Category Archives: BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, Did Jesus ever claim to be God?, Did Jesus ever claim to be God?, GOD

Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

DID JESUS EVER CLAIM TO BE GOD?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Skeptics of the true and full Deity of Jesus Christ argue that He never claimed to be God. Can we substantiate or refute their accusations? “For what saith the Scriptures?”

Concerning His temptations, we read in Matthew 4:5-7: “[5] Then the devil taketh him [Jesus Christ] up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, [6] And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. [7] Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” It is interesting that, in verse 7, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:16—with “Lord” synonymous with “LORD”/“JEHOVAH.” In other words, Jesus used the warning about tempting JEHOVAH God and told Satan he should not tempt Him. Why? He was JEHOVAH God in human flesh. The Lord Jesus took a passage about God and applied it to Himself. Jesus thought He was JEHOVAH God and He claimed He was JEHOVAH God. (See parallel, Luke 4:9-12.)

Matthew 9:2 reports: “And, behold, they brought to him [Jesus Christ] a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.” “This man blasphemeth,” the audience said in verse 3. “Who can forgive sins but God only?” (Mark 2:7). Who alone can forgive sins? According to the witnesses, Jesus said He was God by forgiving the man’s sins.

Christ Jesus declared in Matthew 12:8, “For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.” (See the parallel verse, Mark 2:28.) The Sabbath Day honored JEHOVAH God (Genesis 12:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11). Jesus Christ claimed that He was “Lord even of the sabbath day.” Who did Jesus believe He was? JEHOVAH God!

Turning to Matthew chapter 19: “[16] And, behold, one came and said unto him [Jesus Christ], Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? [17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (See the parallel passage, Mark 10:17-19.) This man approached Jesus and addressed Him as, “Good Master.” Jesus inquired why he called Him “good,” seeing as to “there is none good but one, that is, God.” In other words, Jesus asked, “Are you calling Me ‘God?’” (This truth is obscured in modern English translations. Here is one of many reasons why we use the King James Bible!)

After Israel’s religious leaders unsuccessfully attempted thrice to trap Jesus in His words, He offered them a spiritual riddle (which they could not answer). Matthew chapter 22: “[41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, [42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. [43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, [44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? [45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? [46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” (See parallels, Mark 12:35-37 and Luke 20:41-44.) The only way Jesus could be both “Lord” of David and “son” of David is if He were fully God (“Lord”) and fully Man (“son of David”). Of course, the unsaved religious leaders had the Old Testament Scriptures but no spiritual enlightenment because they chose to be ignorant.

Now, we get to the strongest passages on this subject. Matthew 26:63-66 is our first: “[63] But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. [64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [65] Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. [66] What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.” (See parallels, Mark 14:61-64 and Luke 22:66-71.)

While various denominationalists vehemently reject the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, they still have these verses in their Bible versions (and they cannot deny it!). During Jesus’ trial, the high priest commanded Him to declare once and for all if He was “the Christ, the Son of God” (verse 63). Jesus replied, “Thou hast said” (verse 64)—paraphrased, “You have said it!” Still, Jesus added: “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (verse 64). The high priest was immediately outraged: he tore his garments and twice pronounced a charge, “Blasphemy!”

Evidently, what flustered the high priest was not so much Jesus’ reply “Thou hast said.” No, what deeply rattled him was that Jesus took it a step further: “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The Lord did not have to say, “I am the Son of God,” to be accused of blasphemy. No, He merely had to declare, “You will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” “Sitting on the right hand of power” was surely Messianic, as Psalm 110:1 predicted many centuries earlier that Christ would sit at the LORD’s right hand. Moreover, the “coming in the clouds of heaven” was especially inflammatory, as the high priest recalled Psalm 68:4: “Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH [JEHOVAH], and rejoice before him.”

It would be downright preposterous to say that Jesus never claimed to be God Himself. After all, Israel’s religious accused Him of blasphemy and purposed to put Him to death (see Leviticus 24:11-16)! They assumed He was making Himself to be God—otherwise they would not have bothered to execute Him!

Mark 11:17 reports: “And he [Jesus] taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.” The Jerusalem Temple, Jesus said, was “my house.” In John 2:16, He said of the same Temple: “And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.” The Temple was both Jesus’ Temple and His Father’s Temple. Who was Jesus claiming to be, then? On whose behalf was He speaking?

On to John 5:17-18: “[17] But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. [18] Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” Why do they want to take the life of Jesus? See, the unbelieving Jews are well aware of whom He declares to be. There is nothing difficult for them to understand, and if we let the verses speak (without wearing our denominational eyeglasses), we will see them for what they really say as well.

We read in John 8:58, “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” Here is an interesting form of the verb “to be.” Jesus did not say, “Before Abraham was, I was.” No, He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Why did He say it this specific way? Notice the cross-reference, Exodus 3:14: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” This was JEHOVAH God speaking to Moses, and JEHOVAH said His name was, “I AM THAT I AM,” or the shortened form, “I AM.” John 8:58 is Jesus claiming to be the JEHOVAH God of Exodus 3:14! (By the way, the “Jehovah’s Witness” New World Translation says in John 8:58, “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” Furthermore, there is no Exodus 3:14 marginal reference—they know exactly what Jesus said, but they hide this truth from their readers and members so as to uphold their theological traditions.)

After Jesus healed the blind man, John 9:35-38 says: “[35] Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? [36] He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? [37] And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. [38] And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.” How could Jesus be a servant of the God of the Bible if He allowed someone to worship Him? Apparently, He assumed He deserved that worship. He believed He was the God of creation! (Compare Acts 10:25-26 and Revelation 19:10.) By the way, the 1901 American Standard Version has a footnote here that asserts Jesus was nothing but a mere “creature” and not at all the “Creator!” Friends, you cannot get more blasphemous than these “Bible translators!!!”

While Jesus walked in the Temple, He had an interesting conversation with unbelieving Israel in John 10:29-33: “[29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. [30] I and my Father are one. [31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. [32] Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? [33] The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”

The cults emphasize verse 29—“Jesus said His Father is ‘greater than all,’ meaning Jesus is not God!” Yet, they deliberately skip verse 30 for obvious reasons—“I and my Father are one.” Both Jesus and Father God are one in Deity: both are fully God. How do we know this is what Jesus meant? Why, we read verses 31-33. “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Who did they believe Jesus claimed to be? (Years ago, I spoke with a friend brainwashed in a Deity-of-Christ-denying cult. His face turned red and he grew quite angry when his whole argument centered on verse 29 was demolished after I had him read verses 30 and 33!!! He refused to discuss the matter any further, and I politely left his presence. That was the last time we spoke in-person about Scripture.)

We read in John 19:6-7, at Jesus’ trial before Judaean Governor Pontius Pilate: “[6] When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. [7] The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (See Leviticus 24:11-16.) The only way they could justly put Jesus to death is if He had professed to be Deity! This is right along the lines of John 10:29-33 and John 5:17-18 (already discussed).

John 20:28 is our last Deity verse of Christ’s earthly ministry: “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” If Jesus were not God, then why did He allow Thomas to apply such titles to Him? Jesus should have said, “Thomas, do not called Me ‘my Lord’ and ‘my God.’ I am but a Man, and not God.” Why did Jesus not rebuke Thomas? Thomas’ words were warranted, highly appropriate; they needed no criticism! The “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” still endeavoring to maintain their church tradition, answers by arguing that Thomas uttered an expression of amazement. In other words, “O wow, O Lord, O God, Jesus, You really are alive! It actually is You!” This is a flimsy and wanting interpretation, as Thomas would have then been guilty of taking JEHOVAH’S name in vain (Exodus 20:7). Thomas would be worthy of death! There is no way Jesus would have let someone use God’s name so flippantly. It is for this reason that we reject the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” here as well.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Romans 3:4).

Also see:
» “No man hath seen God at any time?”
» Why did Jesus say, “My God, my God?”
» Does it matter what Bible version I use?

BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS / CONFUSING VERSES SIMPLIFIED, BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, Who is the wounded man of Zechariah 13:6?, Who is the wounded man of Zechariah 13:6?

Who is the wounded man of Zechariah 13:6?

WHO IS THE WOUNDED MAN OF ZECHARIAH 13:6?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Zechariah 13:6 is one of the most debated verses in the Book of Zechariah: “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.” Some Bible teachers suggest that this “wounded” man is the Messiah (Jesus Christ). However, most commentators claim that it applies to the false prophet of the earlier verses. Can we shed some light on the subject by looking at the context?

“[3] And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. [4] And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive: [5] But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.”

The man in verse 6 has wounds in his hands, which he claims he received “in the house of my friends.” Although it is argued that the false prophet was wounded in his pagan religion mutilation practices, this explanation for the wounds seems unlikely. At this author sees it, it does not appear to fit verses 3-5. What makes people—including this author—believe that Zechariah 13:6 refers to Jesus Christ?

The Prophet Zechariah had already stated in chapter 12, verse 10: “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” This is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Israel is converted nationally after seeing Him with His identifying wounds. The Apostle John quotes the verse in Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”

John and Zechariah point back to what King David wrote centuries earlier in Psalm 22:16: “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.” In John 19:37, we read of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion: “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.” Zechariah 12:10 applies not only to the Second Coming, but also the First Coming (Calvary).

It is better to make Zechariah 13:6 refer to Jesus Christ. It really makes no sense for a false prophet to be wounded in his hands—especially in the house of his friends (whatever that would mean?!). However, we know that Jesus Christ was wounded in His hands. Notice what the Apostle John reported.

John 20:24-28: “[24] But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. [25] The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. [26] And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. [27] Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. [28] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.”

Zechariah 13:7 says, “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 quote this to pertain to Jesus Christ. Hence, Zechariah 13:6 likely points to Messiah as well. The false prophets would be in verses 3-5, but Messiah would be in verses 6-7. It is this author’s personal belief that verse 6 should not be paired with verse 5 but with verse 7. Zechariah 12:10 is one verse about Messiah’s Second Coming and Zechariah 13:6 is another. In between, we have a parenthetical passage (12:11–13:5).

Let us now hear from an opposing view. One commentator says the following: “Considerable discussion also surrounds the identity of the individual who possessed ‘wounds between your arms’ (13:6). Some have identified him with Christ, the wounds supposedly referring to His crucifixion. But Christ could neither have denied that He was a prophet, nor could He have claimed that He was a farmer, or that He was wounded in the house of His friends. Obviously, it is a reference to a false prophet (cf. vv. 4,5) who was wounded in his idolatrous worship. The zeal for the Lord will be so great in the kingdom of Messiah that idolaters will make every attempt to hide their true identity, but their scars will be the telltale evidence of their iniquity.”

We agree with the above quote that Christ would not deny Himself to be a prophet, or claim to be a farmer. However, Christ is not speaking in verses 3-5 anyway. He is speaking in verse 6. That is, the words spoken in verses 3-5 do not automatically disqualify Messiah from speaking in verse 6. We can have a change in speakers between verse 5 and verse 6, and this author believes that to be the case.

The same expositor later wrote: “The phrase [NKJV—wounds between your arms] cannot refer to Messiah, but it is a continuation of the false prophet’s behavior in vv. 4,5. When the false prophet denies any association with pagan practices, others will challenge him to explain the suspicious wounds on his body. False prophets would cut themselves to arouse prophetic ecstasy in idolatrous rites (Lev. 19:28; Deu. 14:1; 1 Ki. 18:28; Jer. 16:6; 48:37), but they will claim the scars represent some attack they suffered from friends.”

Again, although bringing to light some useful insight, this author thinks that the commentator is wrong in suggesting Jesus Christ could not say that He was wounded in the house of friends. The Lord Jesus Christ most definitely could claim that. He came to His own people, the nation Israel, but they did not receive Him. The culmination of their rejection of Him was when they crucified Him on Calvary’s cross. This crucifixion would be the source of the wounds in His hands. The Jews of all people should have accepted Him, for their Hebrew Bible had predicted His coming for many centuries. He was the fulfillment of their Abrahamic Covenant. Alas, they were willing to turn Him over to the pagan Gentiles for a most brutal execution. Read these sermons spoken to Israel during early Acts. This is the Holy Spirit condemning unsaved Israel for not only wounding but actually killing God’s Son!

Acts 2:22-24: “[22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: [23] Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: [24] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.”

Acts 3:13-18: “[13] The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. [14] But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; [15] And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. [16] And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. [17] And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. [18] But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.”

Acts 5:29-31: “[29] Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. [30] The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. [31] Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 7:51-53: “[51] Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. [52] Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: [53] Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”

SUPPLEMENTAL: THE MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS ONLY OBSCURE TRUTH AND ADD TO THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Unfortunately, Zechariah 13:6 is totally misconstrued in modern English Bible versions—only making the discussion more confusing. The following (eye-opening!!) sampling of excerpts from popular contemporary translations demonstrates just how dangerous and mystified modern Bible scholarship is. There are great variations of this one verse. It would be downright hilarious, except it is a most serious matter. The precious Word of God has been brutally butchered and—in this author’s view—His only begotten Son has been blasphemed and mocked.

The two most perverted modern English Bible renderings of Zechariah 13:6 will be read first.

The Living Bible: “And if someone asks, ‘Then what are these scars on your chest and your back?’ he will say, ‘I got into a brawl at the home of a friend!’” (Whoever it is, he was fighting and got injured!! Forget trying to put Jesus Christ in this verse—and even the mutilated false prophet with his graphic rituals would not fit here!!)

The Message: “And if someone says, ‘And so where did you get that black eye?’ they’ll say, ‘I ran into a door at a friend’s house.’” (Preposterous!! The man got a black eye after running into a door?!?!?! Stupid!! Nothing of the sort is implied in the Hebrew!!! And, to think this is marketed and purchased under the guise of it being a “Bible!!”)

Wounded (general) — Contemporary English Version: “And if any of them are asked why they are wounded, they will answer, ‘It happened at the house of some friends.’” (Where are the wounds located on the body?! We are not told.)

Wounds in the midst of thy hands — Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible 1899: “And they shall say to him: What are these wounds in the midst of thy hands? And he shall say: With these I was wounded in the house of them that loved me.”

Scars on your chest — God’s Word translation: “When someone asks him, ‘What are these scars on your chest?’ he will answer, ‘I was hurt at my friend’s house.’”

Deep cuts on your body — New Century Version: “But someone will ask, ‘What are the deep cuts on your body?’ And each will answer, ‘I was hurt at my friend’s house.’”

Wounds on your body — New International Version: “If someone asks, ‘What are these wounds on your body?’ they will answer, ‘The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.’”

Wounds between your arms — New King James Version: “And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will answer, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.’” (New American Standard Bible and American Standard Version agree.)

Wounds on your chest — New Revised Standard Version: “And if anyone asks them, “What are these wounds on your chest?” the answer will be “The wounds I received in the house of my friends.” (New Living Translation, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and New English Translation agree.)

Wounds on your back — Revised Standard Version: “And if one asks him, ‘What are these wounds on your back?’ he will say, ‘The wounds I received in the house of my friends.’” (English Standard Version agrees.)

Ritual wounds on your chest and back — The Voice translation: “And if anyone happens to say, ‘How did you get these ritual wounds on your chest and back?’ then the answer will come back—another deception—‘Oh, I received these at my friend’s house.’” (Notice how the translators added an interpretation—the word “ritual” without manuscript support!)

Wounds between your hands — New World Translation (“Jehovah’s Witness” “bible”): “And one must say to him, ‘What are these wounds [on your person] between your hands?’ And he will have to say, ‘Those with which I was struck in the house of my intense lovers.’”

Also see:
» Who are the “three shepherds” of Zechariah 11:8?
» Who, crucified on Calvary, mocked Jesus?
» How could Jesus say His killers knew not what they were doing?

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, GOD, Which belongs in Romans 8:16 and Romans 8:26 in the King James Bible—“the Spirit itself” or “the Spirit Himself?”, Which belongs in Romans 8:16 and Romans 8:26 in the King James Bible—“the Spirit itself” or “the Spirit Himself?”

Which belongs in Romans 8:16 and Romans 8:26 in the King James Bible—“the Spirit itself” or “the Spirit Himself?”

WHICH BELONGS IN ROMANS 8:16 AND ROMANS 8:26 IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE—“THE SPIRIT ITSELF” OR “THE SPIRIT HIMSELF?”

by Shawn Brasseaux

Notice the following verses as they appear in the Authorized Version King James Bible. Romans 8:16 reads: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:….” And, verse 26: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” 

Textual critics and their followers fault the King James Bible because it uses the pronoun “itself” when referring to God the Holy Spirit. As you can see, it was surely not a mistake because the word appears twice. Why did our 1611 translators use this pronoun instead of employing the term “Himself?” Did they not regard the Holy Spirit as a Person? Were they denying the Deity of the Holy Spirit? Let us investigate!

Usually, when people criticize the King James Bible and offer some “better translation” or “better reading,” they are not qualified to make such a determination. I know because I used to be one of those people. Ignorant of Bible history, ignorant of Bible languages, and ignorant of sound Bible doctrine, I too was a detractor of the King James Bible. What caused me to change my position?

Firstly, instead of questioning my Bible, I decided to quit playing the hypocrite. If I claimed to be a “Bible believer” then I had better believe the Bible. I stopped being a Bible doubter and turned into a Bible believer. Do not misunderstand me; I had trusted Jesus Christ alone as my personal Saviour many years earlier. However, during that time, I had been taught that the King James Bible had mistakes and that I could not trust it 100 percent. Nevertheless, one day, I determined that if the King James Bible was trustworthy enough for me to depend on its Gospel of Grace as means of my getting into Heaven, then surely the rest of it was also true and worthy of my faith. If I could rely on its testimony for the major issue (justification unto eternal life), then why not believe the rest of its words?

Secondly, I quit repeating what others said about the Bible versions issue and started doing firsthand research for many years. I read up on world history, church history, and Bible history. I compared various Bible versions (in English and Greek). The more I studied, the more I realized the less I had been told all those years prior. While many had downplayed it as petty, I came to understand the Bible versions issue to be one of the most important matters in life. After justification and salvation unto eternal life in Christ, the Bible versions debate is the second most critical issue. The third is dispensational Bible study (which time and space, unfortunately, do not allow us to discuss here).

Now, we reread Romans 8:16: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:….” And, verse 26: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” The King James Bible is criticized for having “the Spirit itself… the Spirit itself” since nearly all modern English versions say “the Spirit Himself…. the Spirit Himself” (including the New King James Version). To avoid controversy altogether, some versions will say “that very Spirit,” “the same Spirit,” or “God’s Spirit.” (Cleverly, they use neither “itself” nor “himself.”)

Notice the following classic anti-KJV rant as it pertains to this issue: “The King James translators did not believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit. They called Him an ‘it.’ The word should be ‘Himself’ rather than ‘itself!’ The Holy Spirit is a ‘Him’ and not an ‘it!’” Some have even gone so far as to change the King James text when reading it aloud. One Bible commentator, for example, when writing about Romans 8:16, actually removed “itself” entirely and replaced it with a bracketed “Himself.” This is not an isolated incident. Many do it, which only further plays into the confusion.

The above careless handling of the Scriptures is the result of nothing more than laziness on the faultfinder’s part. He likely does not view this as an opportunity to make the truth clearer; he, in his sinful mind, sees it as a chance to sit in judgment of God’s Holy Word and take its place as the final authority. After all, the man has been taught to have an anti-King-James-Bible position at his seminary, Bible College, university, local church, Bible class, and so on. He has learned from so many that the King James Bible and its underlying Greek text is “marred with mistakes.” This brainwashing has caused him to imagine an error everywhere he looks in the Authorized Version. God needs his education to “fix” or “improve” the Bible. He cannot turn one page of the Authorized Version without making that damnable critical remark, “This is a poor translation… the ‘oldest and best’ manuscripts read, blah, blah, blah….” It is sad, but it is true. Long ago, I was there, my friends. Never do I want to return to such pathetic spiritual ignorance!

When a preacher or theologian complains “itself” should be “Himself,” the average Bible reader automatically shouts, “Amen!” After all, the speaker went to seminary for many years. They should be able to tell us “just what God meant in His Word,” right? Well, just remember, not everyone who stands in the pulpit with a Bible is a servant of the God of the Bible. Not everyone who names the name of Jesus Christ is a servant of Jesus Christ. Not everyone who reads Greek and Hebrew believes the Bible text in Greek and Hebrew! (The same could be said of English-speaking people and the English Bible!) No one will bother to research why “itself” appears where it does in the Bible text… but we will. We want answers, and we are determined to find them!

So, why did our 1611 translators write “itself” twice? Here is how the Textus Receptus, the Greek text underlying the King James Bible New Testament, reads at the problematic points of Romans 8:16 and Romans 8:26:

Greek — Aὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα … αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα
Transliteration — auto to pneuma … auto to pneuma
Translation — itself the Spirit … itself the Spirit

“Auto” must be rendered “itself” and not “himself” because “spirit” is a neuter noun (neither masculine nor feminine). You cannot have a male emphatic pronoun (“himself”) modify the neuter noun “pneuma,” and neither can you have a female emphatic pronoun (“herself”) modify the neuter pronoun “pneuma.” To be faithful to the Greek language of the New Testament, you must translate it as, “the Spirit itself.” (Since English and Greek are structured differently, we have to rearrange the words for the English to make sense—“itself the Spirit” in the Greek order is correctly read in English as, “the Spirit itself.”) The King James Bible is true to Greek here; you cannot say this about modern English versions. Contemporary translators altered the Bible text just to make it easy reading; of course, they did violence to Scripture in not adequately carrying the Greek thought.

The Holy Spirit is certainly a Person, but we do not need to violate the Greek Bible in Romans 8:16 and Romans 8:26 to prove it. For example, the Holy Spirit is said to be God in Acts 5:3-4. The Holy Spirit has the ability to know information and teach with words, so He must be a Person rather than some inanimate force (1 Corinthians 2:10-13). The Holy Spirit is said to “dwell,” or live, within the Christian that is His “temple” (2 Timothy 1:14; 1 Corinthians 6:19). The Holy Spirit can speak and warn, as 1 Timothy 4:1 and Acts 28:25 say. The Holy Spirit can be “grieved,” or saddened, which certainly means He is a Person because only a rational Being has emotions (Ephesians 4:30). We could go on and on with dozens of other verses, but these are enough to prove that the King James Bible translators believed in the Deity and Person of the Holy Spirit. They were also superb Greek, Hebrew, and English scholars. Above all, they let that Holy Spirit use them in a mighty way. Now, we can benefit because we have their Holy Bible. Beloved, may we never get that critical, ungrateful, conceited, pessimistic attitude that so many anti-KJV people suffer from today.

CONCLUSION

Dear friends, we see that our King James Bible translators had a valid linguistic reason for handling Romans 8:16 and Romans 8:26 the way they did. They are unfairly criticized here (as in numerous other places).

“Spirit” in Greek (pneuma) is neuter, without gender; “itself” (auto) also being genderless, is the proper pronoun to modify “Spirit.” “Spirit itself”—not “Spirit Himself”—is the correct reading in both verses. There is no mistranslation… except in the modern versions! The next time you hear someone complaining about “the Spirit itself” in the King James Bible as being wrong, just remember to write that individual off as ill-informed. Maybe they just do not know any better; or, perhaps they are willfully ignorant. Whatever the case, they are wrong. They do not have a clue about how the Greek language works and how our 1611 translators knew the Greek language more than they and all their “theological heroes” will ever know.

Here is indisputable proof of how English-speaking people have been trained to attack our King James Bible, the English Bible, in extremely unfair ways. May we guard against the Adversary’s subtle attacks of always trying to question God’s Word (Genesis 3:1)!

Also see:
» Is “excellent” a King James mistranslation in Philippians 1:10?
» Why does the King James Bible say, “pisseth against the wall?”
» Is the King James word “borrow” a mistranslation in Exodus 3:22?

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, What verse says the Bible is without error?

What verse says the Bible is without error?

WHAT VERSE SAYS THE BIBLE IS WITHOUT ERROR?

by Shawn Brasseaux

“Is the Bible without error? Where in the Bible can I find the Scriptures to back the statement that the Bible is without error?”

Thank you for that Bible question! First and foremost, it should be noted that we are not looking for a verse that explicitly says, “The Bible is without error.” That is not how we study the Bible or use the Scriptures to establish facts. But, there are Bible verses that cause us to believe the Bible is indeed without error, fully authoritative and entirely trustworthy. People do not like those verses; yea, they even wish those verses were not there. Nevertheless, those verses are there, and we will look at them in this study.

Consider the following:

  1. The Bible claims to be the Word of God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God….” (2 Timothy 3:16). “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation… Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).
  2. The Bible says, “God cannot lie” (Titus 1:2) and “it [is] impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18).
  3. The Bible claims to be God’s inspired Word, and it says God cannot Therefore, the Bible cannot teach lies. The Bible does not have mistakes. It has been said, “A man is only as good as his word.” To say that the Bible has errors means that God is not really much of a God.

Let us look at other verses. For example, consider Proverbs 30:5-6: “[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.” The Bible says “every word of God is pure.” The Bible is true. When we add to those pure words, we lie and we make the Bible a lie.

Now, Psalm 12:6-7: “[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.” The Bible says, “the words of the LORD are pure words.” “Pure” means “free from anything that debases, pollutes, adulterates, or contaminates.” Those preserved words of God are guarded against corruption or contamination. Psalm 119:140 says, “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” As one refines a precious metal to remove all impurities, so God’s Word is void of error and deception. The Holy Spirit has preserved it to be thus even today.

Let us look at Psalm 19:7-9: “[7] The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. [8] The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. [9] The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.” God’s Word is “perfect,” “sure” (reliable), “right” (correct), “pure” (uncontaminated), “clean,” and “true and righteous altogether.” This is hardly the language of a Book filled with errors.

We read where the Bible is called the “scripture of truth” (Daniel 10:21) or the “word of truth.” If the Bible contains errors, then it could not be called the “truth,” could it? Notice:

  • Psalm 119:43: “And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments.”
  • 2 Timothy 2:15: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
  • James 1:18: “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”
  • The Psalmist wrote, “I have chosen the way of truth: thy judgments have I laid before me” (Psalm 119:30).
  • “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever” (Psalm 119:160).
  • Jesus Christ prayed to His Father, God, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). If the Bible is “truth,” and Jesus said it was, could it contain errors? Of course not!

According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the Bible is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” God put that profit in His Word in order for “the man of God … [to] be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” The Scriptures contain everything God wants us to know so that we may do everything He wants us to do. If the Bible has mistakes, then that means God withheld some information, or that He was negligent in ensuring we received all the correct information He originally revealed. Could a Bible with mistakes “throughly furnish [equip]” us? No. The Bible would be lacking some information, or it would contain distorted information, and either deficiency would thus disrupt our Christian lives. The assumption is that the Bible is so reliable that you can base your life upon it!

The Bible had better not have mistakes. Remember, a lost person who believes the Gospel of the Grace of God found in the Bible—“Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose again the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)—is basing his or her destiny on a Book that better not have mistakes! A mistake in the Bible may very well literally mean the difference between Heaven and Hell!

Psalm 119:11 says, “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” If we as Christians follow the Bible, the Word of God (and that rightly divided), that will guard us from committing sin. The assumption is that the Bible is true, for if it had errors, then we (following those errors) would commit sin. Psalm 119:11 indicates that the Bible must be true; otherwise, it is of no use to us in avoiding error.

According to Scripture, it is the standard whereby we gauge truth from error, sound teaching from false teaching. The Bible can save us from deception, Satan’s lie program. No book riddled with errors could deliver us from lies. Notice:

  • Isaiah 8:19-20: “[19] And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? [20] To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
  • 1 Timothy 4:13-16: “[13] Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. [14] Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. [15] Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. [16] Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
  • 2 Timothy 3:13-17: “[13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. [14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; [15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
  • 2 Timothy 4:2-4: “[2] Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. [3] For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; [4] And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

How can you use an error-filled book to distinguish between truth and error? It does not make sense, my friend. The assumption of the Bible writers is that the Bible is true, true to the extent that it can be used to discern fact from fiction. If we are people of faith, we will simply share their attitude. The Holy Bible is our final authority.

In Luke 4:16-21, the Lord Jesus read from the Book of Isaiah (part of the Bible). Would Jesus have read from a Book riddled with mistakes? Evidently, Jesus thought there was a fully reliable, trustworthy Bible Book in His day. Psalm 138:2 says God “has magnified his word above all [his] name.” Would God exalt a Book with mistakes? Would He ever say that an error-filled book was “greater” than His very name? Of course not! The assumption is that God thinks so highly of His written Word, the Holy Bible, that He has placed it above all His name. His name is above all, and His Word is above all His name! Wow—the Holy Bible is some Book!

Jesus exhorted some individuals in John 5:39, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” Would Jesus suggest people read a book riddled with inaccuracies? Of course not. As the Lord Himself said, “The scripture cannot be broken [is true forever]” (John 10:35).

The Lord Jesus warned in John 12:48: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” On the day of judgment—whether the Judgment Seat of Christ (for Christians—1 Corinthians 3:9-15), or the Great White Throne Judgment (for unbelievers—Revelation 20:11-15)—the Word of God will be used to evaluate the people who heard and read it. God will hold all people accountable to whatever Bible doctrine they had access to. That means Bible preservation is necessary! There must be a reliable Bible for them to access, for God to hold them accountable to receiving, believing, and following it!

If we are going to take the Bible at face value, friend, the Bible claims to be trustworthy and fully authoritative, free from defects and erroneous information. But, here is a word of caution that everyone must understand. Not all “bibles” are actually Bibles!

*PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING ABOUT BIBLE VERSIONS AND PERVERSIONS*

Not every book that claims to be “The Bible” is “The Holy Bible.” There are books with mistakes that claim to be “the Bible,” that are marketed as “the Bible,” but are not the Bible. While they have seeds of truth, they are Satan’s cheap counterfeits (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Peter 1:20–2:3). Thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts exist; however, not all of them are reliable. We can look at verses in these texts and allow them to give their own testimony as to their reliability or faultiness. We can take the King James Bible, which is translated from the preserved Bible manuscripts, and compare it with the modern versions, which are translated from the counterfeit (that is, Roman Catholic) Bible manuscripts. It can be easily demonstrated that the King James text is far superior to the modern English versions. The many verses we listed earlier in this study are true of the Authorized Version King James Bible; they are not true of the modern English versions. Even a scant amount of honest research yields such a conclusion.

Whenever somebody says that there is a “mistake” in the King James Bible, they are simply trying to prove their pet theological belief—that there is no perfect Bible today. The idea that there is no perfect Bible today, no Bible today that carries the same authority as the apostles’ original manuscripts, results from prideful men who believe their seminary education will compensate for God’s negligence. They are trained to believe that God will use their (limited) wisdom of men to “reconstruct” the divinely-inspired text that was allegedly “lost” centuries ago. What fantasy! What delusion! They want to be the authority; they refuse to submit to a mere book, especially God’s Book!

There never was a “lost” Bible, friend. God’s people always have used God’s Word; it is just that forged Bibles (manuscripts and versions) have been used to sidetrack and dupe others. The 1611 King James Bible, its early English predecessors, and their source manuscripts have been used for centuries by the Church the Body of Christ. Unbelieving minds, those who hated the pure Bible text, took certain reliable manuscripts many centuries ago, deliberately altered them, and (the gullible) still take those manuscripts and translate them into new English Bible versions even now. This has been going on especially since the last 100 years. Organized religion (institutions and denominations) has spoiled the Bible text! Beware, beware, beware! The Roman Catholic Church is assaulting the Protestant Bible and most Protestants are totally clueless!

Verses in the New International Version demonstrate to us that it has mistakes. The same is true of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, New King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New Living Translation, Amplified, The Message, The Voice, Roman Catholic bibles, Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation, and so on. You can check Mark 1:2, Hebrews 3:16, Matthew 5:22 (cf. Mark 3:5), to name a few. We cannot find any such mistakes in the King James Bible. (I have not found any; so if you know of anything suspicious, please let me know.) These false versions (counterfeits) have caused people to doubt the Bible text as perfect. Friend, it is my hope and prayer that you will consider this information, and act accordingly.

Also see:
» Does it matter what Bible version I use?
» Must I study the Bible in its original languages to understand it?
» I am new to the Bible. Where should I begin?

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, JUST ASKING / CURIOUS QUESTIONS, Who was Theophilus?, Who was Theophilus?

Who was Theophilus?

WHO WAS THEOPHILUS? WAS HE A JEW OR GENTILE?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Firstly, the name “Theophilus” is Greek; it means “friend/lover of God.” Only appearing twice in the Bible text (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), Theophilus was the recipient of these two Bible Books. The Gospel Record of Luke and the Book of Acts have been called “Volume 1” and “Volume 2,” respectively. Just a cursory examination of their introductions demonstrates Acts to be the “sequel” to Luke. Theophilus’ name binds them.

Luke 1:1-4: “[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, [2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; [3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, [4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.”

Acts 1:1-3: “[1] The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, [2] Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: [3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:….” The “former treatise”—or previous detailed, written account—sent to Theophilus is what we know of as the Book of Luke. Whomever the Holy Spirit used to write Luke, He also chose him to write Acts later. This writer is generally assumed to be Luke.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE WRITER OF THE BOOK OF ACTS

The language of Acts is that its writer was a close companion of the Apostle Paul during his second, third, and final apostolic journeys. Notice the first-person pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our:”

  • Acts 16:10: “And after he had seen the vision, immediately WE endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called US for to preach the gospel unto them.” (This is written from the perspective of someone traveling with Paul’s group, rather than someone repeating second-hand information. The same is true of the succeeding verses as well. Whomever it was, the man stayed with Paul’s party for some time, then departed, and later rejoined.)
  • Acts 16:12: “And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and WE were in that city abiding certain days.”
  • Acts 16:14-17: “[14] And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard US: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. [15] And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought US, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained US. [16] And it came to pass, as WE went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met US, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: [17] The same followed Paul and US, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.”

———— (The writer leaves Paul’s company here and returns.) ————

  • Acts 20:5: “These going before tarried for US at Troas.”
  • Acts 20:13-14: “[13] And WE went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot. [14] And when he met with US at Assos, WE took him in, and came to Mitylene.”
  • Acts 21:5: “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 21:11: “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.”
  • Acts 21:16-18: “[16] There went with US also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom WE should lodge. [17] And when WE were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received US [18] And the day following Paul went in with US unto James; and all the elders were present.”

———— (The writer leaves Paul’s group here and returns.) ————

  • Acts 27:1-2: “[1] And when it was determined that WE should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus’ band. [2] And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, WE launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with US.”
  • Acts 27:6-7: “[6] And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy; and he put US [7] And when WE had sailed slowly many days, and scarce were come over against Cnidus, the wind not suffering US, WE sailed under Crete, over against Salmone;….”
  • Acts 27:27: “But when the fourteenth night was come, as WE were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country;….”
  • Acts 27:20: “And when neither sun nor stars in many days appeared, and no small tempest lay on US, all hope that WE should be saved was then taken away.”
  • Acts 28:2: “And the barbarous people shewed US no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received US every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.”
  • Acts 28:7: “In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius; who received US, and lodged US three days courteously.”
  • Acts 28:10: “Who also honoured US with many honours; and when WE departed, they laded US with such things as were necessary.”
  • Acts 28:15: “And from thence, when the brethren heard of US, they came to meet US as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.”

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THEOPHILUS

As noted, the writer of the Book of Acts traveled extensively with the Apostle Paul. Romans 11:13 says that Paul conducted a “Gentile” ministry. Technically speaking, in this context, “Gentile” applies to both non-Jews and lost/unsaved Jews. With the fall of Israel in Acts chapter 7, and the raising up of Paul in chapter 9, God thereafter considered all unsaved Jews just as worthy of hellfire as all the unsaved non-Jews. We conclude that the writer of Acts, associated with Paul, would thus have a ministry geared toward Gentiles as well. Theophilus was most likely a Gentile/non-Jew; we do not know the date of his conversion (as in pinpointing a chapter of Acts), or exactly who in Paul’s company led him to Christ. He never actually appears in either historical narrative.

Luke and Acts were both written for a Gentile/non-Jew to learn about Christ’s earthly ministry to Israel, as well as the 30 years that followed (Acts chapters 1-28—Israel’s renewed opportunity of repentance, her rebellion against the Holy Spirit, her national fall and diminishing, salvation going to the Gentiles through Paul’s ministry, and so on). In fact, the noticeable shift in the language of Colossians 4:10-14 indicates, to me anyway, that Luke himself was a Gentile. This would explain his close affinity to Paul’s ministry. Furthermore, Luke was evidently one of Paul’s converts. As with Theophilus, though, we do not know exactly when this occurred. The Book of Acts was written near the end of Paul’s ministry, after his two years under Roman house arrest (Acts 28:30-31). Luke was written sometime prior to the penning of Acts.

By the way, although omitted in Acts 1:1, there is that interesting title given to Theophilus in Luke 1:3—“most excellent.” Curiously, this was the designation of Judaean Governor Felix in Acts 23:26; a similar expression (same in Greek) is “most noble” (Acts 24:3). It was also applied to “most noble” Festus, another Judaean governor, in Acts 26:25. This has led some to suppose that Theophilus was a high-ranking politician, perhaps in Rome (where Paul was under house arrest at the time, remember). While possible, nothing is definite here. We just point this out in passing, before we close.

CONCLUSION

We know very little about Theophilus because he is only mentioned in two verses in the whole Bible. But, using the Scriptures associated with him, we can make some observations:

  1. Theophilus’ name means “friend/lover of God.” The Books of Luke and Acts were written to him. Theophilus was not a general name for just any friend/lover of God, as some claim, but an actual person.
  2. Whoever wrote Acts was a close companion of Paul during his apostolic journeys (which, of course, involved Gentiles). Whoever wrote Acts also penned Luke. Paul mentioned Luke in Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 24, as a close friend of his. Luke is our “best guess” as to the authorship of Luke and Acts.
  3. Considering that his name is Greek, and that he was connected to Luke (who was a close friend of Paul, “the apostle of the Gentiles;” Romans 11:13), Theophilus was likely a Gentile.
  4. Perhaps he was a dignified statesman or other prominent official.

Also see:
» Who wrote the Gospel of John?
» Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile?
» Did Paul engage in “missionary” journeys?

“Ensample” and “example”—same or different?

“Ensample” and “example”—same or different?

“ENSAMPLE” AND “EXAMPLE”—SAME OR DIFFERENT?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Friend, do you realize that the English language has declined over the centuries? If you doubt this, take a passage from a 1611 King James Bible and read it side-by-side with the same verses in an English “bible” translation produced in the late 20th century or 21st century. The more contemporary the version, the greater the departure from the pure English—yea, English at its zenith—available to our Authorized Version translators over 400 years ago. Hence, the modern reader is intimidated by “archaic, strange, difficult” verbiage. The modern-version translator and publisher will exploit that ignorance, introducing the skillfully-worded sales pitch, “You need to purchase our new translation. Based on the most recent linguistic, archaeological, and biblical scholarship, it makes the Scriptures plainer than ever before!” (Really?!)

Considering the fact that, over the last 130-plus years, there has been a tremendous shift toward the utilization of Bible manuscripts that the Body of Christ rejected for over 15 centuries as depraved and heretical, you are likely not to have a pure modern “bible.” Such corrupt texts and speculative translation theories, propagated mostly by unsaved people more interested in being the authority than letting the Bible be the authority, obscure the spiritual truths seen only by those whom the Holy Spirit teaches. Yea, the sloppiness (imprecision) of modern English contaminates God’s Word even more! (Think of the “ contemporary bibles” that read like newspapers or magazines. Paraphrased, they use the “street language” or slang of our day. Some of these works marketed as “bibles” are utterly laughable. Of course, no one studies them in great detail anyway, so they are largely not scrutinized and exposed as the rubbish they are.)

The preceding comments were provided to introduce the fact that “ensample” is a rare word today. We are more familiar with “example” instead. What is an “ensample?” Is the term really synonymous with “example?” If we dissect these terms, we can see—at least in “ensample”—the stem “sample.” The two prefixes are “en–” (“in”) and “ex–” (“out”). Just with these few observations, we see a sample in and a sample out. A distinction is thus obvious: there are differences in relationships between nouns. There is indeed a subtle difference, one obscured by modern English because “example” has entirely supplanted “ensample.” Again, think of today’s English, and compare it to the precision of the Authorized Version we now examine.

The word “ensample” appears six times in the King James text:

  • 1 Corinthians 10:11: “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
  • Philippians 3:17: “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.”
  • 1 Thessalonians 1:7: “So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.”
  • 2 Thessalonians 3:9: “Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.”
  • 1 Peter 5:3: “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”
  • 2 Peter 2:6: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;….”

There is a “sample” of behavior or people in the above six verses. This “sample” typifies the group to which it belongs. That is, the “ensample” is a pattern for those within its category.

In Philippians 3:17, we see numerous Christians following the “ensample” of Paul and Timothy (see 1:1). The doctrine and behavior of Paul and Timothy serve as the model for other members of the Church the Body of Christ. In the case of 1 Thessalonians 1:7, the believers at Thessalonica serve as a pattern to all other believers—namely, the saints in Macedonia (northern Greece) and Achaia (southern Greece). Concerning 2 Thessalonians 3:9, Paul and Silas and Timothy (1:1) serve as a model of doctrine and conduct to the Thessalonians (other believers in Christ). As for 1 Peter 5:3, these are leaders within the Little Flock, Israel’s believing remnant (not the Body of Christ). Church elders in the Little Flock are to serve as illustrations, or samples, of Kingdom living to those under their care. They are all believers, but part of God’s earthly family (rather than God’s heavenly family—us the Body of Christ).

Regarding 1 Corinthians 10:11, Israel of old, with all her mistakes, is a lesson to anyone in God’s program. They are also for our warning as members of the Church the Body of Christ. We should not repeat her errors of unbelief and ingratitude—see all of chapter 10 for the context. Time and space limit us here.

In 2 Peter 2:6, the issue is not any believers in Christ. The focus is on the unsaved—those part of Satan’s policy of evil. They, as individuals outside of God’s influence, serve as a model to all the others outside of God’s kingdom. “Unto those that after should live ungodly,” the complete fiery devastation of wicked Sodom and Gomorrha serve as a pattern. The record of that destruction is directed toward the people who engage in similar behavior. The God of the Bible will not let sinners go unpunished. Sin will catch up with all lost people at some point—and they will face the angry face of God one day!

As for the word “example,” it is found nine times in the King James text:

  • Matthew 1:19: “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.” (“Example” here is manifesting a sample to an outside group. Mary was not a model in a group, but to a group—the general public.)
  • John 13:15: “For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” (Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is in a class all His own. He is not manifested within a group but displayed to a group outside Him.)
  • 1 Corinthians 10:6: “Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” (As mentioned earlier at 1 Corinthians 10:11, Israel of old, with all her mistakes, is a lesson to us outside of her. We need to not repeat her errors—again, consult the whole chapter for the context.)
  • 1 Timothy 4:12: “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” (This is Timothy, a model Christian, demonstrating to the [outside] lost world how believers think and behave. When he is seen conducting his life, the principles of grace should be in full view. The same should be true of us, dear brethren!)
  • Hebrews 4:11: “Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” (In the same vein as 1 Corinthians chapter 10, quoted twice above, the writer of the Book of Hebrews urges the Israelites not to repeat their ancestors’ history of doubt and rebellion against JEHOVAH God. Israel’s former behavior is a sample of what does not belong in God’s nation.)
  • Hebrews 8:5: “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.” (The earthly/Mosaic tabernacle and all of its components and ceremonies were modeled after the heavenly/Messianic tabernacle and its related items.)
  • James 5:10: “Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.” (The Old Testament prophets who suffered persecution but patiently relied on the Lord, serve as patterns for Israel beyond our day to follow.)
  • 1 Peter 2:21: “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:….” (This would be along the lines of what we discussed earlier in John 13:15. Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is in a class by Himself and yet He is a role model for the Little Flock, Israel’s believing remnant, as pertaining to suffering for God’s sake.)
  • Jude 7: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (The destruction of wicked Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis chapter 19, is a “sample” of how God will judge unbelievers. Jude is written in light of the end-times, the Tribulation and Second Coming of Christ, the culmination of God’s undiluted wrath against the world’s sins.)

Also see:
» Must one be a “King James Bible Pauline dispensationalist” to have eternal life?
» Is “God forbid” a “poor translation” in the King James Bible?
» Is the King James word “borrow” a mistranslation in Exodus 3:22?

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, Is “God forbid” a “poor translation” in the King James Bible?

Is “God forbid” a “poor translation” in the King James Bible?

IS “GOD FORBID” A “POOR TRANSLATION” IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?

by Shawn Brasseaux

Friend, if you read critical Bible commentaries, you have surely come across people disparaging the English (namely, the King James) Scriptures for being “too weak” compared to the original Hebrew and Greek. It is stated ad nauseum, “The Hebrew reads stronger there…” and “The Greek is more powerful here….” However, when it comes to the expression, “God forbid,” it is said that our 1611 Authorized Version is a “poor translation.” Is that so? Furthermore, could there be a double standard here?

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST “GOD FORBID”

The argument against the inclusion of “God forbid” is summarized as:

  1. The Greek Bible does not have “God” (theos) there.
  2. The underlying Greek is “μὴ γένοιτο” (me genoito).
  3. A literal translation is “never” (me) and “happen” (genoito).
  4. To be faithful to the original Greek, “God” should not be supplied in the English translation. A better rendering is, “Banish the thought,” “By no means,” “May it never happen,” “Certainly not,” “Perish the thought,” “May it not be.” (Let is be said without delay. This is infantile Bible study!)

Years ago, when I dealt with a New King James Version user and preacher, he asked the usual “What about the ‘God forbid’ ‘mistake’ in the King James Bible?” He said, “There is not one Greek manuscript that reads ‘God forbid.’ There is no perfect inspired translation.” (Like so many, he was simply and mindlessly repeating what he had heard others say about it. He had not researched the issue for himself; otherwise, he would have laid out the reasoning behind the conclusion and seen it to be childish.) As I dealt with him about a variety of textual matters for an extended period, I discovered that the man—while claiming to be a “Bible-believer”—really did not care to know the truth anyway. He would always “disagree” with my dozens of points, but never would he answer them. Alas, he was comfortable in his position: facts would never convince him (and those like him).

Dear friends, while I am no Greek scholar, I have learned from those more acquainted with the language than I that the strongest “no” in Greek is “μὴ γένοιτο” (me genoito). It is a very forceful negation—a strong objection or disapproval rather than a gentle or casual “no.” As this is a written medium rather than an audio clip, it is difficult for me to demonstrate to you that the casual “no” is spoken softly. Imagine “no” said at a normal speech level: “No, I am not going.” Now, think of a “no” uttered loudly and authoritatively: “NOOOOOO, you cannot go!” Despite our limitations and crude examples here, I trust that you can sound out these phrases. There is much power in “μὴ γένοιτο;” rendering it as “no” is deficient in English. Hence, some versions and commentators will say—“Banish the thought,” “By no means,” “May it never happen,” “Certainly not,” “May it not be.” However, these too are weak.

THE ARGUMENT FOR “GOD FORBID”

In English, the strongest expression of negation is, “God forbid.” It corresponds perfectly to “μὴ γένοιτο” (the strongest Greek negation, remember—the literal meaning being “never happen”). “God” is supplied in English without an underlying Greek theos. Therefore, our King James Bible features some dynamic equivalence here instead of its usual literal equivalence. Nevertheless, a literal rendering would not have given the English Bible text as much force as the Greek. The thought of “μὴ γένοιτο” is sufficiently conveyed with “God forbid.” But, what exactly makes “God forbid” the theologically and textually superior choice—as opposed to those negative English expressions listed at the close of the last section?

Who is the most powerful in the universe? Of course, Almighty God is the most powerful. He is omnipotent. The word “forbid,” obviously, simply means, “oppose, contradict, prohibit, prevent, make something impossible.” When we pair the words “God” and “forbid,” we form the strongest negation possible in the English language. “God protest or oppose it!” (The objection refers to the statement that went immediately before or immediately after.) Synonymous phrases are, “May God never let it happen!” “God object to this!” “God keep it from being true!” Again, we can sense a mighty resistance, an intense contradiction, and a passionate refusal to accept the related statement as factual, applicable, and/or possible. Almighty God is against it!

In our King James Bible, the phrase, “God forbid” as a negative phrase appears 23 times. Eight occurrences are found in the Hebrew Old Testament; the remainders appear in the Greek New Testament. Notice:

  • Genesis 44:7: “And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:….” (These men told Joseph’s steward, “To what point have you told us these words? God protest that we should steal Joseph’s silver cup!”)
  • Genesis 44:17: “And he said, God forbid that I should do so: but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father.” (Joseph told his brethren, “God protest that I should make all of you my servants. Only the thief will be my servant.”)
  • Joshua 22:29: “God forbid that we should rebel against the LORD, and turn this day from following the LORD, to build an altar for burnt offerings, for meat offerings, or for sacrifices, beside the altar of the LORD our God that is before his tabernacle.” (God protest that Israel rebel against Him!)
  • Joshua 24:16: “And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;….” (God protest that Israel leave the LORD and follow dead idols!)
  • 1 Samuel 12:23: “Moreover as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way:….” (God protest that Samuel stop praying for Israel!)
  • 1 Samuel 14:45: “And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid: as the LORD liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not.” (When King Saul proposed to kill his son Jonathan for disobeying him, the Jews intervened and said, “God protest that you harm Jonathan in any way!”)
  • 1 Samuel 20:2: “And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so.” (Jonathan told David, “God protest that you have given my father Saul reason to take your life!”)
  • Job 27:5: “God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me.” (Job told his three friends, “God protest that I should say you are right in condemning me!”)
  • Luke 20:16: “He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.” (These religious leaders replied to Christ’s parable, “God protest that the lord of the vineyard come and destroy the husbandmen!” Verse 19 says they realized they were the husbandmen!)
  • Romans 3:4: “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (God protest that man’s unbelief cancel His faithfulness!)
  • Romans 3:6: “God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?” (God protest that we conclude He is unrighteous/unfair for taking vengeance! See also Romans 9:14.)
  • Romans 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” (God protest that faith renders the Law useless. That is, the Law serves its purpose—we thereby learn that faith in Christ, not our works, is the way to justification and eternal life.)
  • Romans 6:2: “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (God protest the notion that we should continue in sin so that grace can be greater—a reference to verse 1 as well as chapter 5 verse 20.)
  • Romans 6:15: “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” (God protest that we should use grace as a license to sin, an excuse to live like the lost people we were before we placed our faith in Christ!)
  • Romans 7:7: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (God protest that the Law is faulty, as verse 12 says it is “holy, just, and good.” The problem is not with the Law. We are sinners—we are the problem because we cannot keep the Law! The Law points out our need to rely on something other than our works if we are to have a right standing before God. See Galatians chapter 3.)
  • Romans 7:13: “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (God protest that the Law was made death to Paul. The Law merely pointed out Paul’s sin problem.)
  • Romans 9:14: “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” (God protest that He is unfair in setting Israel aside for a time. See also Romans 3:6.)
  • Romans 11:1: “I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” (God protest that He has rejected the nation Israel forever and that she will never be restored to Him!)
  • Romans 11:11: “I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” (God protest the notion that Israel stumbled at the cross of Christ and fell. She stumbled and fell in Acts chapter 7, her stoning of Stephen.)
  • 1 Corinthians 6:15: “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.” (God protest the idea that Paul connect us with Satan’s system of spiritual prostitution, false religion!)
  • Galatians 2:17: “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.” (God protest the idea that Christ is “the minister [servant] of sin!”)
  • Galatians 3:21: “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (God protest that Israel’s Law system—technically, her failure to keep it—nullifies His promises to her!)
  • Galatians 6:14: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” (God protest our bragging in our religious works! If we must boast, friends, let us glory that by Jesus Christ crucified, the world is crucified to us and we are crucified to the world. We are cut off from the evil world system’s damnable end.)

CONCLUSION

It is quite clear, from the context, the necessity and accuracy of “God forbid.” The 1611 translators used it to stress a major contradiction to what went before or what followed. A simple “no” is too weak. As we mentioned earlier, the King James Bible is criticized for being “too weak” in conveying the original Hebrew and Greek. However, in the place where it noticeably surpasses modern English versions—“μὴ γένοιτο” (me genoito) being rightly rendered “God forbid,” the strongest “no” possible in English—it is criticized for being wrong. That is, where it is strong, its critics want it to be weaker. It is an unfair system that we should be aware of and not embrace.

See, dear friends, again, the issue in the Bible critic’s mind is not determining truth and error (as should be our goal as Bible students). The spirit of Satan’s evil world system is simply interested in discrediting the Bible… no matter what it says. The King James Bible critics can never be pleased. They refuse to submit to its authority because their sin nature refuses to obey God. Therefore, they challenge it with their various and often petty textual arguments (“God forbid” is unacceptable because “God” is not in the Greek, blah, blah, blah). All they want to do is prove they have a modern English version to sell to replace the King James Bible. This is the attitude that so many seminarians and Bible College graduates are trained to have. Scholars want to be their own authority. They are certainly not going to submit to some Book—especially a 400-year-old Book not of this world! They want to run things, to sit in God’s seat and declare what the Bible should and should not say. May we have the attitude of faith, not unbelief!

Well, what do you know, my friends? Our King James translators once again seem not to be the “bumbling fools” their critics make them out to be! They were skilled linguists in both the original Bible languages and English. Let us appreciate their efforts and not be so quick to dismiss them as slack and erroneous.

SUPPLEMENTAL: “GOD FORBID” IN THE HEBREW

In Hebrew, the word rendered “God forbid” is “חָלִילָה” (“chalilyah”). It was also translated:

  • “be far from thee” (Genesis 18:25—the “thee” is God Himself, Abraham refusing to believe that God will slay the righteous with the wicked!)
  • “Be it far from me” (1 Samuel 2:30—the LORD Himself talking, saying that He has changed His mind about Eli’s sons serving Him because they are apostate and evil!)
  • “Far be it from thee…” (1 Samuel 20:9—Jonathan speaking to David, saying he has not come to betray David into the hands of his father King Saul)
  • “be it far from me” (1 Samuel 22:15—Abimelech before King Saul, denying helping David to overthrow Saul’s kingdom.)
  • “The LORD forbid” (1 Samuel 24:6 and 1 Samuel 26:11—David refusing to take the life of King Saul)
  • “Far be it, far be it” (doubly emphatic here in 2 Samuel 20:20—Joab admitting that he refuses to consume or destroy God’s inheritance, namely, an Israeli city.)
  • “Be it far from me” (2 Samuel 23:17—David refusing to drink water that men risked their lives to obtain for him)
  • “The LORD forbid” (1 Kings 21:3—Naboth declining King Ahab’s offer to purchase his vineyard that he inherited from his ancestors)
  • “My God forbid” (1 Chronicles 11:19—the parallel of 2 Samuel 23:17 quoted above. Here, we see that “My God forbid” and “Be it far from me” are interchangeable.)
  • “far be it” (Job 34:10—Elihu vehemently opposed to God doing wickedness)

As stated before, friends, so say we again. There is no corresponding original word for “God” (elohiym) or “LORD” (Yahovah), yet we see “God forbid” and “LORD forbid.” However, as in the Greek examples from our main study, if you carefully examine the Hebrew verses immediately above, you will see that a casual “no” is insufficient. The situations are serious, the suggestions are major, and so they require a forceful rebuttal.

“NOOOOO, I will not kill King Saul the LORD’s anointed!”
“NOOOOO, I will not sell my inheritance to you, King Ahab!”
“NOOOOO, David, I have not come to betray you to my father King Saul!”
“NOOOOO, I will not let your wicked sons serve Me in My house, Eli!”
(And so on.)

Also see:
» Why does the King James Bible say “pisseth against the wall?”
» Is “excellent” a King James mistranslation in Philippians 1:10?
» Must one be a “King James Bible Pauline dispensationalist” to have eternal life?

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, Is “excellent” a “mistranslation” in Philippians 1:10 in the King James Bible?

Is “excellent” a “mistranslation” in Philippians 1:10 in the King James Bible?

IS “EXCELLENT” A “MISTRANSLATION” IN PHILIPPIANS 1:10 IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?

by Shawn Brasseaux

We have probably all heard the claim that the King James Bible has a “mistranslation” in Philippians 1:10. Let us look at the controversial passage: “That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;….” The word “excellent” is greatly belittled. Furthermore, “different” is offered as a “better translation.” Is this substitution proper? Does the “correction” better explain Christian living? Or, does such a change obscure it? Let us search the Scriptures!

I. THE SCOURGE OF (UNBELIEVING) TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Many King James Bible critics—those who complain about various “mistranslations” in the Authorized Version—are often naïve. Their claims are usually not original research, something they personally investigated and evaluated. Often, they are merely repeating what others told them in books, sermons, and so on. Why do I say that? Well, my friend, I should know… I used to be one of those people!

Years ago, at the direction of a dear Bible teacher, I underlined “excellent” in Philippians 1:10 in my King James Bible and wrote “different” in the margin. This Christian brother encouraged me and those in his classes to make various other such changes in the Scriptures. Eventually, I began to mindlessly repeat his anti-KJB claims. However, when I checked his statements, I found him to be wrong. I politely confronted him, reminding him that the Bible, not him, was the final authority. He became angry and defensive, obstinately refusing to admit his erroneous assertions. As it turned out, he had not done his own research; he would just repeat others, and disliked the fact someone called him out on it. He was manifested as speaking evil of things of which he knew not. Many such people are guilty of this, and I have since renounced such folly.

Once again, I decided long ago to start researching so-called “mistakes” in the King James Bible. What I discovered through original research was its critics were often not qualified to make those determinations. They were unfamiliar with the English language, unskilled in the original Bible languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek), unaware of critical events in church history that gave rise to “textual criticism,” and even inexperienced in the Bible text itself! This study documents my journey in seeing this more and more, especially concerning Philippians 1:10. Once we consider this matter, it will demonstrate how we need to be very suspicious of King James Bible “correctors.” Whether acting in innocent ignorance or deliberate defiance, they are making the Bible less clear by diminishing sharp distinctions.

Unfortunately, we have many men in the pulpit and seminary who claim to be Bible “believers” but constantly criticize and pick apart the text of Scripture (just like the atheists, agnostics, skeptics, free-thinkers, et cetera!). They have been trained to believe that the only method of teaching the Bible is to offer critical remarks about it! Therefore, we hear a lot of nonsense. For example, in the same breath as “I am not the final authority, the Bible is,” we hear, “But I think this Bible verse was never part of the original manuscripts.” Or, “I do not want you to go by what I say, I want you to follow the Bible. By the way, this word is a ‘poor translation.’ I think a ‘better’ rendering is….” (So much for “we follow the Bible not the opinions of men!” No wonder no one believes the Bible anymore. They are told at church, at Bible College, not to believe it!)

Friend, let me say something that will probably startle you. It may make you upset. Maybe you are not used to someone being so frank about this topic. Nevertheless, I am more compelled than ever to say it. It must be said before we proceed any further. If we cannot put a Bible before us and have absolute confidence in it, we need to throw it away and never look at another Scripture verse! It is absurdity ad infinitum that we have been told in churches to be “Bible believers” while also being told in those same churches “there is no perfect Bible today!” Either we have all the inspired, preserved words of God, or we do not. It is a clear-cut answer—“yes” or “no”—rather than a “I do not know, maybe, somewhat, a few, most.” My firm conviction is that all the inspired, preserved words of God are in the Authorized Version King James Bible. I can produce/exhibit a Book I believe in; I do not resort to the ridiculous defense, “I believe in the perfect original manuscripts that no one even has today.”

What if we do not believe in a perfect Bible that we can hold today? Well, if we do not believe that we do have all the words of God in one Book, then we need to quit being hypocrites and quit pretending like we do. We need to just come out say we do not believe any Bible anywhere. There is nothing more despicable than the attitude of a “Bible agnostic”—someone who professes ignorance about the Book he supposedly believes and defends. There is nothing more foolish than urging people to believe the Bible while also constantly telling them that there are mistakes in the Bible that only you and select others can fix. Who is the authority? The Bible? Then why do act like you are the authority, sitting on the judgment seat and subjecting the Bible text to your fallible whims and hunches? I would hate to stand before God and tell Him all about how I am smarter than He is!

By the way, my friend, I am not angry. Rather, I am quite passionate about Bible study, and I will zealously contend for the truth! So, I will say something else that will surprise you. If you think you can “fix” the Bible, then Satan is beyond delighted, for you are well on your way to establishing a cult! The Mormons “enhanced” the Bible (they call it “The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ”)! The Russellites (so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses”) “corrected” the Bible to give us “The New World Translation!” The Roman Catholics “fixed” the Bible to give us “The Latin Vulgate” and its numerous resultant heretical translations!). Oh, and the Muslims “improved” the Bible too—their “revision” is titled “The Qur’an!” Just thought you should know that before you proceed further down the cursed road of textual criticism.

II. THE BLESSEDNESS OF (BELIEVING) BIBLE STUDY

Dear friend, with unbelief out of the way, we can now focus on faith, and the light and joy it brings. Faith will cause us to believe the 400-year-old King James Bible as-is, without contradicting or correcting it, thereby correcting and enhancing our thoughts and lives. Going back to Philippians 1:10: “That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;….”

The Greek word rendered “excellent” in Philippians 1:10 is “diaphero.” Depending on the context, it can indeed be translated various ways (over a half-dozen, actually—we will see this later). According to Dr. Strong’s Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament:

“G1308 διαφέρω. Pronounced dee-af-er’-o. From 1223 and 5342; to bear through, i.e. (literally) transport; usually to bear apart, i.e. (objectively) to toss about (figuratively, report); subjectively, to “differ”, or (by implication) surpass:—be better, carry, differ from, drive up and down, be (more) excellent, make matter, publish, be of more value.”

So, whenever we hear somebody complain that the King James Bible has a mistake, a mistranslation, in Philippians 1:10—that is, that “excellent” should be “different”—we just remember that any Greek dictionary says that “excellent” is a perfectly legitimate translation of diaphero. Now, someone may argue that “different” is an alternate rendering (as Dr. Strong offers this definition too). We will acknowledge that possibility. However, remember, as any competent translator knows, the context determines the sense of the English word needed.

A. AMPLIFICATION, EXPANSION, AND EXPLANATION

Friend, as stated before, long ago, I bought into the idea that “excellent” was a “poor translation” in Philippians 1:10. I used to believe “different” was a better rendering of the underlying Greek text. Recently, I have come to realize just how ridiculous my former position was. Is “different” more descriptive than “excellent?” My original research yields a resounding answer of NO!

Let me offer this illustration. Is being a blood-bought child of God “different” from being a Hell-bound child of Satan? Why yes, but we can be more vivid with our language. Being a blood-bought child of God is “more excellent than” being a Hell-bound child of Satan. See, the more information provided, the language is more precise and a more picture is formed in the mind. It is not merely a contrast of two similar positions (“different”). It is a contrast of two statuses, with one far greater than the other (“excellent”)—there really is no comparison because the difference is enormous. “Different” is just too weak to convey the truth here.

Considering the above illustration, we see that “different” does not give Philippians 1:10 the force, power, strength that “excellent” does. God does not want us to engage in simply “different” things, for such ambiguity may imply less valuable or average things. No, the potency of the verse lies in the word “excellent”—which potency is loss with “different” substituted. As per the Oxford English Dictionary, “excellent” is defined as “extremely good; outstanding.” (With “excel” a late Middle English word, derived from the Latin excellere [ex- ‘out, beyond’ + celsus ‘lofty’]). This is certainly not necessarily true of the word “different!”

Let us see the various ways in which the 1611 translators rendered diaphero, which provide us with Scriptural (and thus more important) illustrations. The word appears some 13 times, rendered the following ways: be better (3 times), be of more value (2 times), differ from (2 times), should carry (1 time), publish (1 time), drive up and down (1 time), and miscellaneous (3 times).

  • Matthew 6:26: “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?” (This is the same sense as “excellent” in Philippians 1:10—one class surpasses, is better than, the other.)
  • Matthew 10:31: “Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.” (This is the same sense as “excellent” in Philippians 1:10—one class exceeds, is better than, the other.)
  • Matthew 12:12: “How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.” (This is the same sense as “excellent” in Philippians 1:10—one class transcends, is better than, the other.)
  • Mark 11:16: “And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.” (Here is a literal sense of the word.)
  • Luke 12:7: “But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.” (This is the same sense as “excellent” in Philippians 1:10—one class is superior, better than, the other.)
  • Luke 12:24: “Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?” (This is the same sense as “excellent” in Philippians 1:10—one class tops, is better than, the other.)
  • Acts 13:49: “And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.”
  • Acts 27:27: “But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country;….”
  • Romans 2:18: “And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;….” (This is the same sense as “excellent” in Philippians 1:10—one class surpasses, is better than, the other. Israel did not merely act differently when following the Law of Moses. They acted “more excellent” than the pagans around them!)
  • 1 Corinthians 15:41: “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. (Notice “diaphero” in this context is a comparison of like items. They are “different” but equal, none superior.)
  • Galatians 2:6: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:….” (In other words, they did not impress Paul, for they were not better than him or anyone else. Paraphrased, “It makes no difference to me who they were!”)
  • Galatians 4:1: “Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;….” (Notice “diaphero” in this context is a comparison of like items. They really are not “different” but equal—there is no greater or lesser here.)

B. APPLICATION

Friend, Philippians 1:10 is part of a Pauline prayer that the Holy Spirit prays for the benefit of the Church the Body of Christ (not just those in Philippi but us saints even today). It is especially applicable to mature Christians, people who are not new believers but are familiar with the message of God’s grace and have built up in their inner man at least some of the principles of grace.

Reading Philippians 1:9-11 again: “[9] And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; [10] That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; [11] Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.”

The Philippians were not babes in Christ (as the Corinthians were—see 1 Corinthians 3:1-3). While they had various problems, as all believers do, the Philippian saints had spiritually matured to some degree. Paul therefore desires their love “may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment.” At the time of writing, there is room for even more improvement in their lives. The Apostle wants them to value and esteem things the way God sees them. “Love” here is not some fuzzy feeling or emotional upheaval; it is an attitude, a disposition, an outlook, a worldview. That love is according to “knowledge” and “all judgment.” Rather than being ignorant—uninformed or misinformed—Paul wants these Christians to evaluate things in life according to sound Bible doctrine. This is where the term “excellent” (as opposed to “different”) underscores or stresses the goal of the apostolic prayer. It is possible for something to be different and yet not be superior; it is impossible to be superior and yet not be different.

Paul prayed in verse 9. Why? Verse 10 tells: “That [purpose or intent of Paul praying] ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;….” The Holy Spirit through Paul prayed for the Philippian saints, that their love would abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment, that they would equip themselves with the tools needed to evaluate and rate things in life.

When the Bible speaks of “approving” things that are “excellent,” the word “approve” means, “testing/examining, comparing items.” Once we test things using the Scriptures rightly divided, then we choose what is best (superior, “excellent!”). The goal in Christian thought and living is not to find things that are merely different. Remember, in the physical world, our goal is not merely to find food, but to find food that is edible. We do not grab paper and eat it; we find something superior to paper (something with more nutritional value). We find and eat things “excellent!” So it is in the spiritual realm!

Why did Paul want those at Philippi, or even us, to approve the things that are “excellent?” The intent is revealed in the rest of the verse: “…that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;….” When we approve the things that are “excellent,” of greater value, we are “sincere [pure] and without offence [not led into sin].” The “day of Christ” is the time of the Judgment Seat of Christ, when Jesus Christ will evaluate our Christian doctrine and service immediately after the Rapture. You can find more information about this in 2 Corinthians 5:9-10, Romans 14:10-12, and 1 Corinthians 3:9-15. Time and space do not permit us to discuss that here. Please see our related studies linked at the end of this article.

Philippians 1:11 now: “Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.” This is a summary of what has gone before. When our love abounds more and more in knowledge and in all judgment, and we thus approve the things that are excellent, thereby making us sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, all of this can be summarized as… “being filled with the fruits of righteousness.” Those fruits are the result of Jesus Christ working in and through us, as we study and believe His Word to us (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The life of Christ is not merely something different, it is something “excellent,” surpassing everything that a person can do in his or her own strength (works-religion).

Christ living is not merely outward duty that can be faked; it is the righteous nature of the Christian in Christ that produces a lifestyle far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far beyond the “normal” life (something people outside of Christ cannot match in conduct).

III. CONCLUSION

Our 1611 King James Bible translators were certainly not wrong in placing “excellent” in the text of Philippians 1:10. It is a perfectly acceptable translation of the underlying Greek diaphero. In fact, “excellent” is superior to (more excellent than!) “different,” the substitute people usually offer. It is possible for something to be different and yet not be superior; it is impossible to be superior and yet not be different. God does not want us to engage in merely “different” thought and behavior; He wants us to pursue “excellent” thought and “excellent” behavior. “Different” waters down Philippians 1:10—“excellent” gives the Bible text more force!

Romans 12:1-2: “[1] I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. [2] And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Notice the degrees of the will of God. There is something good (“good”), something better (“acceptable”), and something that is the best (“perfect”). We are not simply to avoid evil, but we are to pick the best out of many good choices. This comes with maturity, spiritual growth. A new convert to Christianity struggles with what is good and what is evil. However, a wise mature Christian looks for the best among a lot of good alternatives. He or she picks that which is “excellent!”

SUPPLEMENTAL: PHILIPPIANS 1:10 AND ENGLISH BIBLES

  • “excellent” (King James Version, American Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version)
  • “excellent” [identifying the best, and distinguishing moral differences]” (Amplified Bible)
  • “what really matters” (Common English Bible)
  • “right” (Contemporary English Version)
  • “better” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition – Roman Catholic “bible”)
  • “best” (1599 Geneva Bible, God’s Word Translation, New English Translation, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)
  • “superior” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
  • “the highest and the best” (J.B. Phillips New Testament)
  • “the difference between right and wrong” (The Living Bible)
  • “the difference between good and bad and will choose the good” (New Century Version)
  • “what really matters” (New Living Translation)
  • “examine and determine the best from everything else” (The Voice)
  • “the things that differ” (Young’s Literal Translation)

Also see:
» How does one know if he or she is maturing in the Word of God?
» What is the fire at the Judgment Seat of Christ?
» Why does the King James Bible say, “pisseth against the wall?”

BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, Can you explain 2 Timothy 4:13?

Can you explain 2 Timothy 4:13?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN 2 TIMOTHY 4:13?

by Shawn Brasseaux

The Apostle Paul wrote to young pastor Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:13: “The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.” What are these “books” and “parchments?”

Winter is approaching, as verse 21 says: “Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.” Paul is in Rome, in prison and cold, asking Timothy to bring him a coat he left far away in Turkey. Moreover, he tells Timothy to also bring him two classes of items—“the books” and “the parchments.” Precisely what are they?

Firstly, we can think of the “books” as “scrolls, writings”—the biblia. They may have very well been previously written Holy Scripture. Paul wanted to do some studying. “Parchments” corresponds to the Greek word membranas—“membranes” (sheets of animal tissue, as in a sheepskin—their “paper,” for lack of a better word). Evidently, Paul wanted to do some writing as well.

Secondly, we can think of the “books” as non-Scriptural works. That is, they may have been secular sources. Remember, Paul demonstrated himself to be familiar with and knowledgeable even in heathen/non-Christian literature (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). Notice how the Apostle was careful to say, “especially the parchments.” There is more emphasis on these parchments than on the books. The parchments, though obscure, are special. Could they have been the Holy Scriptures, thus taking precedence over the secular works? Perhaps.

Paul had written just moments earlier in the chapter: “[6] For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. [7] I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”

Whatever those “last-minute” items were, dear friends, our Apostle chose them of all things to occupy his time remaining on Earth. He wanted to keep his mental and spiritual faculties active right up to the very end. Even though his earthly sojourn was rapidly drawing to a close, he desired to continue learning. How much more should we today, who expect to live for many more years or decades?

Also see:
» “Epistle” and “letter”—same or different?
» Who are the prophets of Romans 16:26?
» Has God’s Word failed?

BAPTISM, BIBLE VERSIONS AND MANUSCRIPTS, CREATION AND EARLY MAN, ESCHATOLOGY (END TIMES) / PROPHECY, How did the Great Flood’s water save the eight souls in 1 Peter 3:20?, How did the Great Flood’s water save the eight souls in 1 Peter 3:20?, How did the Great Flood’s water save the eight souls in 1 Peter 3:20?, How did the Great Flood’s water save the eight souls in 1 Peter 3:20?

How did the Great Flood’s water save the eight souls in 1 Peter 3:20?

HOW DID THE GREAT FLOOD’S WATER SAVE THE EIGHT SOULS IN 1 PETER 3:20?

by Shawn Brasseaux

A very awkward preposition appears in 1 Peter 3:20 of the King James Bible: “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” Did not the water of the Great Flood in Noah’s lifetime drown and kill? Then, how is it that eight souls were “saved by water?” And, from what did that water save them? Lastly, why would the Apostle Peter even mention in his first epistle something that happened so long ago?

The Great Flood of Noah’s lifetime was the most catastrophic event ever to occur in human history. There was unparalleled devastation, literally worldwide ruin, in all natural realms. With greatly accelerated rates of erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediment, Earth’s surface was drastically changed. Even its atmosphere was altered significantly. With the exception of those on the Ark, all members of the animal kingdom died. Save the eight souls onboard, the entire human race perished in watery graves. Such violent waters drowned many millions of—perhaps a few billion—people. Today’s fossil record is one of the evidences of a worldwide, systematic extermination of all kinds of life-forms. Modern floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, mudslides, and tsunamis we experience allow us to partially understand the terrible natural conditions that occurred during the Great Deluge. Massive canyons with “puny” rivers flowing through them, major orogeny (mountain building), the divisions of continental landmasses, gigantic impact craters, and other physical landforms, show us Earth’s history has the blot of an unmatched and cataclysmic event. (As an Earth scientist, I enjoyed that digression, but let us now get back to the Bible text!)

Depending on the context, the Greek word “dia” can be translated either “by” or “through.” In the King James Bible, it was rendered “by” in 1 Peter 3:20: “eights souls were saved by water.” Some modern English versions make the verse say “through.” That is, “by” was so problematic that the standard 400-year-old English reading was changed to “through.” When reading the King James Bible, some will actually have the audacity to “correct” the word “by” and make the text say “through” (encouraging unbelief and the exaltation of man’s opinions over God’s Word). If we give our Authorized Version translators the benefit of the doubt, however, we will wind up in faith rather than doubt. What if I told you that verse 21 held the key to the proper translation of the word “dia” in verse 20? Let me prove it to you.

We turn to read 1 Peter 3:21: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:….” Is water baptism “saving” these individuals? Well, if words mean anything, the answer is, “YES!” “…[E]ven baptism doth also now save us….” Is water “saving” those in verse 21? Yes! Could water in verse 20 (our “problem” verse) be “saving” those in that verse 20? Yes! Verse 21’s “the like figure” points back to verse 20. The Noahic floodwaters of verse 20 preview that which those in verse 21 are saved by (and from)! If that sounds like nonsense, just wait a bit longer for me to flesh it out. It will become clear shortly.

Think about what was going on during the time of the Great Flood. (Historically, those events are recorded in the Bible in Genesis chapters 7 and 8.) Water was coming from beneath Earth’s surface, and it was coming down from heaven. A universal ocean was forming on the planet. All landmasses—even their mountain ranges—were completely covered. As water levels rose because of the rain and groundwater introductions, as the continental plates sank, and as the oceanic plates rose to deliver seawater onto the landmasses, Earth’s surface was progressively inundated. The lowest elevations (coastal plains, canyons, lake/sea basins, river valleys, et cetera) were filled first. Of course, mountains were the last to flood. Animal, plant, and human carcasses floated. Sediments—even gigantic boulders—were lifted and carried about and violently deposited. (Sorry for the science excursion again!)

What else rose with those water levels? Why, the Ark, the buoyant and waterproof boat that God commanded Noah to build to the saving of his house (Genesis chapter 6). That giant marvelous vessel began to lift from the surface of Earth. In fact, the language of the Bible is that the water level had to rise for 40 days around the world before the Ark actually began to float! Genesis 7:17-18: “And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.” While it is mathematically impossible to figure out the volume of water needed to bring this to pass, the mere thought is staggering… to say the least!

Getting back to the Apostle Peter’s comments, we can see why the Holy Spirit said what He did. Why did the 1611 translators choose the word “by” instead of “through?” Something did not merely save Noah and his family through the water (as in the Ark passing through the water). There is more going on in Genesis chapters 7 and 8. Peter’s emphasis is on the water actually saving them. Remember, verse 21 says that water baptism saves Peter’s audience (which is certainly not us, but the nation Israel). In keeping with verse 21, verse 20 would have water saving people as well. The floodwaters in Noah’s day had a dual application. Firstly, they destroyed the evil human race and made way for a new world. Secondly, the waters lifted up Noah and his family, as the Ark floated above God’s judgment poured out on that wicked civilization. Without the water carrying the Ark, those in the Ark could not be saved from the water. Buoyancy in the water kept them from drowning with all the others in the water!

When the Holy Spirit led Peter to write 1 Peter 3:21, He was pointing back to Ezekiel as well as Matthew (and John the Baptist). Water baptism in Israel’s program symbolizes national repentance and cleansing from idolatry. Notice Ezekiel chapter 36: “[21] But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. [22] Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. [23] And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

“[24] For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. [25] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. [26] A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” (Please notice verse 25 especially—the sprinkling of clean water to cleanse Israel from all her filthiness and all her idols.)

Following Ezekiel’s prophecy, John the Baptist conducted his ministry. Matthew 3:1-12 tells us all about it: “[1] In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, [2] And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [3] For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. [4] And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

“[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, [6] And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. [7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: [9] And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

“[10] And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. [11] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: [12] Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

The Jews coming to John’s water baptism were preparing for God’s wrath to come (see verse 7 above). God’s wrath was approaching, soon to be poured out upon idolatrous Israel. Those who had come in faith and repentance to John’s baptism would be saved through that wrath (seven-year Tribulation and subsequent Second Coming of Christ). That wrath was anticipated in early Acts. Hence, the Apostle Peter continued preaching water baptism, as Acts 2:38-40 confirms: “[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. [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. [40] And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”

That “untoward generation” (verse 40) was the unbelieving, rebellious Jews. Weeks earlier, they had rejected and crucified Jesus as a fraud, a liar. Instead of trusting Him as Messiah, they denied Him. Unfortunately, they were still in unbelief on the Day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2). These people would be consumed in God’s wrath. Peter urged his Jewish audience to leave apostate Israel and join the “Little Flock” (Israel’s believing remnant). As the Lord Jesus had said in Luke 12:32, members of this Little Flock would be the heirs of the literal, physical, visible, Davidic kingdom that Israel had been expecting for many centuries. Read Jesus’ comments in Luke 12:31-31: “[31] But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. [32] Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

CONCLUSION

Just as the floodwaters bore the Ark, so that it floated and delivered the believers from God’s wrath, so water baptism delivers the believing Jews from being consumed in God’s wrath during the Tribulation and Second Coming of Christ. The water “saved” Noah and his family by floating them to safety. Likewise, the water baptism “saves” Israel by preserving them through that fiery wrath of the end-times. We have no reason to change the King James Bible in 1 Peter 3:20—eight souls were saved “by” water. This is in accordance with Jewish souls being saved “by” water during the conclusion of Israel’s prophetic program (future from us). Hence, I will leave the King James Bible text alone and just believe it. I have no business correcting it; it should be correcting me. (And, as far as I am concerned, it just did.)

Also see:
» Can you explain 1 Peter 3:18-21?
» Do I need water baptism?
» Why was water baptism necessary in Israel’s program?