A Godless Thanksgiving - Misquoting Lincoln

In his 2008 Thanksgiving address, Barack Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln's proclamation in which he established the last Thursday in November as a day of thanksgiving. Here are Obama's words:

Nearly 150 years ago, in one of the darkest years of our nation's history, President Abraham Lincoln set aside the last Thursday in November as a day of Thanksgiving. America was split by Civil War. But Lincoln said in his first Thanksgiving decree that difficult times made it even more appropriate for our blessings to be -- and I quote -- "gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people."

Notice anything missing? Maybe it would help if I recalled the context of the Lincoln quote:

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.

President Lincoln is reminding the nation that judgement is the result of sin. He points out that the gracious gifts we receive from the hand of God are the result of His mercy, not what we deserve or have earned.

No such acknowledgement from the president-elect. Far from it. Instead, he continues his speech by assuring us that a better economy will come by "the hard work, innovation, service, and strength of the American people." This is how he ends the speech:

Times are tough. There are difficult months ahead. But we can renew our nation the same way that we have in the many years since Lincoln's first Thanksgiving: by coming together to overcome adversity; by reaching for -- and working for -- new horizons of opportunity for all Americans.

So this weekend -- with one heart, and one voice, the American people can give thanks that a new and brighter day is yet to come.

A new and brighter day to do what? Continue to praise the efforts of man? Persist in sin and in shutting out the knowledge of God and His judgments?

Some scripture comes to mind:

Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!

Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

2 Timothy 3:1-5 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

May God have mercy on our nation.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Little Stuff Refutes Radical KJO

Radical King James Onlyism (RKJO) is a doctrine that teaches that the Authorized Version of the Bible is inspired by God in every word, that it is eternal and unchangeable, and that it is without error or internal contradiction.

If God gave us the KJV as His perfect Word in English as the RKJO adherents say, then we should find a unique and remarkable document. We should find no contradictions of fact, no translation mistakes, and no grammatical errors. Even the little things - and especially the little things - would be perfect. If God dictated the KJV, then the KJV would be as perfect as heaven itself.

But it's not. It just isn't perfect. The KJV is riddled with little mistakes and inconsistencies, just as you would expect from any man-made translation.

Seraphims

In Isaiah 6, we have Isaiah's powerful description of his vision of the Lord:

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. Isaiah 6:1-2

In verse 2, we have the word "saraphims." It appears again in verse 6. What is interesting about this word is that it is a grammatical error -- a double plural. In Hebrew, a saraph is a type of angel. To create the plural of saraph, you would add the suffix "im" making it "seraphim." The translators used the plural word, but then for reasons no one understands, they added the letter "s" to the end. Saying "seraphims" for seriphim is like saying "mices" for mice, "mooses" for moose, or using "geeses" for the plural of goose. If the KJV were dictated by God word-for-word, this error would not be in Isaiah 6 verses 2 and 6. It is a goofy little human error, plain and simple, and it refutes the RKJO position.

Old Testament Quotes

People who hold the RKJO position make a big deal about wording changes. Their main complaint against the "evil" New King James Version is that it "changes words." They reject the idea that God's Word is comprised of thoughts that can be expressed in different words. It is the words themselves that are important, they say. One RKJO told me that God inspired "every syllable" of the KJV.

This is a position can be easily verified by reviewing the wording of the KJV itself. If God intends for His Word to be expressed in specific words that can never be changed, then we would expect that when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, the wording in each of them would be identical. All we have to do is check and see if this is so.

Here is one where Jesus Himself is reading from two Old Testament passages:

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. - KJV

Now let us look at the passages He was reading as fond in the King James Version:

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; - KJV

Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. - KJV

Jesus does not quote either one of these passages word-for-word, even though He is reading directly from a scroll. Next, let's look at Paul's direct quote of David in Romans 4. The KJV acknowledges that this is a direct quote by capitalizing the first words in each line.

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. - KJV

Here is the psalm he is quoting:

Psalm 32:1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. - KJV

Again, the words are not identical. Clearly, God intended His Word to be an expression of ideas, not a collection of unchangeable words. The quotes of the Old Testament found in the New Testament refute the RKJO position.

Straining At A Translation

One of the more amusing side effects of the RKJO doctrine is that they are forced to defend every kind of error in the KJV, including printing errors! That's right, they have to find a way to prove that a printing error was actually not an error, but rather it was God's intervention to correct the "corrupted" original Greek texts and deliver to us His perfect Word in the English language.
Take a look at the words of Jesus as He pronounces woe on the Pharisees:

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. - KJV

The phrase "strain at a gnat" makes no sense, especially when we look a the Greek texts, all of which say "strain out a gnat." It is highly unlikely that the translators made a mistake like this. We know that there were other printer's errors that were corrected in the first printings. It is highly likely that this is one that has slipped by to this day. In any case, whether the translators made the error or the printers and proofreaders made the error, it is an error. It refutes the RKJO position.

Easter - Before Easter Existed

In Acts 12, we have the account of Herod arresting and imprisoning Peter. Verse 4 shows that Herod's intention was to put Peter on trial "after Easter"

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered
him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring
him forth to the people. - KJV

The use of the word Easter here is rather curious, because it is the only time that the Greek word for Passover is translated Easter. In the other 28 times that the Greek word for Passover appears, it is translated Passover.

Furthermore, we know that the Christian celebration of Easter did not begin for at least another 100 years after the Apostles. The earliest reference we have to the Christian celebration of Easter is in a sermon by Melito of Sardis, who died in AD 180. The fact that Easter was not celebrated by Christians in the days of the Apostles, and the fact that the Greek says "Passover" refutes the RKJO position that the KJV is without error.

The Little Stuff Refutes Radical KJO

These few examples are a mere sampling of the hundreds of little oddities, inconsistencies, and outright errors in the King James Version. If the KJV were the final and perfect revelation of God's Word, we wouldn't have these examples to look at.

God doesn't make any mistakes. All His works are complete and perfect. The King James Version, however, has mistakes and errors, big and small. This shows that the KJV is exactly what it claims to be - an imperfect translation of God's perfect Word. The RKJO doctrine is refuted by the little stuff.

Read More...

Summary only...

Which King James Version?

In a previous post, I defined a particular kind of belief that I call a Radical King James Onlyism or RKJO. In this article, I want to examine the claim of RKJO adherents that the King James Version is the word-for-word inspiration of God.

This claim is implied when authors of RKJO books create their ubiquitous "comparison tables" where they excoriate other versions for "leaving out God's words." They complain if a version chooses a word that is different from the KJV. To see this, just do a Google search on NKJV and see what comes up.

They also make direct claims for the inspiration and inerrancy of the KJV:

I am saying that the Authorized Version is every word of God that was in the original autographs, preserved to this day." - Sam Gipp, An Understandable History of the Bible, Chapter 9

“The King James Bible was ‘given by inspiration of God.’” - Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272

These are bold claims that should be easily to put to the test. If the KJV is perfect, inerrant, and unchangeable in every word, then we would expect to find just that - an unchanging document. However, that is not what we find. When we examine the history of the KJV, we see that it has been revised at least four times since its first publication in 1611. The revision most commonly used today is the 1769 version made by Benjamin Blayney.

When confronted with this revision history, RKJO adherents quickly dismiss it by claiming that the revisions were limited to spelling and punctuation changes. They assert that no words were changed. This is an important argument for them, because their claim of word-for-word inspiration and inerrancy is made for the 1611 version. If they use the 1769 version (and most of them do), then any documented wording changes would seriously undermine their argument.

Well, there is bad news for their argument. The revisions did make wording changes. F.H.A. Scrivener outlines a number of wording changes between 1611 and 1769. In the approved RKJO manner, I will show the comparisons. First, I will show the wording of a passage as it is in the 1769 version, then an image of the same passage in the original Authorized Version printed by Robert Barker in 1611.

In Deuteronomy 26:1, the 1769 version adds the words "thy God":

Deuteronomy 26:1 And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein;

The 1769 version adds "the children of" in Joshua 13:29.

Joshua 13:29 And Moses gave inheritance unto the half tribe of Manasseh: and this was the possession of the half tribe of the children of Manasseh by their families.

The 1769 version changes "seek good" to "seek God" at Psalm 69:32.

Psalm 69:32 The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.

Jeremiah 49:1 says "inherit Gad" in the 1769 version, but says "inherit God" in the 1611.

Jeremiah 49:1 Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit Gad, and his people dwell in his cities?

The 1769 version says "the Christ" at Matthew 16:16. The 1611 omits "the."

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The 1769 version changes "no man" to "none" and then italicizes "there is."

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

The 1611 version says "aproved to death", the 1769 says "appointed to death" at 1 Corinthians 4:9.

1 Corinthians 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

Now, if you are the least bit tempted to think that this line of argumentation against the RKJO position is nit-picking, please remember what the RKJO position is. The RKJO position is that the King James Version is the word-for-word inspired, immutable, and perfectly preserved Word of God. They say that other versions are "corrupt" because they "change God's Words." The acid test of the validity of an argument is whether it works both ways. Is the KJV corrupt because its words have been changed?

Here is the truth: the King James Version itself is not perfectly preserved! Even to this day, there are differences between the Oxford Authorized Version and the Cambridge Authorized Version at Jeremiah 34:16, 2 Chronicles 33:19, and Nahum 3:16.

So here is a question any RKJO must answer and then defend: if the KJV is God's perfectly preserved Word, then which KJV is the prefect one, and why?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Bible Version Debate

The quickest way to get a heated argument going in a fundamental Bible-believing church today is to bring up the subject of which Bible version is the best and most accurate. Everyone has his favorite version, and usually knows why it is the right one to use.

Sometimes you will get more than simple advice. Some people will tell you in the strongest terms which Bible you should use. More often than not, these people will be advocating the Authorized or King James Version (KJV).

I'm not talking about...

Many people have come to love the KJV because of the long familiarity of reading it in their daily devotions and hearing it in sermons. The specific wording of familiar promises is marked in their memory, along with the time in their life when God fulfilled those promises. They were reading the KJV when the Holy Spirit brought light to their soul, peace to their mind, and comfort to their heart. They love the KJV and recommend it to others. They are not about to change to another translation, and they should not. They should stick with what works for them.

I am also not talking about those who think the KJV is superior to any other available English translation because of the Greek texts on which it is based. Some people believe that the Greek texts that underlie the KJV are superior to those used by other translations. Discussions about which Greek texts are more reliable are legitimate, and reasonable Christians can disagree on these points.

I am talking about...

The people I am talking about are those who use all the arguments above and then go far beyond. They contend that the KJV is perfect, that it supersedes the original texts, and that it is inspired by God in every word (one person said, "every syllable"). They believe that it is "God's preserved Word in the English language", and any translation that reads differently is a corruption. They go to great lengths to explain away simple and obvious translation mistakes.

People who hold this position become agitated, even angry, if you dare to suggest that the KJV just might not have been God-breathed. They accuse anyone who doesn't see things their way of being a "Bible hater", an ally of Satan, and of denying the inspiration and preservation of Scripture. For purposes of brevity, I am going to call this position Radical King James Onlyism, or RKJO.

If this isn't you, then relax. I'm talking about a very different, very radical, and often hateful group of people who seek to divide the body of Christ over this arguable matter. Not content with using the KJV themselves, they won't rest until they have imposed their views on everyone they know. They condemn anyone who doesn't agree with them -- often with harsh words and pronouncements of judgment.

A little history

The RKJO movement has its roots in the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) cult. Nearly all of the proofs and argumentative approaches used by RKJO adherents come from the book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist. The SDAs use certain specific wording in the KJV to support their contention for "soul sleep" and other heresies. Wilkinson was concerned that support for his doctrines would go away if people started using other versions. He wrote his book to prop up the KJV because of the way he uses the KJV to prop up his heresies. Since then, the SDAs have come up with their own translation, so they are not so interested in the KJV any more. Sadly, the RKJO position persists.

Today, the largest organized church that holds the King James to be an inspired translation is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons. Mormons are forced to take a radical position on the inspiration of the KJV because it is quoted by the Book of Mormon -- a book they claim is a word-for-word dictation from God. Mind you, I am not suggesting guilt by association when I mention the Mormons and SDAs. I'm just providing some context for the discussion.

In the last few decades, the RKJO position has been filtering into fundamentalist Protestant churches. A few small radical Pentecostal denominations have picked it up, but it is mostly found in independent Baptist churches, or with a few individuals scattered throughout otherwise doctrinally sound groups. It hit its peek in the early to mid '90s with the publication of New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger. After Riplinger was refuted, it subsided, but now it has begun to revive again, especially in conservative Holiness churches.

A new series

It would be a mistake to believe that the RKJO position is harmless. Error is never harmless, especially when it involves how God's Word came to us. Believing that the KJV is inspired in every word strikes directly to the heart of the Christian doctrine on inspiration and preservation of Scripture. It cannot be allowed to stand un-refuted. Also, RKJO adherents tend to be very divisive. Their track record shows that if they are not challenged, they often become more strident and will eventually split a congregation of believers.

Over the next few months, I intend to start a series examining some of the positions of Radical King James Onlyism. I will be showing where they have gone off the rails, and how they can be refuted. There are some excellent rebuttals of the RKJO position already in print and available online, so I will be referring to them from time to time. However, I think there is a need for a refutation of the RKJO position from a doctrinally sound, conservative Holiness position. That is what I intend to provide.

I welcome your comments, especially if you are currently in conversation with a radical KJO.

If you are a radical KJO and you want to condemn me or start and argument, just understand that I have already been slandered, called a follower of Satan, condemned as a Bible hater, and a bunch of other stuff, so my skin is really thick. I am not intimidated by bullying. Your comments are welcome, but you won't change my mind.

Stay tuned!

Read More...

Summary only...