Glenn Beck has been acting as a "Watch Dog" in the political realm. He has been asking tough questions about why the current presidential administration is doing some of the things it is doing. He is taking flak from Washington because of it.
The political side of Glenn Beck's show has nothing to do with the purpose of this blog. However, his "Watch Dog" approach does apply. I am asking: where are the Biblical watch dogs in the local churches today? When issues come up churches are wanting to turn to their pastors instead of their Bibles. Don't get me wrong, pastors are to be honored as the Bible instructs. But pastors should be going to God's Word with the people to face issues.
The Bereans of Acts 17 were watch dogs. They tested everything they were taught to see whether it was true or not. They asked questions.
2 Timothy 4:2-4
2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
This is happening today just as it was through church history. False doctrines are being taught in churches, and the members are believing it without question. Members of local churches need to be watch dogs to test what is being taught. It is mandated in scripture as we have just seen.
I hope that through this blog valid questions will begin to be asked in the Church. Questions that can resolve conflict, confusion, and division in the Church. Also, I am not targeting all churches. Many churches do test everything, and I commend them. However, I know of many churches that will believe anything taught by their respective pastors.
So again I ask, where are the Biblical watch dogs in the Church?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
KJV-Only Pastor Going too Far?
*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.
First, read this article.
Now, read the following excerpt from the Preface to the 1611 KJV:
"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privi- leged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express" (Italics added).
The translators of the King James Version simply called the Romanists (Roman Catholics) out for burning, or at least threatening to burn, Bibles. The translators condemned this act. However, the pastor of the article plans to burn Bibles. What the pastor must not realize is that the translators would condemn his actions if they were alive today. It makes me wonder, has this pastor ever read the Preface to the KJV?
First, read this article.
Now, read the following excerpt from the Preface to the 1611 KJV:
"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privi- leged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express" (Italics added).
The translators of the King James Version simply called the Romanists (Roman Catholics) out for burning, or at least threatening to burn, Bibles. The translators condemned this act. However, the pastor of the article plans to burn Bibles. What the pastor must not realize is that the translators would condemn his actions if they were alive today. It makes me wonder, has this pastor ever read the Preface to the KJV?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Music in Church
*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.
Many churches today have different styles of music in church for worship. Some use the old hymns and gospel songs found in hymn books while others use what is labeled "praise and worship." What is odd about this is many who use hymn books tend to downplay praise and worship as being or sounding contemporary or "worldly." Some go as far as to pick out exactly what tempo is Godly and what is Satanic. Conversely some on the praise and worship side say that hymns are like being at a funeral. What I believe is happening is tradiditions in music are becoming doctrine in many cases. This is extremely dangerous! Now, I would consider each side mentioned rather extreme, but it is happening.
Scripture has been used to defend either side. One commonly used on the hymn side is Colossians 3:16 (which mentions hymns along with psalms/songs, and spiritual songs). The problem with defending hymns with this verse is that none of the hymns we sing today existed in Paul's time. However, the principle here is that whatever songs or hymns used are to be honoring to God. Psalm 150 is commonly used to support contemporary music in churches. While insturments are different today than in David's day, the principle of Psalm 150 worship is upheld in praise and worship.
While I prefer more contemporary music in church, I do not condemn any church who uses other types of music. Preference should never be placed over the principle of why we worship with music. Music, remember, is not what makes any given song "Christian." It is the heart and lyrics which God looks at.
The Question: Are the more extreme views, such as mentioned above, attempting to choose what God receives and does not?
Many churches today have different styles of music in church for worship. Some use the old hymns and gospel songs found in hymn books while others use what is labeled "praise and worship." What is odd about this is many who use hymn books tend to downplay praise and worship as being or sounding contemporary or "worldly." Some go as far as to pick out exactly what tempo is Godly and what is Satanic. Conversely some on the praise and worship side say that hymns are like being at a funeral. What I believe is happening is tradiditions in music are becoming doctrine in many cases. This is extremely dangerous! Now, I would consider each side mentioned rather extreme, but it is happening.
Scripture has been used to defend either side. One commonly used on the hymn side is Colossians 3:16 (which mentions hymns along with psalms/songs, and spiritual songs). The problem with defending hymns with this verse is that none of the hymns we sing today existed in Paul's time. However, the principle here is that whatever songs or hymns used are to be honoring to God. Psalm 150 is commonly used to support contemporary music in churches. While insturments are different today than in David's day, the principle of Psalm 150 worship is upheld in praise and worship.
While I prefer more contemporary music in church, I do not condemn any church who uses other types of music. Preference should never be placed over the principle of why we worship with music. Music, remember, is not what makes any given song "Christian." It is the heart and lyrics which God looks at.
The Question: Are the more extreme views, such as mentioned above, attempting to choose what God receives and does not?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
KJV Question #3.2
*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.
I think this will be the final KJV only post. It again comes from the 1611 Preface to the Authorised Version. What the translators have said in the following quote, for me, has quite possibly been the strongest argument against the KJV only position.
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures: so diversity and signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.... They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at liberty in differ differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."
I do not understand why, if God inspired these translators, and if the KJV is God's one true word whether anywhere or just in English, that the translators would say this. "Variety of translations?" This certainly implies that the translators were not KJV-only. This implication is reinforced later by the last sentence quoted above.
The Question: If the translators were inspired of God to write the KJV and it be the one true translation, why would they write such contrdictory ideas in its preface--ideas that directly contradict the KJV only position?
*Please know that I do not hate nor are bashing the KJV. I do love and accept it. Most of scripture I have memorized has been from the A.V. I have prayed time and again that God would reveal to me whether or not the KJV is truly His one true word. He has not. In fact, I feel He has convicted me to the contrary.
My focus for this part of the blog has been not to note scriptural differences among the translations (for I am no scholar), but to raise inconsistanties within the KJV only position (which I used to be a part of).
I think this will be the final KJV only post. It again comes from the 1611 Preface to the Authorised Version. What the translators have said in the following quote, for me, has quite possibly been the strongest argument against the KJV only position.
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures: so diversity and signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.... They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at liberty in differ differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."
I do not understand why, if God inspired these translators, and if the KJV is God's one true word whether anywhere or just in English, that the translators would say this. "Variety of translations?" This certainly implies that the translators were not KJV-only. This implication is reinforced later by the last sentence quoted above.
The Question: If the translators were inspired of God to write the KJV and it be the one true translation, why would they write such contrdictory ideas in its preface--ideas that directly contradict the KJV only position?
*Please know that I do not hate nor are bashing the KJV. I do love and accept it. Most of scripture I have memorized has been from the A.V. I have prayed time and again that God would reveal to me whether or not the KJV is truly His one true word. He has not. In fact, I feel He has convicted me to the contrary.
My focus for this part of the blog has been not to note scriptural differences among the translations (for I am no scholar), but to raise inconsistanties within the KJV only position (which I used to be a part of).
Sunday, August 23, 2009
KJV Question #3.1
*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.
I have heard many arguments that translators of other English Bibles used the Septuagint (Old Testament translated into Greek) while translating. While I cannot verify this nor that the KJV translators did not use it I can offer what the translators said about it. Again, in the 1611 A.V. Preface, the translators made mention of the "Seventy" (a.k.a Septuagint). Here is what they said: "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as is apparent, and as Saint Hierome [Jerome] and the most learned men to confess)..."
If you would like the photocopy version, it is here. (Read the note about the link on my last post.) The sentences I quoted are about halfway down the first new paragraph.
The Question: Why condemn the Septuagint when the translators of the KJV accepted it?
I have heard many arguments that translators of other English Bibles used the Septuagint (Old Testament translated into Greek) while translating. While I cannot verify this nor that the KJV translators did not use it I can offer what the translators said about it. Again, in the 1611 A.V. Preface, the translators made mention of the "Seventy" (a.k.a Septuagint). Here is what they said: "The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as is apparent, and as Saint Hierome [Jerome] and the most learned men to confess)..."
If you would like the photocopy version, it is here. (Read the note about the link on my last post.) The sentences I quoted are about halfway down the first new paragraph.
The Question: Why condemn the Septuagint when the translators of the KJV accepted it?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
KJV Question #3
*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.
Not too long ago I readPreface to the 1611 Authorised Version (KJV) for the first time. (I have come think it is very interesting and rather important to be able to read any preface to any Bible one may pick up.) Through reading the 1611 KJV Preface I found a few very interesting things which the translators (of the KJV) said. One of these will be covered here, and I hope to cover the others in future posts.
Reading the passage brought confusion to me because of what the translators themselves said.
"...that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by the men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
I found a photocopy of the preface via a quick search (link here). It is a Catholic site I believe, and by using it I am not advocating Catholocism. It was simply the only place I could find a photocopy of the Preface. The photocopy is a bit tricky to read, however I made sense of it quickly. What I quoted above came from the first new paragraph of the page on the link. In fact it is the in the first sentence.
Notice the last phrase: "is the word of God." Some KJV only advocates say that no other version/translation in English is the word of God, while others will say that other versions/translations only contain the word of God but as a whole are not. If this is true (and this is what confuses me), did the translators of the KJV contradict God by calling the other translations His word?
Not too long ago I readPreface to the 1611 Authorised Version (KJV) for the first time. (I have come think it is very interesting and rather important to be able to read any preface to any Bible one may pick up.) Through reading the 1611 KJV Preface I found a few very interesting things which the translators (of the KJV) said. One of these will be covered here, and I hope to cover the others in future posts.
Reading the passage brought confusion to me because of what the translators themselves said.
"...that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by the men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
I found a photocopy of the preface via a quick search (link here). It is a Catholic site I believe, and by using it I am not advocating Catholocism. It was simply the only place I could find a photocopy of the Preface. The photocopy is a bit tricky to read, however I made sense of it quickly. What I quoted above came from the first new paragraph of the page on the link. In fact it is the in the first sentence.
Notice the last phrase: "is the word of God." Some KJV only advocates say that no other version/translation in English is the word of God, while others will say that other versions/translations only contain the word of God but as a whole are not. If this is true (and this is what confuses me), did the translators of the KJV contradict God by calling the other translations His word?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
KJV Question #2
*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.
There seems to be many positions within the KJV only argument that some "KJV only groups" (for lack of a better title) hold to and others do not. For example, some groups believe that the KJV replaces the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic writings while others do not. Some groups claim that salvation cannot occur unless the KJV is used, but others allow for different translations to be used. Some argue that the KJV is perfect, and others say it is the closest to perfect that we have in English. The list goes on.
The Question: If there are so many positions in the KJV only scene, which ones are right? Any of these groups are convinced that they are right, but they cannot all be right.
There seems to be many positions within the KJV only argument that some "KJV only groups" (for lack of a better title) hold to and others do not. For example, some groups believe that the KJV replaces the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic writings while others do not. Some groups claim that salvation cannot occur unless the KJV is used, but others allow for different translations to be used. Some argue that the KJV is perfect, and others say it is the closest to perfect that we have in English. The list goes on.
The Question: If there are so many positions in the KJV only scene, which ones are right? Any of these groups are convinced that they are right, but they cannot all be right.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
KJV Question #1
*Please read the post labeled "PLEASE READ" before posting a comment.
Lets get started. As stated in the Intro post, these few first questions are controversial. In fact, they pertain to the belief that the King James Version of the Bible, or Authorised Version, is the only version inspired of God for the English language.
Here is the topic surrounding the first of these questions:
One argument I often hear for this position is that the KJV/A.V. is the only translation of the Bible which has no copyright. If God's word cannot have a copyright, then all modern versions cannot be of God.
In the United Kingdom there has been a copyright of sorts (well, a near equivalent to what we know a copyright to be today) since just after the Reformation. King James I of England added this "copyright" (Cum Privilegio, which means "with privilage" or "right,"
as seen in early editions of the KJV/A.V.) to the Authorised Version. That meant that the Bible could not be printed in England without a license from the Crown. King James I did not put this copyright in his name, but in the name of the Crown of England. What is the significance of this? The copyright on the KJV/A.V. will last as long as the Crown of England is in existance plus fifty years. The copyright is still in existance today. Even though this copyright does not exist in America, it has been in existance before America.
The question: How could this have been overlooked when developing this arguement? (I myself have just recently found out about the copyright.)
Lets get started. As stated in the Intro post, these few first questions are controversial. In fact, they pertain to the belief that the King James Version of the Bible, or Authorised Version, is the only version inspired of God for the English language.
Here is the topic surrounding the first of these questions:
One argument I often hear for this position is that the KJV/A.V. is the only translation of the Bible which has no copyright. If God's word cannot have a copyright, then all modern versions cannot be of God.
In the United Kingdom there has been a copyright of sorts (well, a near equivalent to what we know a copyright to be today) since just after the Reformation. King James I of England added this "copyright" (Cum Privilegio, which means "with privilage" or "right,"
as seen in early editions of the KJV/A.V.) to the Authorised Version. That meant that the Bible could not be printed in England without a license from the Crown. King James I did not put this copyright in his name, but in the name of the Crown of England. What is the significance of this? The copyright on the KJV/A.V. will last as long as the Crown of England is in existance plus fifty years. The copyright is still in existance today. Even though this copyright does not exist in America, it has been in existance before America.
The question: How could this have been overlooked when developing this arguement? (I myself have just recently found out about the copyright.)
Intro/first post. *PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING*
To kick off this blog, I would like to ask a series of questions about a controversial issue pertaining to Christians. I myself am a Christian, and most if not all of the answers to the first set of questions I will expect to receive from Christians. I will also post about topics within Christianity (yes, Christianity is a broad term, but there are many topics within it) to generate discussion.
Through these questions and posts I do not mean to start a heated debate or argument; rather I am merely looking for answers and generating discussion. If I reply to an answer, it does not mean that I am debating or arguing, but digging for a deeper answer/insight. I will also in some cases express my view of any topic and why I hold to it. If I do not know about certain aspects of a topic I am not afraid to admit it. I would rather admit it than make a fool of myself.
If you choose to post and post as anonymous, please add somewhere in your post your first name or a unique name so that I along with all others can distinguish between anonymous users.
Through these questions and posts I do not mean to start a heated debate or argument; rather I am merely looking for answers and generating discussion. If I reply to an answer, it does not mean that I am debating or arguing, but digging for a deeper answer/insight. I will also in some cases express my view of any topic and why I hold to it. If I do not know about certain aspects of a topic I am not afraid to admit it. I would rather admit it than make a fool of myself.
If you choose to post and post as anonymous, please add somewhere in your post your first name or a unique name so that I along with all others can distinguish between anonymous users.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
