Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, and that Jesus is a created being separate from the father, as a result (this information was pulled from the Watchtower website).
The contradiction I find is this: Isaiah 9:6,
"For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
What is more, I quoted this verse directly from the New World Translation, straight from the Watchtower website.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation even supports the Deity of Christ! My recommendation is this: if a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, ask for their bible (the New World Translation) and show them this passage. Perhaps they might be amazed. At the very least, they will be forced to explain their own bible away to support their doctrine.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Context of Galatians 1:8 Compromised
I recently ran across someone who bashes anyone that differs even the slightest from his doctrine. While there are many things wrong with this (not to mention his doctrine itself), I will focus on his rationalization for treating others (even non-believers) that oppose him with hatred.
He claims that Galatians 1:8 is a command to "curse" anyone who offers a different opinion or doctrine than that which he holds to.
Galatians 1:8,
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The last phrase, "let him be accursed," is the basis for his argument. At first, one can see how the phrase can lean toward a command. However, the idea begins to fall apart as soon as the definition of the word "accursed" is brought to light.
Let me explain. The word "accursed" isn't an active command. It actually means "damned" or "as if under a curse" (per www.m-w.com, "accursed"). By the very definition of the word, the man is saying that Paul is commanding Christians to a) kill others, or b) be involved in witchcraft by putting people under curses. Was Paul saying these things? No!
He later tried to justify the phrase as a command by pointing out the words "let" and "be" signify an active command. Well, lets look at a similar passage:
1 Corinthians 11:48,
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Here we see the same verb usage. But is Paul commanding Christians to make people ignorant? Of course not! The idea is that of "remaining." The passage, in modern English, could read something like, "let him remain ignorant."
Now, if we apply this reasoning to Gal. 1:8, we get this: "let him remain accursed." This fits the verse's context because if a man preaches a differing gospel than that of the Bible (thus, not adhering to the gospel of the Bible personally), he is damned (or condemned) already by God Himself. Not man!
Paul is conveying, therefore, that God will judge everyone for what he or she teaches. For those who teach a different gospel, God will curse/condemn them. Paul is not commanding anyone to condemn people--it simply isn't man's job.
He claims that Galatians 1:8 is a command to "curse" anyone who offers a different opinion or doctrine than that which he holds to.
Galatians 1:8,
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The last phrase, "let him be accursed," is the basis for his argument. At first, one can see how the phrase can lean toward a command. However, the idea begins to fall apart as soon as the definition of the word "accursed" is brought to light.
Let me explain. The word "accursed" isn't an active command. It actually means "damned" or "as if under a curse" (per www.m-w.com, "accursed"). By the very definition of the word, the man is saying that Paul is commanding Christians to a) kill others, or b) be involved in witchcraft by putting people under curses. Was Paul saying these things? No!
He later tried to justify the phrase as a command by pointing out the words "let" and "be" signify an active command. Well, lets look at a similar passage:
1 Corinthians 11:48,
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Here we see the same verb usage. But is Paul commanding Christians to make people ignorant? Of course not! The idea is that of "remaining." The passage, in modern English, could read something like, "let him remain ignorant."
Now, if we apply this reasoning to Gal. 1:8, we get this: "let him remain accursed." This fits the verse's context because if a man preaches a differing gospel than that of the Bible (thus, not adhering to the gospel of the Bible personally), he is damned (or condemned) already by God Himself. Not man!
Paul is conveying, therefore, that God will judge everyone for what he or she teaches. For those who teach a different gospel, God will curse/condemn them. Paul is not commanding anyone to condemn people--it simply isn't man's job.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Misquote in John 3.
Many things can be learned from John 3. There seems to be a few misconceptions about it as well unfortunately. We shall look at one of these misconceptions.
What did Jesus mean by "water" in his conversation with Nicodemus?
John 3:3-7 (KJV),
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus meant by "born again." So, Jesus explained in verses 5-6. Jesus split his explanation to clarify for Nicodemus. Being born of water is what Nicodemus was thinking. Water refers to the first, physical birth. Jesus explained further that the second birth is that of the Spirit. Jesus had to split the two births to make His idea clear to Nicodemus. It is part of Jesus' explanation, verse 5 in particular, where the misconception comes from.
Jesus said "born of water and of the Spirit." Most of the instances in which I have seen this verse misused is by those who believe that being baptized in water saves someone. By their view, water baptism must be inserted in John 3:5 in order to make their theology work. Why? Later on in this chapter, Jesus told Nicodemus:
John 3:14-18,
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
What Jesus said here did not include water baptism. Belief in the name of only begotten Son of God, according to Jesus, is what saves.
Going back to verse 5, we see by Jesus' later words that "born of water" is not referring to water baptism. What is it then? Born of water is referring to physical birth from one's mother, as stated before. It is verse 6 that completes Jesus' explanation. It is a comparison to what He said in verse 5. Flesh is being compared to water, and of course Spirit is compared with the Spirit. If one reads both verses 5 and 6, one then sees Jesus' whole and complete thought. Taking verse 5 alone, therefore, makes an argument incomplete because it is only half of Jesus' original thought.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to post!
What did Jesus mean by "water" in his conversation with Nicodemus?
John 3:3-7 (KJV),
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus meant by "born again." So, Jesus explained in verses 5-6. Jesus split his explanation to clarify for Nicodemus. Being born of water is what Nicodemus was thinking. Water refers to the first, physical birth. Jesus explained further that the second birth is that of the Spirit. Jesus had to split the two births to make His idea clear to Nicodemus. It is part of Jesus' explanation, verse 5 in particular, where the misconception comes from.
Jesus said "born of water and of the Spirit." Most of the instances in which I have seen this verse misused is by those who believe that being baptized in water saves someone. By their view, water baptism must be inserted in John 3:5 in order to make their theology work. Why? Later on in this chapter, Jesus told Nicodemus:
John 3:14-18,
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
What Jesus said here did not include water baptism. Belief in the name of only begotten Son of God, according to Jesus, is what saves.
Going back to verse 5, we see by Jesus' later words that "born of water" is not referring to water baptism. What is it then? Born of water is referring to physical birth from one's mother, as stated before. It is verse 6 that completes Jesus' explanation. It is a comparison to what He said in verse 5. Flesh is being compared to water, and of course Spirit is compared with the Spirit. If one reads both verses 5 and 6, one then sees Jesus' whole and complete thought. Taking verse 5 alone, therefore, makes an argument incomplete because it is only half of Jesus' original thought.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to post!
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Extended Purpose
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?
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?
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
