do this in their off hours.
And yet, by the grace of God, they're able to accomplish so much. How much more if more Christians were involved doing this? And so tomorrow is going to be a great opportunity to talk about those things and go real deep with a guy who's on the front lines. And so I hope you will join me and Chris tomorrow for what promises to be a great and engaging conversation.
So that said, for getting to the phone, let's take a couple questions people have written in online. So Randall on YouTube asked, what do you think about the New Jerusalem? Is it a literal city or an allegory of the bride of Christ or what?
Okay, Randall, that's a good, good question. Revelation can, with all of its imagery, can be complicated to sift through what elements are literal and figurative. This is where a lot of the millennial debates come out of, wrestling through this question of which portions of the book are symbol and which are literal descriptions. And so the first straightforward thing that I want to say is that the general teaching of the New Testament is a literal hope of a physical resurrection to a bodily life when Christ returns. Just as Christ rose up out of the grave in the body in which he died, he will raise us up in the same way. So the general hope taught by Scripture is a literal future hope of bodily life on the new earth.
And that is what we as Christians ultimately await our Savior to return and accomplish at the consummation of his kingdom. But when it comes to the specific details, in Revelation 21 when it talks about the New Jerusalem, the specific precious stones, the gates of a single pearl, the pillars and the exact dimensions of, you know, 14, 15,000 miles in width and length and height, are all of these things exactly what the city is going to literally look like? The place of our dwelling is going to literally look like? I suspect that these are symbols, that these are our prophetic images meant to tell us of the grandeur and glory of our future hope, and to tell us something about what God is giving to his people, what Christ has bought for his people, the glorious hope that we have as believers, more than it is meant to be a mere list of building materials out of which our future city will be built. So I would tend to lean more toward the idea of a figurative application of that passage, not in the sense that we don't have a literal bodily resurrection hope, but that those exact images are symbols meant to tell us something about the nature of that reality.
Similarly, earlier in Revelation, in Revelation 17, when it talks about the harlot, the woman who is Babylon the Great, the city who sits on the beast with seven heads that are seven hills, and it describes her as wearing precious stones and pearls and gold, many of these same images are called up in a woman that represents symbolically a city, who in turn, it doesn't simply mean the city is in the buildings, but the people. And so this is talking to us about the nature of something in these symbolic images. I think Revelation 21 is probably doing something similar, telling us about the glory and grandeur of our hope, rather than merely an exact visual picture of what that's going to be like.
But I might be wrong. And if I get there, and it looks literally down to the detail exactly like what Revelation 21, then praise God, I will be delighted to be there in what God has seen fit to give us out of His grace in the age to come. And so, you know, those are important and challenging questions when we look at books like Revelation. And so Randall, I hope that that is a helpful answer to your question.
For callers, we do still have lines open, and you can call in at 877-207-2276. But let's get to another online question. Alex on Facebook wrote, Noah was told to bring seven of every clean animal onto the ark and two of every unclean animal. But how did no one know what clean and unclean animals were? And what did those categories mean before people were eating animals, since that wasn't until after the flood, and before there was the law? And the law and sacrificial system where clean and unclean was such an important category?
And that's a great question, Alex. So let's stop and think about the flow of Genesis up until that point. Before that, after Genesis 3 in the fall, Genesis 4 introduces Cain and Abel. And Cain and Abel worship God through sacrifice, and Abel offers animals. And so even though the Mosaic law had not been instituted, there was a system of sacrifice. People did bring freewill offerings of a sort as acts of worship to God. And so there was sacrificial worship, and so the idea of clean and unclean animals had probably already been revealed, not for dietary purposes, but for sacrificial purposes. It's also, some Christian scholars think that clean and unclean animals was used as a shorthand, since Moses was writing this book to people who already were receiving the law, was used as a shorthand to express which animals Noah was instructed to have seven on the ark versus the two. And so there are multiple reasons why we can look and say this would have been a meaningful way to express it. Another question that we had, Johan on Facebook wrote, Why do so many Christians say that the Bible is the Word of God when the Bible says that Jesus is the Word of God?
All right, now Johan, I get what you're saying. John 1 says, In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. John 1.14 says, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And so clearly Jesus is referred to with the title of the Word. But I think what you're committing here is the fallacy of equivocation, where a word or a phrase, a term can be used in more than one way, and you switch partway through your argument which one you're using, and thus confuse the situation. It would be like if I'm at a gym, and my athletic instructor tells me and the people around me, Okay, it's time to exercise your right arms.
Or if I'm at a political rally, and a speaker says, It's time to exercise your right to bear arms. Exercise right and arms mean a completely different thing in those two contexts. In the same way, this term, the Word, has a precise meaning, a specific meaning in John 1, that it doesn't necessarily mean every other time it's used. And so it is true that Jesus is the Word, but that doesn't mean that the Bible, in another sense, is not the Word of God.
And in fact, I would turn it back on you. How can you say that the Bible is not the Word of God when Jesus says that the Bible is the Word of God? In Matthew 15.6, Jesus accuses the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, because they're elevating their traditions over what's commanded in Scripture, and he says, And by this you invalidate the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. And so Jesus did call the Scriptures the Word of God. Similarly, when Satan was challenging and tempting him, he rebuked Satan, quoting from Deuteronomy, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Again, it's the Word of God. And in quoting Scripture to the Pharisees, he says, But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God? And he quotes the Scriptures. And so Jesus regarded the Scriptures as the Word of God. And so this is a proper thing for Christians to do, for us to say, Okay, the Scripture, Jesus said the Scripture is the very Word of God, that when we read the Scripture, we are reading what God spoke to us. It's not just a recording of the Word of God, it is the Word of God. And that is why a Christian would rightly, truthfully, properly call the Scripture the Word of God, even though the Scriptures would, in a very different sense, refer to Jesus as the eternal Word, the second person of the Trinity. And so these are, I get where your question is coming from. I understand why you would ask it. But the fact is, you're confusing two different ways of using the term Word, and in so doing, creating a seeming contradiction that just isn't there. And so I would similarly relate it to that.
So why does John call Jesus the Word? That's also a super important question that we can ask. And that's something that we will talk about right after this break.
So again, lines are open. You guys can call in with your questions at 877-207-2276, and we will take them after this break. Welcome back.
This is Luke Wayne again filling in for Matt Slick. If you are just joining us, Matt's out for the week. We'll be, Lord willing, back on Monday, and I am filling in here. I work with Matt at the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, or CARM.org. So the lines are open, and we are ready to take your calls at 877-207-2276.
We'd love to hear from you guys. So before the break, we were talking about the subject of why is Jesus called the Word in John chapter 1? What does that mean? What's the significance of that terminology? And why did John choose to use, of all things, to call Jesus the Word? And some people have attempted to attach this to Greek philosophical use of the Greek word logos and things like that, but there's really a more straightforward answer to why John would use it, and that is that it was a biblical Old Testament term with tremendous significance. Passages like Isaiah 55 10-11, For as the rain and the snow came down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bare and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so will my word, which goes forth from my mouth, it will not return empty without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. God's Word is pictured not merely as speech, but as sent forth on a mission to accomplish. Psalm 107 19-20, Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble. He saved them out of their distress. He sent his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destruction. Or in Psalm 147 15-18, he sends forth his command to the earth.
His word runs very swiftly. He gives snow like wool, he scatters the frost like ashes, he casts forth the ice like fragments, who can stand before it's cold, it goes on to talk about all the creative power in that, but God's Word is pictured going forth, running, accomplishing a mission, and so there are these personal attributes given in this picture of the Word of God, and indeed in 1 Samuel 3 21, we see, and the Lord appeared again in Shiloh, because the Lord revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the Word of the Lord. The Lord appeared.
That's visual, that's not just sound, that's not just hearing speech. The Lord appeared by revealing himself through his word, and so when God appeared in the Old Testament and made himself known, what people saw, not just heard, what they saw was the Word of the Lord. So when we begin to see through this and many other passages, that the Word is a term used in the Old Testament for the second person of the Trinity, a person who goes forth, sent from the Father to accomplish a mission and return, who is God, is God, it's the Lord who appears, and yet is the Word of God. And so when John 1 says, in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, he was in the beginning with God. This is using rich Old Testament language to speak in a Trinitarian fashion and show Jesus as the eternal Son of God, his Word sent forth on his ultimate redemptive mission, accomplished in the cross and the empty tomb. And that is why, when we understand this from a biblical context, John 1 becomes such a rich testimony of who Jesus is, his deity, the triune nature of God. And so these are super important things to understand. All right, well we are going to get now to Josh in Salt Lake City, who is calling in right now. Josh, you are on the air.
Hi there. Hey, I was just, I had a question about spirituality, and there's, I have a friend that's doing spirituality, like, ceremonies and doing tarot card readings, and she says that I'm closed-minded for not being into that stuff, and I just, I don't understand what spirituality is. I feel like if it's not, if it doesn't have to do with Jesus, then it's probably not good. Yeah, well, if by spirituality what your friend means is practices like tarot card reading and things of that nature, then the spirituality they're talking about is the occult, and communing with deceitful spirits, which Scripture warns us against. It's not closed-minded to listen to the words of Jesus, who warns us against, do not believe every spirit, test the spirits to see if they are, so if that's closed-minded, I want to be closed-minded. I don't want to open my mind to deceiving spirits who are going to lie to me and lead me and stray. I want to listen only to the Spirit of God, the Spirit who speaks through the Scripture. And so that kind of spirituality, occult spirituality that seeks spiritual knowledge outside of the one true Spirit of God through tarot card reading or other psychic or occult practices is something we're warned in Scripture to avoid, and I certainly would not let any chiding or name-calling of closed-minded pressure you into participating in something that would not only be sinful, but would be a danger and snare to deceive you and lead you astray. Does that make sense, Josh?
That definitely makes sense. We don't live in a naturalistic world. We live in a supernatural world.
There are real spirits in this world, and Scripture warns us against listening to any spirit that is not the Spirit of Christ. All right. And so that's not the kind of spirituality you want. Definitely helps.
I agree. Thank you for telling me. Is there anywhere, you know, where in Scripture it talks about this so that I can maybe try to read through it and maybe give myself some ammunition to speak against those kind of spiritual things? Yeah, so one of the first places what I was just quoting from in 1 John 4 says, Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God. Now it's going to give several things that we need to look at here. First, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
This is the spirit of the Antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming and now is already in the world. So let's stop there for a minute. Now first of all, this actually relates to what I was already talking about right before the call, when we're coming up on a break. If you could just hold on, I'll be right back with you to talk more on this.
But this is super important, and then there are several other more specific passages to look at. So hold on with me, Josh, and everybody will be right back after this. Welcome back to the show.
Again, this is Luke Wayne. I am filling in for Matt Slick this week. He'll be back with us on Monday, Lord willing, and we'll be excited to welcome him back. But I work with him here at CARM and am excited to be taking your questions this week and helping out.
So we left off before the break. We were talking with Josh from Salt Lake City about occult practices, occult spirituality, and why that is inappropriate for Christians to participate in. And so we'll be getting back to him in just a second, but if you want to call in with your question, again, the number is 877-207-2276. So let's get back to Josh. Josh, you still with us?
Yes, I am. Okay, so Josh, as I was explaining, so we're told in 1 John 4 not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirit. The first test we're given is that spirits that confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh are from God. Now that's specifically, this is John writing, who wrote John chapter 1. So what he's talking about is the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity, the specific theology that he's already taught through his gospel.
And so any spirit that would deny that explicit teaching about who Jesus is, is to be rejected. Beyond that, he goes on to say, you are from God, little children, overcome the world, because greater is he that is in you than he is in the world. They are from the world, therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
We are from God. He who knows God listens to us. He who is not from God does not listen to us, but we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. So the second test would be, does the spirit agree with the teachings of the apostles? The apostles have made clear, whatever does not agree with what they have taught, with what the New Testament would teach us, what the apostles have said, is of the world, is the spirit of antichrist, it is to be rejected.
And so we have to look at the scripture, and we have to look at the person of Jesus, and we judge every spirit by these things. Now those scriptures also give us specific practices that we are not to use to access spiritual knowledge. And among those would be, for example, Deuteronomy 18, 10. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or who practices witchcraft, or who interprets omens, or who is a sorcerer. So anyone who is using cards or things like that to try to gain a spiritual message, that's a form of divination, or anyone who's looking for omens and nature, or in the stars, or horoscopes, or any things like that, practicing witchcraft, any of these things, we are forbidden to do. Once we get to the books of the kings and chronicles, we see the kings specifically condemned for participating in these exact practices. Look, for example, at 2 Kings 21, 6. He made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft, and used divination. And dealt with mediums and spiritists.
That kind of spirituality that your friend is advocating. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger. Now does this change in the New Testament?
No. Acts 16, 16 talks about, for example, a slave girl who has a spirit of divination, who is identified as a demonic spirit that Paul ends up casting out. But this spirit does fortune telling, and exactly these kind of practices you're talking about. And so this is, any spirituality that would be connected with interpreting omens or divination through tarot cards and things of that sort, is a demonic, occult spirituality that is sinful and angering to God. These are things that we are forbidden to participate. This is not how we gain knowledge from the true spirit. This is instead how we put ourselves willingly in the position to be deceived. Does that make sense to you, Josh?
Yeah, it does. Yeah, I kind of responded, like, I'm not closed-minded. I'm just the only person who decides to read the Bible and to right wrong. You know, like, out of my friends and people that I know and stuff, many people don't like to read the Bible.
I like to listen to it and stuff on audiobook a lot. That's the way I do it. And I think reading the Bible when we can, looking at the actual words and reading it carefully, is important, useful, anyone who's capable. But listening to audio Bibles additionally, to take it in more and to surround yourself with it, is also good.
I do the same thing. And I read the Bible to my family out loud, so they gather and listen to it being read. So hearing the Bible read, reading the Bible, these are ways that we hear the sure, indisputable voice of the Spirit of God. And so while people—we live in a culture that wants to chase the novel, chase the experiential, chase the new. But the fact of the matter is that where we can truly hear the very speech of God, the very word, the very voice of God, is in the words of his Scripture.
And we ought to treat that accordingly. That studying your Bible is true spirituality. That we do commune with the Spirit of God through his inspired words there. And so you're absolutely right. That is—that's not being closed-minded.
That's truly opening your mind to God and his voice, instead of chasing after worldly knowledge that is truly no knowledge at all, but is lies. Thank you. That was a really good explanation. All right.
Well, does that answer your question, Josh? Yep, that's it. Thank you so much. Have a good day. All right. You too. You too.
Okay. That was Josh. We are now going on to Helen in North Carolina. Helen, you are on the air. Thank you, Luke.
Great job you're doing here. I really did want to call in and talk to you a little bit about the King James only controversy. You know, it's just a long, ongoing process with a lot of Christians. I mean, well-meaning, but—or just so ignorant when you try to explain things to them. You know, the new Scriptures that we have, the new scrolls that were found, and the more accurate types of translations today that we have available to us, and that there were many mistakes in the King James version of Scripture. And I've read your reports on them on kind.org, and I love them.
They're so full of knowledge and wisdom and truth. So could you share that with us? And I'm going to hang up and listen to you. Okay. Did you have a specific question on it, or just generally on the topic?
Just generally on the topic, Luke, would be great. I think that a lot of folks just—they don't even understand what they're reading many times when they're reading the King James. You know, it's such a foreign language to us, you know, a type of English to us. It's very difficult to understand, even though I grew up with it. I love the poetry of it.
But it's just not as accurate as it needs to be. If you could just give us some history of the different translations, that would be wonderful. And some of the translations that you have found more true to the original text of Hebrew and Greek. We would love to hear that.
Absolutely, Helen. I'm happy to share what I can on that. And anyone listening right now who may have a different opinion than mine on this, I'd love to hear from you. I really enjoy talking, if you are listening and you hold to the King James only perspective, I'd love to hear from you. I'd love to talk with you about it and hear why you hold that and be able to share with you directly. And again, you can call in at 877-207-2276.
And so go ahead, call and get on the line, and right after this break, I will answer Helen's challenge and talk to you about Bible translations and King James only-ism and why I hold the view that I do on that. So tune in for that right after this. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Welcome back to the show. For those who are just joining, this is not Matt Slick. I'm Luke Wayne. I'm filling in for Matt this week.
He will be back with us on Monday, Lord willing. So just before the break, Helen from North Carolina called in and asked me to expound on the subject of King James only-ism. And so if you would like to talk to talk to me about that subject, raise your own views.
Or if you have other questions you'd like me to answer before the end of the hour, call in at 877-207-2276. We'd love to hear from you. But yeah, King James only-ism is a subject I've actually written a whole lot about. It's a subject of interest to me not because I think that all King James only-ists are non-Christian cultists. There is cultic King James only-ism, but most King James only-ists are not of that variety.
They're my brothers in Christ, and I think this is an important issue, understanding the reliability of translations, English translations of the Bible, and how we can access God's Word in our own language, the English that we speak today. And I am not, when I speak against King James only-ism, I want to be clear, for those of you who don't know, King James only-ism is the position that only the King James Bible, only the old KJV, is the true Word of God in English, and that any other translation of the Bible is incorrect and should not be used. And so there are various versions of this position, but if in the end your position says, only use the King James, don't use any other Bible, then you would be a form of King James only-ism. And so when I speak against King James only-ism, I am not speaking against the King James Bible, which I actually believe is a fine translation of the Bible into the Elizabethan English of 400 years ago. And I was raised in the King James Bible.
We were not King James only-ists. As I got old enough to read for myself, my father let me read in other translations that I understood better, but would still insist that I memorize Scripture in the King James, because he was convinced it was the most accurate. And so many of the verses that I have memorized today are still, in my own mind, memorized in King James, and I have to translate them myself if I'm reciting them to someone who's not accustomed to the King James English. So if I'm reciting Romans 12, 1 and 2, I might say to you, I urge you therefore, brothers, but in my own mind I'm thinking, I beseech ye therefore, brethren. So I love the King James Bible.
I do. And most of the places where there's apparent disagreement between the King James Bible and modern translations, it's not actually because one of those translations disagrees with the other, but it's because the English language has changed. There are legitimate differences both in translation and in manuscripts, but in most cases, King James only-ists will point to passages saying, these, uh, you see the translations disagree when if you actually understand the old English, they don't disagree at all. But that's actually where the problem comes in, is that the King James only-ist doesn't understand the old English that they're reading, and thinks the verse is saying something different than it really is, and therefore they think it disagrees with the modern translation, which is speaking more clearly in the English that they themselves read and understand. And so, this is one of the reasons why reading a modern translation, even if you go to a church where you preach and study in the King James Bible, keep studying that.
Absolutely. I'm not telling you to leave your church if it's a gospel-believing Christian church. But if you go to a church where you preach and study in the King James Bible, keep studying that. But also, as an addition, it's helpful to read a modern translation because you'll realize passages that maybe you've never understood or misunderstood your whole life because you didn't grasp that older English. And that's one of the most important reasons why modern translations are in fact so important, because just as the King James Bible was a great translation into the American Standard, the English Standard Version, or even the NKJV, the New King James Version, are fantastic translations into our English, the English that we speak today. And so these are helpful translations, even if you use them as study aids along with reading the KJV. I still read the KJV devotionally as one of the Bibles that I read and study in, and I still, when I write my articles and I'm trying to understand a verse, I'm trying to dig into a passage, it's one of the translations I'll consult. But I do not believe that we are doing ourselves any favor by using exclusively a translation that was written, that was translated into an English that we don't speak. Beyond that, at the time that the KJV was translated, knowledge of Greek and especially Hebrew was in its infancy in Western Europe and in England where the KJV was being produced. And so there are places where we understand the Greek and the Hebrew much better now than they did then, and that's not to insult them, we're standing on their shoulders, we have grown from their studies.
They were brilliant men who did incredible work and they themselves didn't want the work to stop with them, that was not the attitude of the translators back in 1511. But to give you an example, if you go to Titus 2.13, in the time that the KJV translators were working, they did not yet understand what's called the Granville Sharp Rule, and I won't go into all the grammatical details, but it's how certain Greek words work in certain grammatical contexts. And because they didn't understand it, the translation in this verse, the KJV is not wrong, but it is less clear, less clear on a very important point. When you read the KJV on that passage, it says, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. Now, this is frankly, the cults love to use the KJV on this verse, because it allows you, the grammar in the KJV allows you to make a distinction between the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ as two entirely separate entities here. Now, that's not what the KJV is actually saying, but the grammar is ambiguous enough, it's vague enough that it can be read that way, looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. But if you read any modern translation, better understanding the Greek grammar, we know that it would actually say, looking for the blessed hope and the and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, great God and Savior are both being used as titles of Jesus Christ, Jesus is being called not only Savior, but he's explicitly and directly being called by Paul, our great God. And that, when you read it properly, is even what the KJV is saying, but it says it vaguely, it says it unclearly, you can read it improperly there. Whereas knowing the Greek grammar better as scholars do today, they can render it more clearly and straightforwardly, unambiguously as looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.
And that is who Jesus is, he is our great God and Savior. Another place that you can look is in the book of Jude. In the book of Jude, we see verse four. Well, let me pull this up.
I've got it in the NASB right now. Let me pull this up in the KJV. In the KJV, it says, For there are certain men who crept in unawares, who were before, before of old, ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. And I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye want do this, and that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. So again, when we read this in the KJV, verse five, who was it that saved them out of the land of Egypt?
Well, the Lord. Well, which Lord, denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ? Sounds like it's talking about two separate lords here, our only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Now what you can't see in the English, and again, this is where sticking to one English translation without any other studies can hurt you, what you can't see in the English is that in the Greek, our only Lord God in the KJV here is our only despotes God, our only Master God, and then it's our Lord Jesus Christ, our Kyrios Jesus Christ. And it says, I want to remind you that you want to do this, that the Lord, the Kyrios, so it actually is referring to Jesus, save the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroying those who could did not believe, but in the KJV, that's obscured by the way it's worded.
But if we look at a modern translation, say the NASB, we'll see for certain persons have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men who turned the grace of God into licentiousness, and deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. Now we have our only Master and Lord is Jesus Christ. Now I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. So our only Master and Lord is Jesus Christ, and that Lord saved the people out of the land of Egypt.
What's that doing? It's identifying Jesus as the God of the Old Testament. The God who delivered the people out of the land of Egypt in Exodus is Jesus, our only Master and Lord. And again, the KJV isn't wrong here.
It's just less clear. I'm not saying this is an error in the in the in the KJV. It's simply a unclear passage that the obscurity is taken away by modern scholarship in the Greek that allows us to translate it more clearly and specifically, and into the English that we actually speak today. And now yes, there are differences between the KJV and modern translations that go down to differences in manuscripts.
And what should our attitude towards that be? If there is a solid Christian translation that prefers one set of manuscripts, and a solid believing Christian translation that prefers another set of manuscripts, is one the Word of God and the other to be thrown out? Well, I would actually say that that's an unbiblical attitude towards Bible translation. But where would I get that idea? Well, we when we look at Jesus, He himself quoted from both the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint, including where they had minor differences between each other, and treated both as the Word of God in the New Testament. And so the New Testament model, Jesus's model for our attitude towards Bible translation is more open than King James only is a little louder. Another program powered by the Truth Network.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-06-28 03:53:12 / 2023-06-28 04:08:51 / 16