Archive for February, 2008

President Barack Hussein Obama

Published
by
Chris
on February 29, 2008
in Politics
. 0 Comments

Wow, doesn’t that have a nice ring to it? The RNC has now decided that it will not use the man’s middle name in campaign adds. If the man is not ashamed of the name, then why on earth can we not use it? His name sounds like that of a terrorist. He has been photographed wearing Muslim head gear. He belongs to a church which is committed to Africa. The church’s pastor has been openly critical of Israel, and sympathetic with terrorists. His church honored the racist Muslim leader Farrakhan. Even after Obama attempted to publicly separate himself from Farrakhan, Farrakhan continues to urge his followers to stick with Barack Hussein Obama.

I don’t know what the RNC is thinking, but they need to get rid of this nice guy attitude. Obama needs to be exposed. He needs to be exposed for everything he is associated with, for everything he believes, everything he has said, everything he has done and not done. He is not qualified to run a candy store. He knows nothing of the military. He doesn’t know the difference between a platoon and battalion. He has no concept of patriotism. He thinks he will honor American Troops by leaving Iraq and letting it be taken over by radicals. That may be what he wants.

Republicans who do not like McCain are now starting to support Hussein. These people need to wake up. This guy is a joke. He will definitely bring change, I just don’t know what kind. Probably something like higher taxes, long lines at the doctor’s office, unlimited welfare for the lazy, and free abortions for teenage girls without their parents consent. Yeah, that’s great for America.

I think of I Samuel 8:5-22, when Israel was tired of the way things were, and they wanted change. Samuel warned them of what would become of them if they got their king, but they said that they wanted to be like other nations. Well, God gave them their king, and everything Samuel had warned them about, they got that as well.

America wants change. They want Socialism. They want free health care like Canada. They want a passive military like France. They want a Mosque on every street corner like in London. Well, vote for Barack Hussein Obama in November and they just might get it.


Psalm 12:7 - What or who is it referring to?

Published
by
Chris
on February 26, 2008
in KJV Issues
. 17 Comments

Table of contents for KJV-Only Fallicies

  1. Psalm 12:7 - What or who is it referring to?
  2. Two more KJV-Only Myths
  3. Footnotes and Text of the NKJV

In just about every sermon I have heard, or every book I have read which claims that the King James Bible is God’s one and only ‘Perfect Book’ Psalm 12:6-7 is used as a proof text. People who have not studied these verses eat it up when the speaker or writer claim that the KJV is the “them” being spoken of in verse 7. This verse somehow gives them the authority to criticize and cut down every other Bible version, even making claims that they are the ‘Devil’s books.’ But what does verse 7 really refer to? Let’s look at it in context, in other versions, and in the way it has historically been interpreted?

KJV

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.

It is obvious that verse 6 is referring to the words of the Lord. The second portion of the verse likens them to silver which has been refined. This method was the way silver was purified. Seven is usually thought of as the number of perfection or completeness in the Bible. So the Psalmist is expressing his trust in the Words of the Lord. He completely trusts God’s Word. It is as pure as the purest silver. Verse 6 seems pretty clear, but some people actually try to make the claim that the English Bible was actually purified 7 times. They would say that 1 - Wycliffe was the first, and then 2 - Tyndale, then 3 - Coverdale, and then the 4 - Matthews, then the 5 - Geneva, followed by the 6 - Bishop’s and finally the 7 - King James Version of 1611. The problem is that there were other Bible’s during that time as well which were nothing more than revisions of revisions. For instance between the Matthew’s and the Bishop’s there was the Great Bible. If we are to see the King James Version as the perfect English Bible through the refining process we would need to be able to agree on which Bibles were in the process. You see, each Bible was a revision of Tyndale, but future versions were a revision of a revision. The KJV itself was a revision of the Bishops Bible as opposed to popular Geneva Bible which was a revision of the Great Bible. So Tyndale was the base of all of these revisions, but as the tree branched off, new revisions followed different branches. This makes it impossible to claim that the KJV was the one that was ‘Seven Times Purified’ but more like three or four. And if the KJV was the ‘Seven Times Purified’ Bible, then why was it revised itself several times? This argument really isn’t that important, it is only the extremely radical wing of the KJV-Only movement which follow it, but it does go to show the way they will try and make the Bible support their views. Also, it reveals the ignorance in a group who says that the Bible is finished and in no more need of revision, when their very own KJV was continually revised up till 1769, when apparently God stamped it as perfect.

Verse 7 is where the real controversy comes in. Since verse 6 is obviously talking about the Word of God, determining what verse 7 is talking about becomes extremely important. After talking about the words of the Lord in verse 6, the Psalmist uses a pronoun in verse 7, and to whom or what does that pronoun refer? In the KJV the pronoun is ‘them’, which makes it seem as if the Author was referring back to the ‘words of God’ from verse 6, but this pronoun does not insist that it was referring to the ‘words of God’ in verse 6. It is very possible that the pronoun ‘them’ was referring to the people in the earlier verses.

Let’s look at the verse in context:

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
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.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

First of all the Psalmist is David. Let’s follow the Psalm down verse by verse and it should be clear who it is talking about.

In verse 1 the godly man ceases, and the faithful have disappeared.

In verse 2 the ungodly speak vanity and lies to and about.

In verse 3 David states that the Lord cuts off their tongue and flattering lips.

In verse 4 a comment of those who should receive the action in verse 3.

In verse 5 a statement from the Lord stating he will save the poor and needy from those referred to in verse 5.

In verse 6 David pauses to show how trustworthy the word’s of the Lord are, which strengthens the promise he makes in verse 5.

In verse 7 David reiterates the statement from the Lord made in verse 5 concerning saving of the poor and needy.

In verse 8 David refers to the wicked men which shows the importance of the Lord’s salvation of the poor and needy.

In context the Psalm is clear and there is nothing wrong with the King James translator’s use of ‘them’ in verse 7. It still clearly refers to the poor and needy in verse 5. Unfortunately, some people will twist meanings in order to say what they want the words to say. KJV-Onlyist have twisted the meaning of this verse to make the verse support their erroneous doctrine of the perfect King James Version. In reality, it is the KJV which is weak on this verse because it allows for confusion by using ‘them’ in verse 7. Lets look at what some other versions use.

Geneva Bible

Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.

The Geneva Bible uses ‘them’ in the first part, but switches to ‘him’ in the second part to show that the verse is referring to people not the words of God. Remember the Geneva Bible predates the King James Version by several years, so don’t let the KJV-Onlyist tell you that modern versions are trying to destroy the doctrine of preservation. If they do, they are liars.

Bishops Bible

[Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer.

The Bishops Bible goes a step further, and actually adds the words ‘the godly’ instead of using a pronoun. This avoids the confusion of someone making the mistake of interpreting a pronoun for the ‘word of God.’ And remember the KJV is a revision of the Bishops Bible. The Translators should have stuck with the wording the Bishops used.

ESV

You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.

The ESV makes it clear by using ‘us’ in the second phrase to show the verse is talking about those in verse 5.

HCSB

You, Lord, will guard us; You will protect us from this generation forever.

The HCSB makes it pretty clear who the pronoun refers to by using ‘us’ in both parts.

If your wondering why there is so much confusion, it goes back to the manuscripts. The pronoun in some Hebrew manuscripts and in the Septuagint reads ‘him’ or ‘them’ which gives the translators a decision to make. By the way, the original KJV 1611 had a marginal note which explained that they were aware of this. What is important to keep in mind is that neither word makes a difference. The context clearly shows that verse 7 should refer to those people in verse 5. This is a clear example of why we can’t let our emotionally charged preferences interpret Scripture.

Historically commentators and theologians have understood the verse to refer to those in verse 5. The following quotes show what great men have believed about the verse:

Thou shalt keep them That is, the persons referred to in Psa 12:5 - the poor and the needy who were suffering from the wrongs inflicted on them. The idea is, that God would guard and defend them. They were safe in his hands. - Albert Barnes, 1798 - 1870

Instead of the pronoun them in these clauses, several MSS., with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have us. The sense is equally good in both readings. God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to his word; he separated them from that generation. and reinstated them in their own land, according to his word; and most certainly he has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner. Adam Clarke, 1760-1832

Jehovah will keep His poor from the generation of the wicked. But the wicked have full scope when the worthless are exalted on high. John Darby, 1800-1882

Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;
“thou shalt preserve him” (p); that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, “keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them”, &c. (q); and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request. John Gill, 1697 -1771

Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. Matthew Henry, 1662 - 1714

I could keep going back further in History and show you that the most respectable theologians agree with the modern versions here. So next time you hear a KJV sermon and the speaker starts off with this verse, pay close attention to everything else he tells you. You will find that it lacks any Biblical evidence and consists almost entirely of unwarranted attacks against other versions, and the people who support them. All men who teach and preach this stuff are not liars, but they are repeating lies which they have been taught. It is unfortunate that so many of them are right about many other issues, and this type of ignorance discredits them in a world where Christians are discredited against enough.

If you have been deceived by the KJV-Only people, you should repent of your ignorance and investigate all the mis-information that you have been taught. You will generally find that not only are they wrong about the KJV, but on many other issues concerning God and His Word as well.

Next in series

Is Our Music Godly?

Published
by
Chris
on February 14, 2008
in Music
. 19 Comments

Recently I have been in discussion with a guy from the church we previously attended about music. He was concerned that the music that my family was listening to was not pleasing to God. I disagreed with him based on the absence of Scriptural evidence for his claim. We weren’t talking about hard sinful lyrics, but music with Christian lyrics. You see, his position has nothing to do with the actual type of music, or even the lyrics, but his claim is that any music which resembles ‘worldly’ music is sinful. His stated position is that of the following quote by Robet Berglund:

“If any style of music–in its embodied or designed meaning–creates feelings, ideas, emotions, values, or moods that are of, by, or for the unchanged way of life, such music is out of place in the changed life experience.”

I obviously disagree with this position. Using this logic no music should be listened to by a Christian, and that includes the old hymns which we sing in church. It is my position that it is only what we associate the music with which causes individual listeners problems. I see this as an issue of Christian liberty, and not something dealt with in the Scriptures, thus it must be individually discerned.

I asked for Scriptural support for his position and these are the verses which he gave me. As you look at them, does it seem as if any of these verses declare a particular style of music?

Eph 5:10 or I Peter 1:14-15, or I Thes 5:21-22…many more. The Bible does speak of music in Col 3:16, Eph 5:18-19, II Chron 29:27, 30, Ps 89:1, Ps 119:54, Ps 104:33, Ps 59:16-17, Ps 96:1, Ps 40:3, Ps 7:17, Isa 24:14, Isa 42:10, Isa 49:13, I Sam 16:23, Job 35:10, Rev 5:9, Rev 14:3

I didn’t think so.

He admitted to me that the Bible makes no statement condemning a style of music, yet he went on to talk about how a particular type of music has the ability to influence us to act a certain way. He referenced 1 Sam 16:23 to show how David’s playing of the harp to Saul was able to refresh Saul and caused the demon to depart. Somehow he sees this as an example of the power of music to call in, or cast out demons. He even goes on to quote some guy called Simon Frith as saying: “The sexuality of music is usually referred to in terms of its rhythm–it is the beat that commands a directly physical response.” This is somehow proof that music will cause us to commit sin or something. Is music really what leads people to sin? The Bible sure doesn’t seem to make that claim.

The most difficult part of his argument was his explanation of how the elements of music must work together. Melody, harmony, and rhythm. He says that harmony is the intellectual part of music. Harmony is the part that our mind responds to. And that a correct, good sounding, mood producing harmony can only be arranged and effectively written by a trained musician. If that is true, I have no way to discern what good harmony is, because I know nothing of music. Then he said that rhythm is the pulse of music, and when it is overbearing, thats when your body responds negatively.

I have heard a lot of music, and I can honestly say that music does not make me want to sin. The only thing music does make me want to do is smash a speaker, or a CD player when it is playing something that I really don’t like. Well, I guess that might be considered sin.

This next reason really seems to explain why some people are against modern music. He gave the following quote, apparently from Rick Warren. “We use the style of music the majority of people in our church listen to on the radio. They like bright, happy, cheerful music with a strong beat. Their ears are accustomed to music with a strong bass line and rhythm.” Apparently being associated with a church such as Warren’s is so bad, that we must not do anything which those type churches do. Now, I don’t agree with everything that Warren teaches, but how is playing music which a particular people enjoy wrong? Especially if you can associate the Gospel with the music? There is nothing wrong with enjoying the music you listen to as long as you can glorify God while doing so. So far, I have seen nothing that proves that modern music cannot glorify God.

And finally he said, ” Music with a strong back beat and/or rhythm has no place in a Christian’s life.”

I really don’t like a lot of the rock style music. It doesn’t sound any better to me when it has Christian lyrics. I am still hesitant about embracing all types of Christian music, but I realize it is not because of a Biblical conviction, but because of my personal preference. For the record, I can’t stand a lot of the traditional music which I hear in some conservative churches. Some of it makes me want to throw a song book at the lady singing it. This isn’t because the music is drawing evil spirits which are negatively influencing me, but because I think that style of music (this spot formerly contained a word that some find offensive). I don’t prefer that sound.

Anyway, I found this article which goes along with this topic: How Bach Used the “Devil’s Music

I like how he shows that men like Luther, who were considered the progressives of the day pushed for the new music standards which were being popularized by Bach and others. At the same time, the conservatives like Calvin were against any modern music, even the use of instruments. It just seems funny that what once was called the “Devil’s Music” is now what is called great Christian hymns. And the arguments which the conservatives had then

  • The use of specific instruments
  • Polyphony. Polyphony refers to music that has two or more separate melodic lines (voices). Before polyphony, music was monophonic (consisting of only a single voice or melody line and no harmony).
  • Dissonance in music
  • Questionable rhythms
  • Excessive technical ornamentation (referring to musicians who showed off their ability a little too much)

in many ways parallel the arguments of the musical conservatives today. Hopefully one day we can get away from all this and start focusing on the Word of God.

Happy Valentines Day

Published
by
Chris
on February 14, 2008
in Other
. 2 Comments

Love day is here. Isn’t it wonderful that we have a day set aside to show love to our Love? Yeah right!  Another commercial holiday. Everyone goes out and buys there little heart candies, and their little Valentine cards. Then the little boys go and give it to the girl and ask “will you be my Valentine?” and the little girl blushes and smiles and say “Yes” and runs off and ‘give me a break!!!’

The day that all women expect their husbands to go out and buy them some new useless piece of crap jewelry, as if they need more of it. This day is sick. It’s pointless, and I just don’t get it. The day of love. Yeah right!

However, I did find it funny when I heard that it is also the day that married people are most likely to cheat on their spouses. I heard that as I watched a news report yesterday. The host of the news show was interviewing the CEO of a company which makes spy kits for suspicious spouses. It was one of those kits like they use on CSI to find traces of semen. He said that around Valentines day was their busiest time of the year. When the host asked him what most people find out when they use these kits, he said about half of them discover that their spouse was not cheating.

Half! And he said that as if it were good news. Now that half can have a happy marriage, while the other half end up in divorce. It turns out the day of Love is actually the day of adultery. Good reason to teach our children to celebrate it.

Have a Hapyy V-Day!!!

Use the KJV or cease to be a man.

Published
by
Chris
on February 10, 2008
in KJV Issues, Other and Videos
. 6 Comments