Category: Apologetics

Thoughts on the Asbury Revival

What’s my take on Asbury? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The big news going around in many areas today is what’s going on at Asbury Seminary with a revival breaking out. There are some people who are absolutely convinced that this is a move of God. There are some people who are convinced it’s more a state of high emotion.

There are actually dangers to both sides. Many of us understand the dangers of saying “This is not of God.” After all, if God is behind it, isn’t it dangerous to deny His work? Could that be an idea in our minds that is really opposed to miracles and questioning anything that could be of God?

Certainly that possible, but we also forget that it can be a danger to go the other way. I always get cautious when I am in churches and I hear people say what God has done in the life of the congregation. I have heard this in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches. Who are we to think we have secret insight into the throne room of God to know what He is and isn’t doing?

So my suggestion here at the start will be to go with caution.

However, there’s another reason for that. I don’t think we’ll be able to tell what has happened until after what has happened has passed. After all, how many of us have seen marriages that we thought on their wedding day would last forever and then a few years down the road, we find that they are divorced? (Yep. People said that about my case as well.)

When things are exciting and fresh and the emotions are high, it’s easy to claim that God is behind it. If you want to know if a couple truly loves each other, you don’t ask on their wedding day. As Sam Allberry said at Defend here last month, anyone can make a promise, but keeping one is something different.

Wait and see what happens when they are in financial straits. Wait and see what happens when one of them gets seriously sick. Wait and see what happens when children come along and the relationship gets taxed. In other words, you don’t see if they love each other when times are good. You see if they love each other when times are bad.

In His parable of the sower, Christ spoke of those who receive the word with great joy and then fall away when times get hard. In other words, if you had looked at the start, you would have thought these people were in it for the long haul. Look at their joy! However, when trouble and temptation came, they fled.

Now keep in mind, I am not saying that this is definitely the case at Asbury. I am explaining why I have caution. Also, I want to bring up an article I read yesterday from NotTheBee. One part stood out for me.

The Asbury “revival” started after a 10 am chapel service last week Wednesday when a group of about 20 students and the worship team said they felt prompted by the Holy Spirit to continue worship past the end of the chapel service.

According to one of the students I talked to, a few hours later, the president of the seminary sent an email to the students encouraging them visit the chapel to join the 20 students on what he described as an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Apparently 200 students arrived for worship at the chapel soon after, and there has been non-stop worship ever since.

The student maintains the “revival” wasn’t planned. But it’s worth noting that Asbury University is part of what is known as the revivalist movement — a group of Charismatic Christians who consistently attempt to produce revivals.

No. It’s not that last paragraph. What stood out is what happened in the first two where things were immediately attributed to God. Readers here know I get cautious when I hear someone talking about how they feel the Spirit is leading them to do XYZ. Yet after that, the president immediately attributes this to the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but it sounds like jumping the gun a bit to me.

However, I agree with much of what the author says in the NotTheBee article about this. It’s easy to say that a revival is going on when people are excited. The way to know revival has truly happened will be what happens when persecution comes their way.

As a boy growing up in the Methodist church, I used to see kids come back from an event called Resurrection. The kids would be excited and put on a show during the worship service yet even in my pre-apologetics days, I noticed something. It didn’t last long. Give it a couple of weeks and these kids would go right back to not coming to Sunday School and not really caring about their faith.

That emotional high can feel good, but it will not last. The question is what will happen when it is done. If you go back to the way you were before, then you were not having joy over the Holy Spirit’s work. You were just having some joy for a feeling.

What I am saying then is we cannot know if this is from God yet or not. We will know when we see the results months or even years down the road when the fervor has died down. As long as we are in the high season, we cannot tell.

You see, your faithfulness to Jesus is not measured by how excited you are about Jesus. It is not measured by what kind of experiences you are having. It is measured by how much you are living a Christlike life.

That will also be measured by how you will handle persecution and challenges. Will these people involved in this be better able to handle persecution coming in our country from groups like the LGBTQ community? Will they be willing to take a hard stand against the evil of abortion when it gets hard? Will they be more likely to go back to their dorms and resist the urge to watch pornography? Will they be loving their neighbors as themselves?

That’s why we have to watch to see what happens next. What will happen when someone gets cancer and isn’t miraculously cured of it? Will they and those around them remain faithful? What happens if a disaster hits the community, like if something that was an offshoot of the disaster in Ohio comes? Will they remain faithful?

Some of you might think it’s scandalous to raise the question of if this is of God or not. It isn’t. It’s testing the spirits. It’s doing my due diligence.

“Well, if these people are faithful when persecution comes and this lasts, won’t you be embarrassed?”

No. I will be thankful. I hope the people involved go out and change their societies for the better. I hope they live more faithful lives to Jesus. I hope that for myself and all other Christians.

I am also not saying that emotions and experiences are bad things. I am saying these are not the indicators of a Christian life. The ones who deny Jesus in the end in Matthew 7 have a lot of experiences. What they do not have is faithfulness.

So is this of God? Time will tell.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-4

Were the disciples ignorant? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re looking at more comparisons from a KJV-onlyist, this time between the KJV and the NKJV. You can find the link here. Let’s get started.

Acts 4:13

KJV: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and IGNORANT men …”

NKJV: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men …”

COMMENT: Peter and John had been with Jesus for some time. They WERE NOT untrained. Jesus HAD trained them. They were, however, ignorant (In the eyes of the Pharisees).

Why not say they were uneducated and untrained in the eyes of the Pharisees? (Is Jeff Johnson adding to the blessed KJV?!) However, the word Luke uses here best indicates uneducated and untrained. It meant that they had no formal education, which is true, but they had been with Jesus, the best rabbi ever.

Acts 17:22

KJV: “Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS.”

NKJV: “Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;”

Comment: Come on! Being very religious and TOO SUPERSTITIOUS are entirely different!

But here’s the irony. The word means both. In a good sense, it refers to religious. In a bad sense, superstitious. Paul could have meant both. He could have been trying to leave his audience wondering where he was going, the good or the bad sense. Apparently, though, those questions aren’t worth exploring to Johnson. Nah. Just go with what the KJV says!

2 Cor. 2:17

KJV: “For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the Word of God …”

NKJV:”For we are not, as so many, peddling the Word of God …”

COMMENT: Peddling and corrupting are very different. “Modern” versions try and hide from the truth they are ‘corrupting’ the Word of God.

Once again, the word can indicate both. In some cases, peddling was even considered corrupting. Peddlers would alter their commodities somehow in order to get a profit. What is ridiculous here, is to insist that the modern versions are trying to out themselves. If this is the standard, does this mean that the KJV was peddling the Word of God?

KJV: “I AM crucified with Christ …”

NKJV: “I have been crucified with Christ …”

COMMENT: The NKJV is saying their crucifixion is over! Not true. The believers crucifixion is an ongoing, PRESENT TENSE, transaction.

Um. No. In one sense, of course, the crucifixion is over. However, when this verse is used in the accounts of the crucifixion in the Gospels, it is in the past tense. The principle of charity tries to read the opponent in the best light. Johnson has no interest in doing that.

Eph. 5:1

KJV: “Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God …”

NKJV: “Therefore be imitators of God …”

Comment: See chapter 1 of this report for a full analysis. Only Satan tries to imitate God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can’t rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his “fishers of men” to imitate Him. Jesus said: “follow me …”.

See here.

Hopefully next time, we will finish off this part.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

New Resource

What do I have for you? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. This is going to be brief, but I wanted to introduce this resource for everyone and I know that I don’t want to fill up the screen with a lot of words and a long article about just one talk.

So here it is.

Recently, I have received my talk that I gave at Defend 2023 on Video Games and Christianity. If you want to listen to it, you can go here. There will, unfortunately, be not video as there were no cameras in there. If you want the Powerpoint, all you have to do is ask.

Even if you’re not a gamer, listen to it. You might wind up getting something that blesses you unexpectedly.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Thinking About Villains

What makes for the worst villains? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Last night, I went to bed thinking about villains. I started going through some of my favorite series, namely in the gaming world since that’s the one I’m most familiar with, and started asking what each villain wanted. Let’s start with one of the first biggest villains we know of in this world, King Koopa, aka Bowser.

King Koopa wants to rule the Mushroom Kingdom and kidnaps the Princess regularly. However, something I thought about is that I don’t know of any time where it’s his direct intention to physically harm her. Mario never rescues her and she has claw and bite marks all over her.

Ganon wants to rule the world. Again, part of this involves kidnapping the Princess, and we can say the same thing about him. He might do something like put the Princess in a state of stasis or something like that, but no physical harm to her.

Now we could say that both of these characters wanting to rule the world is evil, but not necessarily. Is anyone wanting to run for president today and lead the most powerful nation on Earth automatically evil? Being president is a good thing. There is no evil in desiring something good.

The evil instead can be how we go about getting what we want, why we want to get it, and if we do get it, what we do with it. If you cheat to get into the White House, no matter how good what you do is and what your intentions are, you have done an evil still. If you have great intentions and get in office honorably, but you do a horrible job, you still have done a wrong.

J. Warner Wallace, detective-turned-apologist, has said that when a crime takes place, at least one of three factors is involved. It can be a combination, but at least one is involved. Those are money, sex, and power. Keep in mind that none of those three things is a wrong in itself. They can lead to wrongs and how one gets them or what they do with them can be wrongs, but they themselves are not wrongs.

In thinking about these aspects and went to my series of Final Fantasy and thought about some of the villains there. In the first one, Garland sought a way to live forever. Is that necessarily evil? No more than wanting to extend your own life is evil. What he did with it was evil.

One of the most recognizable villains is Sephiroth, and yet in his mind, Sephiroth was aiming for a good. He would have seen himself as the hero of the story and the good guys were the villains. This is something we forget many times. The villain does want something that they perceive as a good.

It can be a mistake to say that because someone is identified as the villain, that they are automatically evil. Is the villain of Ferris Bueller really a villain? He’s trying to catch a boy who is doing something wrong. The villain of Short Circuit wants to reclaim a robot that has a nuclear device in him. One of the “villains” of Ghostbusters works for the government and wants to make sure that the strange new weapons of the Ghostbusters are not dangerous to the public. This is common enough that you can listen to a podcast called “The Villain was Right” about villains in pop culture that actually had the right idea.

Yet in all of this, two villains stand out. One from the gaming world. One from the comics. Both are, however, incredibly similar. One is the Joker from DC comics. The other is Kefka Palazzo from Final Fantasy VI. Most of you are familiar with Joker, but here’s a picture of Kefka and you can see some similarities right away.

Kefka is an experiment gone wrong. He was a soldier the empire did their first experiment on to infuse him with magical powers and something went wrong. He got the powers, but his brain snapped in the process. Since most of us know about the Joker, I will give some details of Kefka.

Kefka is a ruthless general who looks down on everyone. People are tools for him. He decides to defeat a castle town by putting poison in the water. When his own men balk at that and tell him they have prisoners there, he doesn’t care. They got what they deserved. When the empire is marching on a town, Kefka tells them to destroy all of it. He is told the town is neutral in the war, and he still doesn’t care.

Kefka is a villain who actually does accomplish what he set out to do. At about a halfway point in the story, he messes with some magical artifacts that brings about the destruction of the world leaving it in a post-apocalyptic scenario. In the new world then, he lives on top of a tower and fires a light of judgment on a town whenever he just wants to. When the party comes to fight him, he says he wants to destroy everything and build a monument to non-existence.

A little about the Joker has to be said. He is the villain that wants to watch the world burn. He is Batman’s greatest nemesis because there is no telling what he will do. He is chaotic and does what he wants and doesn’t care what anyone thinks.

In relation to Kefka, there was a time when the Joker got 99.99% of Mxyzptlk’s power. The world becomes a nightmare as people are trapped in situations where they are repeatedly murdered again and again and Joker eats the entire population of China. The description given in The Dark Knight is accurate of Joker. Some people just want to watch the world burn.

Despite this, there are some things even these villains perceive as good. They never go and off themselves. Kefka says he hates existence, but he never shows any signs of being suicidal. Joker hasn’t had any time like that either as far as I know,

The reality is that everyone has something they still perceive as good and pursue it. You actually can’t pursue anything unless on some level you think it is a good. You could be wrong in that, but you do think it. Even the suicide wants a good. They think things will be better for at least them if not everyone if they weren’t around.

The reality of good and evil on some level are inescapable. Even a villain will pursue what he or she thinks is good. However, the most frightening ones are the ones that ultimately seem to think just some form of chaos is good.

However, there is still often something good that comes from this. This is the time when good guys do rise up. What it takes to stop evil every time is good. In our world today where we see evil seemingly happening more and more, we need more and more of the good to counter it.

From the Christian perspective, we have seen this before. The Roman Empire was not really a pretty place in many ways, but Christianity came and transformed all of that. There’s no reason the same can’t happen today. If anything, we should be even more capable today since we have more knowledge and means than your average Christian did then.

Perhaps we perceive something else as more good than the message we are to share.

Which could make us the villains.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-3

Did all things come by or through Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

That’s just one question we’re going to discuss. There isn’t much more to section 2. Anyway, here‘s where you can find the original so you can know I’m quoting properly. Let’s begin.

Matt 18:11

KJV: “For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost.”

NKJV: “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”

Comment: The NJKV says Jesus Christ “has come” to save that

which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The NKJV implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone TODAY can be saved by Jesus. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. There are NUMEROUS places where the NKJV changes the verb tense. These types of NKJV corruptions are very subtle.

I have looked over this and all I can say is I am convinced that this is just more nitpicking. I have read this verse several times and even reading it now, I have never at all thought that. One rule of reading is you try to give the principle of charity and put what you are reading in the best light possible. Apparently, that doesn’t apply if you’re a KJV-onlyist.

Matt 20:20

KJV: “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, WORSHIPPING him …”

NKJV: “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down …”

COMMENT: Kneeling down is not even close to ‘worship’.

Kneeling down would be a regular part of worship in the culture as showing honor. However, this is once again “The NKJV is different so therefore wrong.” I have no reason to think that the mother of James and John understood the deity of Christ. Kneeling makes more sense.

John 1:3

KJV: “All things were made BY Him …”

NKJV: “All things were made through Him …”

COMMENT: ‘BY‘ and through are totally different. Think about it.

Yes. They are. Also, by his more accurate. Jesus is compared to wisdom in the NT and in the Proverbs and intertestamental literature, Wisdom was the means by which God made the world. The Father is the source and the Son is the means.

John 4:24

KJV: “God is A Spirit …”

NKJV: “God is Spirit …”

COMMENT: For the NKJV to say: “God is spirit” is to infer that ALL spirits are God. Not true. We know there are evil spirits. And we know in God there is NO evil. Thus the KJV is correct: God is ‘A‘ spirit.

One could just as well say saying God is a spirit is putting God as one among many and in the class of spirits, but that wouldn’t be a charitable reading. However, I have no reason to think that saying God is Spirit even begin to imply (Not infer. Infer is what the person responding does.) that all spirits are God. You might as well say “God is good” implies that all that is good is God.

Acts 12:4

KJV: “… after Easter …”

NKJV: “… after Passover”

Seriously, that’s all that is said here. However, the NKJV is correct. There would have been no word for Easter at this point nor is there any reason to think that the Jews would have gathered together to celebrate “Easter.” Passover is the more accurate translation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Bible and Science on Gender, Sex, and Marriage

What do I think of Lindsay Harold and Daniel Biddle’s book published by Genesis Apologetics? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I don’t know anything about Daniel Biddle aside from this book, but Lindsay is one of my favorite posters to read on Facebook as her insights on marriage and family are excellent. Thus, when I heard she had a book out on the topic of gender, sex, and marriage, I wanted to get in on helping out with it. I thank her for sending me a copy of it. As I normally do then, I am going to list the positives and then the things I would like to change.

First, a lot of the information in this book is excellent. The authors put in a lot of work to demonstrate that from the womb to the tomb, men and women are different. They point out the ways that men excel in areas women normally don’t and then vice-versa. They do point out that these are generalities. For example, while it is common that men are taller than women, that does not mean that every man is taller than every woman.

Second, they do put a lot of work into demonstrating a biblical foundation for sex and marriage and family. This is important especially for a lot of layman Christians today who are buying into the LGBTQ agenda and haven’t really thought about these issues much. Too many people buy into the idea of just saying “Love is love” as if every kind of love is automatically good.

Third, from a Christian viewpoint, the gospel is clearly here. The writers give the bad news about the wrongs done in our society too, but they also give the good news. They do talk about compassion for those who have made mistakes in their lives in these areas. For instance, when talking about abortion, they do list a number of pro-life ministries to help a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t know what to do.

So now the things I would like to change.

First, I do understand this is Genesis Apologetics and they are YEC, but I think this could be a distraction. For instance, at the start, a biblical worldview is talked about, which includes man created out of clay instantly thousands of years ago. I understand a lot of Christians believe this wholeheartedly, but a lot of them do not. I know plenty of people in all walks of creation beliefs that love Jesus. I also know that if you want to reach non-believers, that they will tend to discount this position quite quickly. People like myself can be told we have a secular worldview, even though I would just as ardently say my view is in line with Scripture.

Second, I am not against using Scripture, but I think the book could be more effective had it stuck to general revelation topics and then at the end perhaps had a postscript covering the gospel for all interested. If I was wanting to convince someone on a Christian worldview of sex and marriage who was an atheist, I would start with what we all know already in general revelation. I would be glad to ground that later on in theism if need be, but I want to go one step at a time.

Third, the authors at the end did list a lot of sexual practices and beliefs about marriage that have caused great harm in society, including divorce. The effects of everything else were covered, but I don’t remember divorce, which is a shame since this is also one of the most abundant and easy ones to cover. I am grateful that many of the others were covered.

Overall though, this is an excellent book and it’s a short one. I read it in a day and you can too and it’s not really a strain to do so. We need more information out there on the differences between men and women and the role sex and marriage should play in our society.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-2

Does God know good and evil? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The more and more I go through this online book, the more I really don’t understand how someone can hold to this position. Then again, there are internet atheists who hold that Jesus never existed. Anyway, again, the source material is here.

So let’s begin.

Gen. 3:4-5

KJV: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye at thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil.”

NKJV: “Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil.”

COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is not

evil! Think about the difference.

So apparently, saying that you know good and evil is the same as saying you are evil. Not sure how that follows. One could say it depends on the usage of the word “know” which can mean something like that, but let’s also remember that this is the devil and geez, would it be so awful if in the account the devil told something that wasn’t true?

Besides, look at the KJV interpretation. Is this upholding polytheism?

Gen. 22:8

KJV: “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering …”

NKJV: “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.

Comment: It is true, as the NKJV says, that God did provide FOR himself a sacrifice. However, that is only part of the story. The NKJV totally misses the deeper, and more amazing truth: GOD WAS the sacrifice! The KJV wording is perfect: “God will provide HIMSELF” (in the form of his son Jesus Christ) as the sacrifice.

Of rather the NKJV is being accurate in its translation. Also, saying God will provide himself a lamb doesn’t mean that God will be the lamb. That’s an added step of interpretation. I can talk to my folks in the evening and say I can provide a meal for myself. It doesn’t mean I’m a cannibal who is going to eat myself.

1 Ki.10:28

KJV: “and LINEN yarn: the king’s merchants received the LINEN yarn at a price.”

NKJV: “and Keveh; the king’s merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price.”

Comment: I know what linen is, but what is Keveh?

“One of these requires that I look at the text and study it! One of them just tells me something that I already know something about! That last one must be true then!”

It’s really embarrassing that this kind of thing is counted as an argument.

Looking up the verse, it seems quite difficult to translate as I don’t see anything that reads linen. There is a place called Keveh however and so the text is saying that Solomon was buying from this place.

Dan. 3:25

KJV: “… and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD.”

NKJV: (footnote) “or a son of the gods”

COMMENT: See comments in chapter 1 of this report. There is

a big difference between “THE SON OF GOD” and a son of ‘plural’ gods!

This was covered in an earlier post.

By the way, when the devil spoke, it was okay that he said gods, but not okay to say God. Here, it’s the opposite.

Zech 11:17

KJV: “Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!

NKJV: “Woe to the worthless shepherd, who leaves the flock”

The word is best translated as worthless, though sometimes it does mean idol. However, idol in this context makes no sense. Now if you meant “idle”, that could make sense. The NKJV has this right. It’s a worthless shepherd. There is no commentary here so how is this an argument? It’s just saying the NKJV is wrong since it’s different, when it makes more sense. What is an idol shepherd after all?

Matt. 2:4

KJV: “… he (King Herod) DEMANDED of them where Christ should be born.”

NKJV: “… he inquired of them where Christ was to be born.”

COMMENT: King Herod, furious over the arrival of Jesus, (and

wanting to do away with Him) did not inquire where Christ should be born, he DEMANDED to know!

So the argument that Herod demanded to know is that….he demanded to know. KJV-onlyists are quite good at circular reasoning.

The word more often is best translated as inquire. There are times that it could mean demand, but without further historical evidence, there’s no way to tell what King Herod did. It would fit his character if he did demand, but he could also be wanting to know without giving away the game so he could fool the wise men.

So as I said, this section is a disaster just like the first. We’ll continue next week, Lord willing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-1

Ready for a fast look at Bible verses? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re reviewing this awful KJV-only book and now we get to a bunch of fast translation differences. We’ll see if any of these have any bearings whatsoever on the text and even if the KJV could be a less than accurate translation. As always, the source material is here. I am also calling this 2-1 to go by chapters lest I get to something labeled part 73 of this series.

Gen 1:21

KJV: “And God created great WHALES …”

NKJV: “So God created great sea creatures …”

COMMENT: There is a difference between sea creatures and whales.

Okay, everyone! Write this down! There is a difference between sea creatures and whales! Believe it or not, those seafood items from the sea that you buy at your grocery store, they’re not whales! I understand. Please take a moment so you can take in the shock.

If anything, the NKJV is better here since you could say with the KJV that God created only the whales. Here, you can say God created all the great sea creatures.

Matt 12:40

KJV: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES’s belly …”

NKJV: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish …”

Plenty of apostasies have been brought about by the fact of a great fish instead of a whale. I will make sure the next time an atheist confronts me on Jonah and the whale to say that it was a great fish instead and watch them melt knowing their opposition has died. Amazing how much these people make out of these issues.

Gen. 2:7

KJV: “… and man became a living SOUL.”

NKJV: “… and man became a living being.”

Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that

man is the ONLY creature with a soul. New versions miss this point.

This point is debatable. Some people will say anything that has a nephesh has a soul, which can include higher animals, including my little kitty I hear in the next room. Also, is it really wrong to say that man became a living being? Does anyone base their doctrine of the soul, whether for or against, on this one verse alone?

Gen. 2:13

KJV: “… land of ETHIOPIA.”

NKJV: “… land of Cush.”

Comment: I know where Ethiopia is, but where is Cush?

Oh my. This is just simply an excuse for laziness. First off, if you think you know where Ethiopia is, you probably don’t.

“Bull! I can get out a map of Africa right now and show you where it is!”

Yes, but that isn’t where Ethiopia was in Bible times. Do you know right off where that was? Probably not. Do you not know where Cush was? Okay. Brace yourelf. You might have to actually look it up and study the text!

The horror! The horror!

There are plenty of places we read about in the Bible and we don’t know where they are. The Bible still lists them that way because it is being faithful to what the text says. I really have to say this could be the dumbest argument I have seen in this book so far.

And this is just the start of part 2.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 8

What do we confess? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re back to looking at the trainwreck of KJV-onlyism. This time, we’re going to finish up the first part of this travesty. As always, you can find the source material here.

 

Bible Question #18: What did Jesus say we are to do relative to each other?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the answer see: James 5:16. Many ‘modern’ versions say something similar to:

“… confess your sins to one another …”

( Notice this could lead to gossip and further sinning ). But the King James says:

“… confess your FAULTS one to another …”

Notice the 2 different words. The Bible says that ONLY God can forgive sins. We are supposed to confess our SINS to Him. We should confess our FAULTS to one another, but SINS are confessed to God. Faults and sins are entirely different.

Can you see how ‘modern’ versions have led Catholics astray? And, if it has led Catholics astray; couldn’t the same thing happen to us if we, our spouse, our children, or our pastor, uses a ‘modern’ version?

The word here is paraptoma. In all honesty, I was expecting hamartia, but either way, it doesn’t matter. As I looked at the way this word is translated in other places in the KJV, I saw it is still read the same way as sins, such as in the Lord’s prayer about forgiving our trespasses.

Now the problem here is that no one is saying that you confess your sins to others to earn forgiveness, although in some sense you do. If I have wronged a fellow man and I need him to forgive me, I confess to him and he forgives me. He can do that. That doesn’t forgive me before God, but it forgives me before my fellow man.

The verse later on says to pray for one another that you may be healed. Now if I read that like Johnson reads this part, I could say “See? You are to pray for one another to be healed? Only God can heal!”

Not only this, but people in accountability programs will tell you that confessing your sins to one another can be a good practice. These are found in 12-step programs where if someone screws up, they have to go and talk to their sponsor about what they did. That requires humility and is a good deterrent if the person is being honest to not messing up.

I also like how the boogeyman of Catholicism was thrown out there in the end. I am not a Catholic, but they don’t get everything wrong and I personally think a confessional is a good idea. It’s not because a priest forgives you, but because confessing to someone can help mean you don’t carry the burden alone. I have had a number of struggles that I have had greatly lightened because I talked to someone. They didn’t even give me great advice many times. They just listened. That was enough.

Bible Question #19: Do modern ‘versions’ of the Bible have anyother problems?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. In the Bible, the New Testament sometimes re-quotes the Old Testament. An example of this is in Mark 1:2

Compare the two Bibles again. In a ‘new version’ it says:

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, …”

Compare this to the King James, it says:

“As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ”

Comment: The scripture quoted in Mark 1:2 DID NOT come from Isaiah as stated in these ‘modern’ versions of the Bible. The scripture quoted is from Malachi 3:1 ! Check it out.

Not only do ‘modern’ versions misquote God; they even misquote themselves!

The KJV reading of: “As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ” is correct, because the verse is from Malachi 3:1, and Malachi was a prophet!

So far we have seen all kinds of problems in these ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, ‘more up to date’, etc. etc. versions of the Bible. This leads to the last Bible question:

Folks. This one is easy. Composite quotations were something that were done in ancient literature and when that was done, two quotes would be meshed together and often they would be attributed to the most well-known figure. You can listen to my interview with Seth Ehorn on this one.

Bible Question #20: Why is it important to have the true Word of God (vs. a corruption)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The answer, to our question, is found in 1 Peter 2:2. Please turn there now.

In a ‘modern version’ it says:

“… long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; ”

The King James Bible tells us to:

“… desire the SINCERE milk OF THE WORD, that ye may GROW thereby:”

My comment is that this verse, in ‘new’, ‘modern,’ versions, contains 2 problems:

First, we are to desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD. The purpose is “to grow thereby”. Modern versions leave out “OF THE WORD“. It’s God’s word that feeds us. If, like the modern verse, we leave out “the word” how can we grow? Or, if we get a corrupted translation, how can we grow on ‘junk food’?

Second, contrary to ‘modern’ versions, we DO NOT grow up to salvation. That says salvation is by works! We are saved by grace, and not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Think about it.

In this chapter, we reviewed the doctrine contained in a “broad” array of ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, versions of the Bible. We compared ‘modern’ doctrine to the KJV. And, we have found significant error.

But, all ‘modern’ versions do not follow this ‘broad’ profile. So, in the next chapter, we will analyze 3 versions of the Bible which need an individual, case by case, analysis.

Again, this comes down to different textual variants. However, one thing I consider is that we have an emphasis in our culture on referring to Scripture as the Word of God and think whenever we see the term “Word” that it refers to the Bible. Hebrews 4:12 is an example. I think it is more likely that this refers to the words spoken to the Israelites in the wilderness. Now this certainly did become part of Scripture, but I don’t think Hebrews is telling us something about Scripture as a whole here.

An ancient reader hearing about sincere milk in this case would easily fill in the missing gaps and the author would realize that. In the same way, saying that it means growing to salvation does not mean works salvation. What it means is more akin to growing in the salvation and being developed into a saved person. If we use the milk analogy, a baby drinks his mother’s milk not so he can grow into a human, but so he can grow as a human.

I wish that this was the most nonsense, but I’ve already looked ahead some and, yep, it doesn’t get any better from here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

No. Evolution is not an either/or

Is there really a problem of evolution? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday, I got into a debate on Facebook with someone who was saying that you can’t have evolution and theism both. They contradict one another. Now many of you know that I don’t take a side on evolution. I don’t argue it’s true. I don’t argue it’s false.

So let’s look at the idea of contradiction first. Here is a source with a definition of evolution as follows:

“Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.”

Now I realize that doesn’t get into the inner technicalities as evolution is much broader than that and deeper, but this is a fine definition for now. Now how about theism? Here’s a definition from Britannica.

“the view that all limited or finite things are dependent in some way on one supreme or ultimate reality of which one may also speak in personal terms. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, this ultimate reality is often called God.”

Sorry, but I’m not seeing the contradiction. There is no on the surface at least reason why one can’t believe in some form of God existing and at the same time believe that populations change and generations replace one another. What is more at odds is really not the science, but actually the idea of theism.

“Ah! So you’re admitting the problem is the existence of God!”

No. Actually, what I’m saying is that an idea of what God must be like is conflicting with an idea of what evolution is. Atheists believe it or not have a theology. They have an idea in mind of the kind of God that doesn’t exist and think “If God did exist, this is what He/She/It would be like and what He/She/It would do.”

I can say that I do think if evolution on the macro scale is true, as even the most rabid YEC will admit that species do change over time, then that does indeed contradict some forms of theism. This would mainly be Young-Earth Creationism as the Earth hasn’t been around long enough for that evolution to take place. This doesn’t mean that hypothetically the Earth couldn’t go on for billions of years and somehow avoid the heat death when the sun grows intensely and then evolution takes place. I’m not a scientist to tell if that could be possible in future generations or not.

However, if your idea of theism is God exists and must create every being by fiat and without any natural processes whatsoever, then yes, evolution does contradict that idea of theism. Note that this is saying that evolution is contradicting an idea of theism. That says nothing about theism as a whole but rather an interpretation of theism.

In reality, even your most rabid YEC will accept that some things are made through natural processes over time and this includes things that the Bible says are made by God. Consider how in Psalm 139 we are told that God knits us together in our mother’s womb. That doesn’t mean that God is directly involved in every single step purposefully as if He is causing everything. Everyone accepts that there is a process that God has set up of gestation whereby a new human life comes into being.

I also stressed in this discussion that evolution is inherently teleological. Now some people really balk at that idea. Doesn’t teleology mean that there is a mind behind the process guiding it? At the start from an empirical sense, that is not what is being said. All that is being said is that A causes B.

Edward Feser uses the example of an iceberg floating in the water. As it moves, the water within its range gets colder. It does not turn into cotton candy. This is essential for science. Imagine doing experiments and every time you got wildly different results. There has to be order in the universe to do science. This is also why miracles are not disproven by science but actually depend on the world being scientific to be possible. If the world was not orderly, you could not recognize exceptions.

So how does this tie in with evolution? Evolution leads to the survival of the fittest as the most fit survive. That is teleology. It is not saying evolution is a mind that intends this. It is just saying that this is what happens if evolution takes place.

Of course, I was also told that all of this comes from DNA and we all come from our parents and no maker is needed. This would have mattered had this been the question I had wondered. I instead asked about the ground of existing. Note the difference. Existing and not existence. It is not just how things came to be, but it is also what keeps them in being.

Consider that you wake up in the morning and you hear a strange sound. It keeps going on and on and you ask “What is causing that sound?” You don’t ask “What caused that sound?” until you hear the sound stop.

Now you wake up the next morning and open the door and there is a giant orb blocking your way. It is valid to ask “What caused this orb to be here?” However, it is also valid to ask “What is causing it to be here?” It is not as if these things, including you and I, have the basing of their existing in themselves. If that were true, a suicide could just will himself out of existing by pure thought alone.

Evolution doesn’t talk about how things are existing. It just talks about existing things and how they become other existing things over time. That’s not a problem to me.

If you want to know who has the problem here, as Plantinga would say, it’s not the theist, but the atheist. For the theist, evolution could be true or false and it wouldn’t matter. For the atheist, at least at the moment, evolution is the only game in town. Who has the most to lose here?

So go ahead and argue evolution all you want. I really don’t care. It doesn’t change my theism or my interpretation of Genesis or the data for the resurrection of Jesus. You can win a battle, but you’re still losing the major war.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)