Category: Apologetics

How Feminism Has Been Bad For Women.

Is Modern feminism a good thing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“Modern feminism has done more to harm women than the so-called patriarchy could ever dream of doing.”

This is what I put on my wall on Facebook Saturday night. Someone did post wanting to know more and it was late and I figured, “There’s a lot here. Why not write a post on it on Monday?” So having said that, let’s go through and see how I think this has been a bad thing.

Now what sparked this was the videos about women in gym talking about guys watching them while there. In some cases, a guy is treating a woman like a piece of meat when all he’s doing is just glancing her way from time to time. In one such video, we found out that one of the girls talked about how traumatizing it was and yet had an OnlyFans account. This is just one example and I will expound on it.

Let’s also be clear. What I mean by modern feminism is an attitude that is often anti-male or thinks that men and women are absolutely equal in everything, save perhaps biological differences. I am not saying anything about women having the right to vote or have a career outside the house or being able to have higher education.

First way is that modern feminism has helped women suffer under the transgender movement.

If you want to try to eliminate all differences between men and women, one idea that can easily come about is that men and women are practically interchangeable. Then what happens is that men undergo an operation, claim to be a woman, and then compete in women’s sports and lo and behold, they win. This is because generally, men are stronger and more capable than women in these areas due to how their bodies develop vs. how a woman’s body develops.

“Well that’s not true! I know a woman who is far better than most men in these areas!”

That’s why this is a general statement. It’s not saying all men are better than all women at XYZ. Generalities do allow for exceptions, but the fact that they are the exceptions demonstrates the point.

Not only are men winning women’s competitions, now they are even winning beauty pageants and other such titles. This is pushing women out of the rightful positions they should have here. I am also not saying that modern feminists intended for this to happen, but many of our actions do result in unintended consequences.

Let’s also be clear at something. When we say men and women are different, it does not follow from this that one is superior to the other. All that is said is that they are different. I like what Peter Kreeft has said about this. Men are superior at being men. Women are superior at being women. Unfortunately, the transgender movement now has it that men are going to be superior at being women also.

The second way is telling a woman that a career is most important.

Once again, this is not saying that a woman cannot have a career or should not pursue a career, but it is saying that women cannot put career first and still expect the rest of their lives to work out normally. Many women have even sadly been shamed because they didn’t do anything with themselves but be a stay-at-home Mom. A housewife is treated as a lower position. It’s also seen as servile. Staying home and cleaning and fixing meals and making sure your husband has a meal?

If you are a stay-at-home Mom because that is what you wanted to do, God bless you. You have not chosen a lesser path. What job could be greater in the world than raising the next generation of human beings and preparing them to be contributing members to society?

Now, women are told to put off marriage and children. Go and get a career and then you can think about those things later. Unfortunately, biology disagrees. The older a woman gets, the harder it will be for her to conceive. A man does not have this problem. A man can be a senior citizen and still father a child.

Because of this, women will often go out and work on their career and then realize their chances of being a mother are greatly lessened. Not only that, if they do not date to marry at this time, they will find that many of the good men they are wanting are gone. Who got them? Those women that chose that “lesser position” of being a housewife and stay-at-home Mom.

Now this gets us into the sexual marketplace. One of the biggest mistakes of feminism has been championing abortion. One of the biggest distinctions between men and women is that women can give birth. Abortion treats this fact as a hindrance and a problem to be dealt with. Let’s ask a simple question about this. Who benefits?

Well, feminists tell us also that men only want one thing and that’s sex. Last I checked, in abortion, man gets what he wants then, the sex. Not only that, he has no consequences. He doesn’t have to be involved in the life of a child. He doesn’t have to pay child support. He gets to have his fun, and then the woman removes the consequences for him. Guess what the man gets then overall? Sex without responsibility. He doesn’t have to owe anything to the woman or promise to be there. This only helps enable the negative attitude that women have toward men.

The increase in something like no-fault divorce also doesn’t help women for the most part. Now men who would normally marry and make a commitment do not do so because they can get with a woman, then she leaves him when he is the innocent part, and he ends up paying alimony and child support for the rest of his life and she takes half of his stuff. (This did not happen with me lest anyone thinks I am writing this out of personal vengeance.)

So what happens? They move in together instead and don’t get married and what happens? The man can leave at any time. A woman will often go for this thinking it’s a stepping stone to marriage. The man can go in easily thinking “Sex without commitment. Sounds good to me.” Again, I am not saying this is how it happens every time, but it is something that is expected. Once again also, the man is the real beneficiary.

Also, if a woman is willingly doing porn, she is doing what she has complained about men doing to her, objectifying her. Let’s go back to OnlyFans. What is a woman doing with this? Sure, she’s making money, but what she is saying to any complete stranger is “If you pay this bunch a month, you can see me naked.” How is the woman treating her self-worth? She’s worth whatever the charge is. In the past, if a man wanted to see a naked woman, he either had to go down to the magazine stand or video store which was public and people could see what he was doing, or else he had to do the work of winning a woman’s heart and making a lifelong commitment to her. Women have now made it easy.

Now let’s look at the situation of women at the gym. Newsflash everyone! Men notice beautiful women! A book I remember going through explaining the way men are to women said that picture a group of men watching the final moments of the Super Bowl or the World Series or something of that sort and then a woman comes in and starts taking her shirt off.

The men will lose complete interest in the game.

In my area, there was a challenge given to women and these were recorded on video. You never saw the woman aside from perhaps non-sexual body parts, at least normally from our culture’s perspective. The challenge was these women had just got out of the shower and had only a towel around them and they would go to their men who were either husbands or boyfriends and were playing video games. They would then do something like toss the towel at the man who would for the overwhelming most part stop whatever game they were playing and go for the girl immediately.

Not only this, but generally, men notice anything in the world normally, not as a whole first, but as several individual parts. This implies to women also, which is why men can easily notice what they see sexually desirable in women. I am not saying this is a good thing necessarily. I am saying it is just a reality.

So if a beautiful woman goes to a gym and is wearing something that really clings to her body or is wearing something exposing her midriff or anything that makes her attractive, men will notice. In the book “Through a Man’s Eyes” by Shaunti Feldhahn and Craig Gross, Feldhahn writes about talking to a couple at a church about a movie called Cold Mountain. She asks the wife how they handled the sex scene in that together. The wife asks “Was there a sex scene?” The man just looks up briefly and says “Yep.”

Men notice this.

The problem is feminism now punishes men for being men. In the video in question, which I am not finding on its own, but here is Candace Owens talking about it. (I would have gone with Joey Swoll, but there is language involved there.) This man is made into a villain when he simply looked over a couple of times, and then came over, offered help, and then left the woman alone.

First off, if a man notices a woman at the gym, that is not wrong. I am not talking about the man who stares and gawks at a woman with his tongue sticking out or something like that. Yes. A guy can be creepy in his attraction to a woman. However, suppose he is attracted to her. Is it necessarily creepy if he goes over and starts to talk to her and eventually asks her out? (One wonders if the woman would complain if the man looked like a Brad Pitt type to her.)

Second, a man could watch a woman for any number of reasons. Could she use some help? What if someone who is creepy does come up to her? Many men just like to be aware of their surroundings. That includes the women in the area.

What women do here is punishing men for being men and wishing they would think more like women. No. They will not. That desire that you think is creepy can also be what will drive them to be the best for you and care for you. Many men overall really want to protect and cherish women.

Yesterday, I saw a video from Just Pearly Things about how men only want one thing and they don’t expect much in return. No. The video is not about what you expect. Men ultimately want respect and will do anything to help out the women in their lives. Yes. There are exceptions, but we’re not talking about those. Any time I have been somewhere and seen a woman in need, I have wanted to do what I can to help her.

However, because of these videos coming out, what are men less likely to do? Ask out women. After all, you can get a sexual harassment lawsuit headed your way. If a woman has a phone at the gym, a man will stay away. He might stay away period just to avoid getting in any trouble.

By the way, that means also good guys will stay away. Those good guys that women ask about where they are? They’re the ones that don’t want to be ruined for the crime of being attracted to women. This isn’t just me saying this. I see plenty of women saying the same as well.

Women can often complain about what they call the patriarchy, but they are doing the worst damage to themselves. They don’t need the patriarchy to ruin women. They have met the enemy and it is them.

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

 

 

Delayed Gratification

Is it important to wait? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

4,000 pieces of gold.

That’s a hefty price for a young man playing a game, but in the world of Final Fantasy at the time, that was a lot. Gold pieces were the main currency then and at the area of the game you were in, most battles gave 100-200 pieces. You would have to stay at the inn at times to recover which would cost 100 pieces of gold.

However, if you wanted to get the silver sword then, you had to pay 4,000 pieces of gold. Only one person likely in your party could equip it. The next most expensive weapon costs 450 gold. Still, there were other expensive items. A bracelet you could equip costs 1,000 and level 3 spells cost 1,500 to learn and level 4 costs 4,000 to learn.

(By the way, I had to look up the prices of other items aside from spells, but silver sword stuck with me.)

If you wanted to get this sword, you had to work for it. This kind of thing is something called grinding. Why? Just think of how your going to work can be called the daily grind. Some people do it just to gain experience to level their character up. Either way, most people don’t really like grinding. It’s very repetitive.

By the way,  I haven’t even mentioned buying healing items and deals like that for what can essentially be the first dungeon the party goes through in the game.

However, if someone engages in this in many a game, they are prepared not only for the next dungeon, but also for several later dungeons. Those who rush through because they just want to get on with the story are more likely to suffer and in the end, have to do their own form of grinding still when they keep encountering an obstacle they can’t get past and grinding can be much harder later on in a game.

Okay. This is interesting, but what has this to do with Christianity and apologetics?

As I thought about it, it came to mind that this is a lesson in delayed gratification. Consider this. How many problems in our society come because we do not like to wait? We live in an instant society. Everything we want comes immediately. We can put something in a microwave or get something out of the freezer or drive where we want to go and with the internet, we have instant communication. Paul would love to do in the Roman Empire what we can do today.

In some ways, that can be fine, but in others, if we think we have to wait for something, then we will suffer in the end for it often.

Let’s start with money where this started. How many people are in debt today not because they had to buy an expensive item like a house or needed emergency surgery that was really expensive, but because of out of control credit card debt? How many people just buy items constantly and don’t really think about the price?

I considered that my early habits in gaming came to influence my early thinking with money. I learned the value of money there and to this day, I make it a point to have money in the bank and be light with my spending. Because of that, when I do want to splurge, I normally can without much difficulty.

Recently, a friend gave me a pass to the World War II Museum here in New Orleans. I only had to pay for parking. When I was done going through the museum, I got to the gift shop which had books. I bought a couple of them there. It cost me some naturally, but I was able to handle it. This also after having a month where I had to go to the doctor twice for a really bad sinus infection after the conference, the second being a follow-up, and I currently have no health insurance.

Still, I have money in the bank and my money in savings I haven’t even had to touch since moving to New Orleans. I pay my bills responsibly and I use plenty of programs to get free Amazon gift cards and to get deals when I do have to go out into town. My parents were always frugal with money, but I think my experience in gaming where I had to save up to buy things and make sure I always had enough taught me just as much.

Not only that, but I realize that some of my money comes from donors. Thus, I want to make sure I honor the money that is given on my behalf. If you want to become a supporter of me financially, which is greatly appreciated, then you can do so here.

This also works in other areas of our life. Our country has a problem with obesity and most of us are eating not because we are hungry, but because we are bored. We also don’t want to wait, and why should we? We can get fast food which normally isn’t good. I think we all have experienced the event of sitting on a couch or chair watching something or playing a game and just snacking while there. We don’t move much, we exercise little, and what do we have as a result? Obesity.

Finally, what about sex? Who wants to actually have to wait until you’re married? People who went to school with my parents and get divorced are now living together before marriage. In their day in school, that was definitely the exception. Today, it is the norm.

We live in a world of one-night stands and a hook-up culture and why? Because why should we have to wait? It’s just sex. Not a big deal. Right? We say this in an age of single parents, unplanned pregnancies, STDs, and ultimately a miasma of meaningless hanging around us. The sexual revolution has been a disaster.

However, the option left is waiting and we don’t like that. Why have to wait? If you want something, get it now.

Maybe we should return to what I learned so long ago in Final Fantasy. It was hard to work and work and wait before I went into the dungeon in making sure all my characters had the best equipment and spells, but you know what? When I did that, we did much better than everyone else and were more prepared not just for that dungeon, but for every other later dungeon. Also, if I needed to grind again to buy better items, I did it again.

Patience is a virtue we don’t really have today, but we definitely need it. How many of our problems in our society could be dealt with better if we would just learn to wait? How much of what we go through would we be better prepared for if we just waited?

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 7

Who killed Goliath and other questions? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Well, we all know how it works by now. My doing this is a demonstration that some suffering is self-inflicted. Let’s see what we have from this work today to deal with.

Bible Question #15: Who slew Goliath?

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

This is an easy one! Now turn to 2nd Samuel 21:19. Depending on the ‘modern version’ it will say something like:

“… Elhanan … killed Goliath …”

What do you mean Elhanan killed Goliath!? This is wrong you say. Most Sunday school children know that David slew Goliath! Well, you’re right. This is clearly in error.

Look at the same passage in your King James Bible. The Authorized King James Bible has the correct reading which is:

“… Elhanan … slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath …”

Spiritually, as Christians, we are the equivalent of David. Spiritually, Satan is the equivalent of Goliath. Just as David slew Goliath (with a rock), we Christians are “more than conquerors” as we have overcome (slew) Satan by the blood of the lamb (Jesus Christ, the rock!) and by the word of our testimony. Not only are ‘modern versions’ in error; but major doctrinal issues are involved here. Think about it.

To begin with, why do these modern translations sometimes differ? Because they are trying to be faithful to what the text says. Unfortunately, Johnson produces no material on the textual variations or the translating of Hebrew or anything of that sort.

My ministry partner, J.P. Holding, has this to say at Tektonics.

Many conservative commentators, like Archer, have supposed that in the first verse, “Lahmi the brother of” was somehow transformed into “the Bethlehemite”. Alhtough I priorly considered this a suitable textual explanation, I am now persuaded that it requires more explanation (on this, see our response to Human Faces of God, ch. 7). Even so, Callahan’s objections are not sufficient. He objects as follows (here, and now we add, in Secret Origins of the Bible [248]):

  1. First, he says, “Archer is using a method that he would scoff at if it were used by advocates” of the JEDP hypothesis. Indeed? Unless Callahan finds a place where Archer actually does this to an explanation of the same sort advanced by a JEDP theorist, he is merely making an ad hoc accusation.
  2. Second, he says he finds “no particular reason” to accept Archer’s idea “over a more simple and direct one of a later writer trying to resolve an inconsistency.”Well, I do: It has to do with giving ancient documents the benefit of the doubt; it has to do with textual criticism; it has to do with not assuming that ancient people were too foolish to see the obvious. Archer’s explanation is quite within the canons of textual criticism.
  3. Callahan wonders then why both Samuel and Chronicles use the “like a weaver’s beam” in their conclusions. The use of the phrase elsewhere is exactly the sort of thing that would induce an errant scribe to use it elsewhere in an effort to make the text coherent, or make it more memorable in an oral-based society. Callahan’s comment that a scribe would have to both move a portion of the word while leaving it there at the same time is mistaken — this is a perfect description of a known type of textual error called dittography.
  4. Finally, Callahan objects that the explanation contradicts Archer’s earlier assertion that “God kept the authors of the books, and by logical extension the editors of the canon, from error.” Archer may or may not argue this, but it doesn’t matter anyway. We do not believe that God preserved copyists from error. This is not asserted in any doctrinal statement on inerrancy (such as the Chicago Statement).

For the record, here is a summary of Archer’s explanation: 1) a copyist first mistook the sign of the direct object before “Lahmi,” which was ‘-t, for a b-t and got Bethelehemite; 2) the copyist also misread the word for “brother” (‘-h) as the sign of the direct object before “Goliath” and made “Goliath” the object of “killed” instead of “brother” as Chronicles does; 3) the word “weavers” was also misplaced after “Elhanan” to make the name “son of the woods of weavers,” which is quite an unlikely name.

Now you might not find that persuasive entirely, and that’s fine, but the point is that this should show it’s not a clear and simple question. However, looking at the end of what Johnson says, he is taking an interpretation of the original text, as Goliath being Satan and each of us being David, and then insisting that that interpretation is trying to be covered up by the modern versions. (Which, you know, all include the story of David and Goliath so how they’re covering this up is a mystery.) Yet there is given no reason why I should accept the interpretation or think it’s at all what the original writer had in mind.

Bible Question #16: Jesus said that our heavenly Father will forgive us of our sins. However, we are told that; likewise, there is something we must do. Do you remember what it is?

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

Let’s turn, in a ‘modern version’ to Mark 11:26. Are you not able to find it? Are the verses in Mark chapter 11 numbered 23, 24, 25 and then 27!? Is verse 26 missing? Well, there is nothing wrong with your eyesight! Verse 26 is not there (or it is in brackets, casting doubt on it). It’s ANOTHER omission.

Now turn to the same verse in your Authorized (King James) Version. The KJV says:

“BUT IF YE DO NOT FORGIVE, NEITHER WILL YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN FORGIVE YOUR TRESPASSES.”

Oh, man! This is important to know! Leaving out verse 26, leaves out an important piece of Christian doctrine. Verse 26 needs to be there! And, that’s why it is properly included in your King James Bible.

The question though is not what Johnson thinks needs to be there, but what is there. Mark often does give shorter versions of what is said and if verse 26 wasn’t in the original manuscripts (And by the way, verse numbers weren’t in the original manuscripts), then whether one thinks it needs to be there or not, faithfulness to the text says to not put it there. I could say “You need to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be forgiven needs to be in the text also!”, but if it was not in what Mark wrote, then it will not be included.

By the way, modern translations do include that in passages such as following the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6. Again, an odd way of covering up doctrine.

Bible Question #17: What did Jesus say about religious hypocrisy?

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

First, let’s take a look in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible. What does it say in Matthew 23:14?

Actually, it says nothing! ( The verse is missing in many modern versions ).

For the word of God, turn to the same verse in your King James Bible. What does it say?

“WOE UNTO YOU SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES! FOR YE DEVOUR WIDOWS’ HOUSES, AND FOR A PRETENCE MAKE LONG PRAYER: THEREFORE YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GREATER DAMNATION.”

Jesus does not like hypocrisy. Notice how God knows our heart!

Again, this does not show up in the manuscripts that are being used, but here’s something to consider. I just took a few minutes to do a search of the word “hypocrite” in Matthew. It shows up multiple times never in a flattering light. Six of those times are in this very same chapter!

No one reading the chapter in a modern translation would walk away confused about what Jesus thinks about hypocrisy. KJV-Onlyists can condemn the modern versions all they want, but arguments like this are thoroughly dishonest and saw more about KJV-Onlyists than they do about their opponents.

We’ll continue next time.

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

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 6

Ready for more crazy adventures in KJV-Only land? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The book I am replying to can be read online here. We know the drill by now. Let’s begin.

Bible Question #11: After our new birth, how are we supposed to relate to God?

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

Once we are born again we have a new standard for our lives; it is Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us how we are to relate to him. Please turn to Ephesians 5:1 . In a ‘new’ version it says:

“… be imitators of God …”

Compare this to the Authorized King James:

“Be ye therefore FOLLOWERS of God …”

Even though we are born again; can we possibly imitate God? Can we be the judge of the Universe? Can we be at all places at the same time? No way. We have a new nature, sure; but we are still only men.

Think about it: only Satan tries to imitate God! Ever since the garden of Eden, Satan has tried to direct worship toward HIMSELF. We, as men, could NEVER imitate God. We are only men. We can only FOLLOW God!

Publishers of ‘new’, ‘more up to date’ versions are encouraging us to be like Satan! (i.e. to think of ourselves as God).

Sigh.

It’s amazing what you can learn just by a simple word search. I go to BlueLetterBible.com and what do I see when I go to the verse? Well, the Greek word is mimetes. Already, this is a problem since it sure looks like mimic. So what do I see listed under usage.

an imitatorNothing else is listed.Also, the KJV still has Matthew 5:48, be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. Maybe its just me, but that sounds like imitation.

The whole idea of imitation often times is that you’re not going to hit the mark, but you have something to aim for and why not aim for the best? A young man wanting to be a basketball player could want to imitate Michael Jordan or LeBron James. Will he ever reach that level? Probably not, but he can still aim for the best.

Let’s turn to 1st John 4:3 . A ‘modern’ version says:

“and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”

Again, in ‘modern’ versions, key pieces of scripture are left out. Compare this same verse with the FULL reading in the King James. In the KJV it says:

“And every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

Remember, evil spirits did confess Jesus. In Luke 4:34 (and in Mark 1:24) a man having a “spirit of an unclean devil” said to Jesus:

“… Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, [thou] JESUS of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.”

Contrary to what ‘modern’ versions would tell you, the antichrist DOES KNOW who Jesus is. But, what the antichrist CAN NOT say, is that: “JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH“.

Modern versions not only need to get their gospel straight; they also need to correctly quote the true test for the antichrist.

Also, take a look at this: Compare 1st John 4:3 again between a ‘modern’ version and the King James Bible. Look one more time at what the ‘new’ version says:

“… which does not confess Jesus is …”

But, in the King James it says:

“… that confesseth not that Jesus CHRIST is …”

Besides the doctrinal error, these ‘modern’ versions continually assault the Lordship and Deity of Jesus Christ. If the King James says: “Jesus Christ”, many times the modern versions will only say: “Jesus”. If the King James says: “Lord Jesus Christ, “many times the ‘modern’ versions will only say: “Lord” or will only say: “Jesus”.

Again, this is an absurd argument. Is it as if a demon in the Gospels would not say Jesus has a body? We are talking about different situations. The spirits in the epistles would be referring to those teaching Gnostic and/or Docetic doctrines that denied that Jesus had a real physical body.

Why do modern translations translate 1 John 4:3 the way they do? Because of the manuscripts they are translating from.

By the way, let’s look at 2 John 7 in a modern translation.

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Yep. Major cover-up going on there.

Bible Question #13: In the wilderness, when Satan tempted Jesus to turn a stone into bread for food; what was Jesus’ response?

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

Turn to Luke 4:4 . In a ‘modern’ version it reads: “… man shall not live by bread alone”.

Well, that’s true and that’s part of it. But, what about the rest of the verse? Notice: words have been LEFT OUT in these ‘modern versions’.

The Authorized (King James) Bible has the correct and full reading. In Luke 4:4 it says:

“… man shall not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD“.

The fact that we are nourished by bread is true, but that is only part of the story. Our lives are sustained by the Word of God. We need bread to sustain our bodies; but, these ‘modern’ versions leave out our need for the life sustaining Word of God.

Again, we have the same situation going on here. For a cover-up, it seems strange that the parallel passage in Matthew 4 does indeed have the passage that we are told modern passages eliminate. It makes sense for Luke to leave it out since he’s writing more to a Gentile audience and Matthew to leave it in his since his audience is thoroughly Jewish. It all depends on what the manuscripts say.

Enough ridiculousness for today. More coming next time.

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

 

Book Plunge: Playing With God: A Theoludological Framework For Dialogue With Video Games

What do I think of Matthew Millsap’s dissertation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“And Matthew Millsap wrote his dissertation on video games and Christianity.”

My ears perk up as I’m in my systematic theology class last semester and hear these words. I immediately look up this man and find him on Facebook and send him a message. Before too long, he’s happy to send me his dissertation. In preparing to write this also, I contacted him and asked where others could go if they want this dissertation as well and he said you can contact him on Twitter.

So theoludological. I had never heard that word before and my spell check doesn’t even recognize it. It is a combination of ludology and theology. Great! That explains it! So what’s ludology? It’s the study of games. Amazing I never even knew that there was a name for what I have been doing through so much of my life.

Millsap and I are quite similar. We’re both gamers and we’re both at this time 42. We have both been playing games for pretty much all our lives.

Fact check true on the above meme.

When you go through the dissertation, it’s clear that he has a great knowledge of games. Something interesting also for me is that the games he plays seem to be more of a different genre for the most part than the ones that I play. He seems to enjoy first person shooter types and other similar games and I am much more into the RPG and JRPG genre.

Still, he has got me curious about the Bioshock series at least. (Available on the Nintendo Eshop if anyone is feeling generous)

This dissertation is divided into seven chapters. The first is about interaction with pop culture and the lack of interaction with video games. The second is about the origin and history of video games. The third is about narrative themes in video games. The fourth is about theology’s dialogue with other forms of narrative material. Chapter five is where the meat of this work is and shows how this interaction takes place and why video games are different from other forms of media. The sixth shows it in practice with a look at the game Journey. The final chapter discusses implications and further areas of research.

One possible researcher being the one writing this blog.

I was definitely pleased reading this to see how much Millsap definitely is familiar with video games. To some extent, probably a little bit jealous too picturing him getting to read so much about games and at the same time consider it theological research. I could easily picture him, seeing as he’s married, sitting on the couch playing a game like Bioshock and his wife saying “Honey! Can you take out the trash?!” “Not now, dear! Doing research for my dissertation!”

One of the rare times that excuse would work.

If you are unfamiliar with the history of video games, Millsap will give you a good crash course on it in this dissertation. He is also right in there is very little interaction with this medium. When I gave my talk at Defend this month, I was pleased to see how many people showed up. Why? Because this is a topic we need to talk about and there were people of all ages and of both sexes in there.

That being said, the narrative aspect is key. Yesterday, I watched a video on Final Fantasy IV and considered just how much a story difference there was. Final Fantasy IV when it was released over here was Final Fantasy II as Japan kept the next two games in the series to themselves. (And why did we just not declare them our political enemies at that point?!) Something I was surprised I hadn’t noticed was the marked difference in story between I and II. I was a bare bones basic account, but II was a dialoguing adventure with personal characters with real names and twists and turns.

Many games today do have stories. Many outsiders don’t realize that, but just as you watch a TV series or a movie or read a book because you want to know what happens next, so also you play a game because you want to know what happens next. Of course, there is the difference of player agency. It doesn’t really take skill to watch a TV show or movie or read a book to find out what happens next. With a game, unless you look it up on YouTube, you have to play the game successfully to know what happens. Some games even make it harder by having different endings and only those who do the game well will get the good ending.

When we look at the fifth chapter, I mainly noticed his interaction with Craig Detweiler. Consider this quote that he has from Detweiler.

Am I equating cinema with Holy Scripture? Heavens no! The Word of God is a special revelation unequaled in human history. I am not baptizing all art as sacred or all inspiration as divine. Yet God has revealed himself in ways beyond the written word. The Bible itself is a litany of unlikely communiques. Christ promised if his people did not praise God, the rocks would cry out (Luke 19:40). Perhaps those
rocks have recently taken on pop cultural forms. It does not denigrate a sacred text to study other texts; I am merely affirming what the Spirit is already doing. God does not discriminate. The Spirit can communicate via inspiring films like The Shawshank Redemption (IMDb #2) or cautionary tales like The Godfather (IMDb
#1). We need role models and warning signs. While the religious community questions prophets’ credentials, divinely inspired artists keep on singing songs, telling stories, making movies.

While I do think the phrasing can be bad here some, I think when Detweiler speaks of God revealing Himself in movies, I don’t think he’s saying the movie is like Scripture. However, I think what He is saying is that one can see in a movie sometimes an idea of who God is. I remember hearing about a Jehovah’s Witness who left the cult after watching the Passion of the Christ and realizing they didn’t have to go through everything the Watchtower said. One can get theological insights watching popular media like movies and certainly God can use a movie, a book, a video game, a TV show, to draw someone to Himself. I also don’t doubt that Millsap would disagree with this.

At the same time, Millsap did think there was a lowering going on when Christianity was explained in gaming terms.

Jesus dropped into the game of our world with both remarkable (even divine) skills and crippling limitations (of humanity). He explored many comers of his Middle Eastern “island.” Among his contemporaries, he made both friends and enemies. A tightly knit, dedicated community arose around him. Jesus and his clan experienced plenty of grief from aggressive and uncooperative rivals. He was eventually fragged during a deathmatch on an unexpected field of battle. He submitted to the rules of engagement, even while resisting them, proposing an alternative way to play. After three days, Jesus respawned, took his place as Administrator, and redefined the way the game is played

I understand Millsap’s concern here in that this can seem like crude language at times to describe Christianity. After all, respawning in a FPS is really normally not a big deal. Everyone does it. However, I also thought, “What if someone wasn’t a Christian and was a gamer and I was trying to explain Christianity to them?” I could use language that is similar to this. We could say that Jesus was the true respawner much like Lewis said Christianity is the true myth. What we can do in a game, Jesus can do and did do in reality.

Despite all of this, Millsap is definitely right in all of this in how we need theological interaction. The stories he gives from Bioshock I found particularly fascinating. I have listened more than once to the introduction from Andrew Ryan in the first game on YouTube. If you want to listen to it, you can do so as well.

Many of us would agree with some of what Ryan says in this. A man should be entitled to the sweat of his brow. Many of us could also say that while God doesn’t claim all of it and lets us have some of it, we should give some of what we receive to Him.

In the third game, he tells us the story is about a “prophet” who has a cultic form of a Christian type of religion and how someone has to go to his floating island to rescue someone. Despite what some people might think, games like this wrestle with moral decisions and questions. There are many games out there that are extremely philosophical. Consider even Final Fantasy X where the game is all about a quest to defeat a mindless, destructive beast known as Sin.

In the sixth chapter, we look at Journey. I had bought this game and I didn’t get much into it, but perhaps some weekend when I have a couple of hours, which is how long Millsap says it takes to finish it, I could do that. Millsap chose this game because it is an easy one to learn and there is no violence done by the character and it tells a story. Another one I would consider would be Stray, because after all, who wouldn’t enjoy getting to play as a cat?

I definitely agree with his conclusion. There are plenty of areas for extra study. Games are becoming one of the main features in our culture, especially with the rise of smartphones. We Christians have too often been behind the times on this interaction. We need to change that.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 5

What has been removed? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re continuing our look at KJV-Onlyism. Let’s see what we have today. Again, source material is here.

Bible Question #9: After we repent, and are born again (come to saving grace), what else does Jesus command us to do?

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

There are many changes that come in our new birth/in our new nature, but the answer I’m looking for is this: We are to make a public profession of faith. Then we are to be baptized, by immersion, in water.

Let’s look in Acts chapter 8, verses 35-37. In Acts 8:35 Philip, the Apostle, preached Jesus Christ to the eunuch. In verse 36 the eunuch realized his need to be baptized. The eunuch then asks if he can be baptized.

Now, take a look at Acts 8:37 in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible. Many (but not all) ‘modern’ versions go from Acts chapter 8 verse 35, to verse 36, then to 38. 38?! Where is verse 37 you ask? And, what did verse 37 say?

This key verse, properly included in the King James Bible, tells us whom should be baptized. It says:

“… IF THOU BELIEVEST WITH ALL THINE HEART, THOU MAYEST.” And he [the eunuch] answered and said: “… I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD.”

Numbering verses 35, 36, and then 38 is NOT the new math!

These ‘modern’ versions, which leave out verse 37, are omitting the deity of Jesus Christ. Also, they are missing the key point: We must make a PUBLIC profession of faith. We must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If we do not know, believe, and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our baptism only ‘gets us wet’. Leaving out verse 37 omits a major portion of Christian doctrine.

Omissions of doctrine and corruptions of doctrine are bad news. In both cases, the reader is NOT getting the correct information he/she needs to know.

The cute thing about KJV-Onlyists is how they push the panic button over every supposed change. Now if you’re going to say a verse was removed, then you have to assume the text that you’re using to translate from is the one that is accurate. You have to establish that without a question-begging standard. KJV-onlyists look at how the translations differ and say “Well, we have the correct translation, so obviously the problem is on the other end.”

If you started with the other translations as the perfect standard, you would reach the opposite conclusion. Would it not be just as much a problem to add to Scripture? One could say that the KJV is older though, but that’s not the point. The point is the starting place is determining the conclusion.

Again, the solution is simple. These verses aren’t in the manuscripts modern translations are using. It is not a conspiracy to leave out key doctrine. What is left out supposedly is shown in other places in modern translations.

Bible Question #10: Can you recite the Lord’s prayer?

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

The Lord’s prayer, taught to us by Jesus, and recorded in Luke 11:2-4 of the KJV, is as follows:

“… Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”

Now turn to Luke 11:2-4 in a ‘modern’ version and re-read the Lord’s prayer. The wording will be similar to:

“… Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation”.

Note this modern version states “Father” but then leaves out “… WHICH ART IN HEAVEN …”. You don’t know who you are praying to, your Father in heaven, or to Satan!

It also leaves out “our” as in OUR father. We were created by God who is “OUR” father. Satan is a father, but he is not “OUR” father. Satan is the “father” of lies.

And this ‘modern’ version leaves out “THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH“. By leaving out the fact that we are praying to our Father WHOSE WILL IS DONE IN HEAVEN, this ‘modern’ version is re-directing your prayer away from God and toward someone or something else (in another place).

Lastly, there is a major omission in the last half of verse 4. Verse 4 states: “And lead us not into temptation”. But this verse then leaves out: “… BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL …”

Personally, I want to be delivered from evil! How about you?

I think the reader will agree: This ‘modern version’ is NOT the “Lord’s Prayer” you want to be praying! Think about it.

As I read through this, I am just thinking this has to be one of the most bizarre arguments from the KJV-Only position ever.

So Jesus’s disciples ask Him to teach them how to pray. In this scenario, He begins.

Jesus: Father…..

Peter: Whoa! Lord! You just said Father and nothing else! Are you praying to God or to Satan?

Jesus: I said Father…..

Satan is called the father of lies, but saying that this has to be specified would be like asking Jesus if He was praying to Joseph. As for the statement about which art in Heaven, well where else would a Jew think God would be? Now you might need this spelled out if you’re an ignorant KJV-Onlyist who has no clue how to read an ancient document, but not if you’re someone who is a Jew at the time and has half a brain.

That’s really just how dumb this argument is.

So why is this not in there? The same situation. This is not found in the oldest manuscripts.

That’s enough ridiculousness for this time. We’ll continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 4

What problems are in the modern versions? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So let’s dive back into the train wreck here.

Bible Question #6: How did Jesus’ going to the cross bring our redemption?

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

A ‘modern’ version will NOT tell you how! (in Colossians 1:14). It says (of Jesus):

“in whom we have redemption …”

The full Christian doctrine is only included in the King James reading of the same verse. Properly stated, it says (of Jesus):

“In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD …”

Without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sins. Leaving out “the blood” misses a key point of doctrine (and leaves us in our sins).

There’s a simple reason for this. In the manuscripts that were used, the phrase “Through his blood” is not there. It is easy to understand how a scribe could have added such a phrase or it could have been in the margins and then became part of the text. It’s easier for KJV-onlyists to say conspiracy, but let’s look at other places in the NIV….

Romans 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—

Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

Colossians 1:20. and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Note that last one is in the very same chapter! If you’re involved in a conspiracy to remove the blood, you try to do that everywhere and not just one spot. KJV-onlyists are not expecting people to check up on their claims.

Bible Question #7: Who does Jesus “call” and what does he “call” them to do?

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

The questions are getting harder! Open a ‘modern’ version to Matthew 9:13b. It says something like:

“For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”.

Notice how the end of this verse begs the question: “… call the righteous, but sinners TO WHAT?” Turn to the same verse in the King James Bible:

“… for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners TO REPENTANCE“.

Those last 2 words are crucial! Hell (and then the lake of fire) will get all the sinners who don’t repent. Jesus will get all the sinners who do repent. There is a big difference in those two eternal outcomes. And, there is a big difference in these two translations.

We are all sinners, and we must all repent, to be saved.

Which this quote is found exactly in Luke 5:32. Go to a Gospel search and look up the word repent and you will find several mentions. Why does it not show up in the text above? Because it isn’t in the manuscripts that were used for translation. That’s not a conspiracy. The way to argue against it is to have a non-question begging argument that it is the correct one.

KJV-Onlyists have not given us one yet.

Bible Question #8: What happens to those who do not receive the testimony of Jesus Christ, i.e. what happens the those who do not receive the gift of everlasting life?

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

In many ‘modern’ versions you won’t find out! This is because part of the verse is missing (in Mark 6:11). Let’s turn there now. A ‘modern’ version reads something like:

“… shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

However, the King James gives the full teaching:

“… shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM AND GOMORRHA IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, THAN FOR THAT CITY“.

I think the reader will agree that this verse contains important information we need to know!

Matthew 10:15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Matthew 11:23-24 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.

Luke 10:12 — I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

Again, what does it say about KJV-Onlyists that you can see their arguments are faulty when you do a Bible Search online for just a couple of minutes if that long?

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

 

 

Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 3

Do we have more evidence of bad translation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So as we continue our look at this work, we find more and more of bad argumentation from KJV-Onlyists. The first question is about Noah.

Bible Question #4: Noah was a great man used by God to build the Ark. To be called for such a task required Noah to be approved by the Lord God. So, how was Noah ‘justified’ before God? Was Noah’s justification by his own works?

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

For the answer, turn in your Bible to Genesis 6:8. In a ‘modern version’ it says something like:

“Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”

Now think what the word favor implies. Favor implies that Noah was ‘better’ than others. Favor implies Noah was approved by God because of his own ‘good works’.

Now compare that to the KJV. It says:

“Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the Lord“.

Even though Noah was used of God, he was also in need of grace (just like all of us). Noah was NOT justified by his good works, but by God’s grace.

Look at verse 9: It says Noah walked with God. Notice that Noah’s walk with God occurs, in verse 9, AFTER Noah received grace from God, in verse 8. Grace precedes our walk with God. We are NOT justified (NOR saved) by our own works.

Remember, Noah got drunk on occasion (Gen 9:21). He was in need of God’s amazing grace. We are, too.

The consistent theme of the Bible is that we are saved by God’s grace and NOT by our own works. Grace and favor have two totally, different, meanings.

The Authorized King James Bible is consistent with the Bible’s teachings. These ‘modern versions’ are not.

Nothing in this text is about justification. It is not about how Noah was forgiven of his sins. The word here is hen and looking at how the KJV translates it, they translate it sometimes as grace and sometimes as favor. The idea here is that by saying favor, the text implies that Noah was better than his fellow people.

Newsflash. Noah was better. The very next verse said he was a righteous man, blameless in his time, and he walked faithfully with God.

This is not about Noah finding grace, which we could say would be something intrinsic to Noah that God discovers, but favor, in that because Noah lived differently, He was allowed a special blessing. Is that really a problem?

Not at all.

Let’s look at 2 verses. Turn to 1st Peter 4:1. In a ‘modern’ version it says: “… Christ suffered …”

In your Authorized King James Bible the full reading is quoted as:

“… Christ suffered FOR US.”

Notice the last two words give the FULL meaning. Leaving out “for us” misses the point entirely!

This is confirmed again in 1 Corinthians 5:7b. In many ‘new’ versions it says:

“For Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed.”

Again, the full reading is found in the King James Bible. It says:

“For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US.”

This seems to imply that a modern reader of a modern translation won’t know this. The problem is when you look at a text like 1 Peter 4, there are differences in Greek such that some have “for us” and some do not. I suspect the same for the other passage as this would be something natural for a scribe to add.

Of course, it’s easier to just slander others and argue for your conspiracy theory.

Now if the KJV-onlyist wants to argue their text is superior in the Greek, they need an argument for that. It can’t just be asserted.

We’ll continue next time.

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

Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 2

Do we have more corrupted verses? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So as we continue our look at KJV-onlyism, we’re responding to this work. I plan to respond to more than one question today. First, let’s start with one that deals with the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

The answer, of course, is that God was Jesus’ father. Let’s look in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.

Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the particular ‘modern’ version, in verse 33, it will say something similar to:

” … and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were spoken of him” [i.e. of Jesus].

What do you mean “… and his father …” was amazed at the things which were spoken of him?! Jesus’ father was NOT Joseph! Jesus’ father was God!

Now, let’s look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:

“And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him“.

For a ‘modern’ version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was Jesus’ father is blasphemy! Think about the doctrinal implications: If Jesus had only an earthly father and mother, then he is just any man. If he is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved! If we are not saved, then we have a big problem!

Here! Here! Indeed! How can we indicate in any way that Joseph is the father of Jesus?! Of course, God is His Father! Absolutely! To the flames then with any translation, or should I say transgression, that says that Joseph is the Father of Jesus!

Oh wait…..

Look at Luke 2:48.

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

And that is in the KJV!

How dare they! Surely Mary who had the virgin birth, which I do affirm, would know who the father of Jesus is! How dare she not say Joseph! That would mean Jesus is just an ordinary man and we are still in our sins! We have a big problem!

How dare the KJV deny the virgin birth! (Which I do affirm)

Now let’s go to a common type of objection.

Turn to Matthew 18:11. You may have a hard time finding this verse. In many new, ‘modern’, versions this verse is missing! The verses are numbered 10 then 12, 13, 14! Or you may find verse 11 is in brackets, casting doubt as to whether it is scriptural.

Let’s see what the Authorized King James says:

“For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST.”

This one verse, which summarizes Jesus’ entire mission to earth, is either ignored in ‘new’ versions; or it is put in brackets casting doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.

People have to know they are lost, i.e. that they have a problem, to know they need a saviour.

This is a common problem with KJV-Onlyists. They look at the KJV as the perfect and then if there is any difference between the KJV and a modern translation, well the problem is the modern translation because they removed that verse. How do we know the verse was in the original? Because it’s in the KJV and that’s the perfect version!

Never mind that this passage is paralleled in Luke 19:10 which does have the Son of Man coming to seek and to save that which was lost. If this was a conspiracy of some sort, you would think that one would also be removed. So why would this not be in a manuscript?

Odds are that many a scribe could copy from memory, perhaps from hearing a verse read in the worship service, and when he copies Matthew, he automatically fills in that part. Another possibility is sometimes sidenotes would be written and this could be one and sometimes that would be included in later copies. How do we know what the original most likely said? Because we have enough copies that we can cross-reference them. If you want a good reference book on textual criticism, I recommend this one.

Thus far, two questions answered. Nothing convincing. Just shoddy research on the part of KJV-Onlyists.

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

Response To Spiritual Deception in the Highest question 1

Is the KJV the only Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I recently was shown some work from a guy named Robert Breaker who is a KJV-onlyist. He recommended a book that can be found on his web site called “Spiritual Deception in the Highest.” After all, the obvious work of spiritual deception is to get people away from the KJV. (We all know eschatologically the biggest disaster to the devil came in 1611 when for the first time there was actually a Bible.) So if you want to see this work, then you can see it here.

I realize there aren’t as many KJV-onlyists today as there used to be most likely, but they are still out there and either way, this is dealing with issues that many people will still struggle with. I do definitely plan to get back to Life Is A Game, but I figured I could use my skills here to deal with this. Thus, time to look at this work and see the charges that are made.

Bible Question #1: Who was it that saved Shadrach, Messach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace?

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

Turn to Daniel 3:25. In this verse, Shadrach, Messach and Abednego have been thrown into the fiery furnace. However, they are NOT alone! Another one (a fourth) is there to deliver them !

Let’s start off by looking at this verse in a ‘modern version’. (Notice: the wording in each ‘modern version’ will differ slightly from all the others. But, those small differences, will not materially affect this report).

Suffice it to say that, at the end of Daniel 3:25, a ‘modern’ version has a reading “similar to” the following:

“… and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods …”

“a” son of the ( plural ) gods?! Who is that? What is His name ? Notice how that reading is very vague and “non-descript”.

But, look at this same verse in your King James Bible. The Authorized (KJ) Bible says:

“… and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God“. i.e. Jesus Christ.

It was JESUS CHRIST, THE only begotten Son of God, who delivered Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. Jesus saved them from the fiery furnace; and it’s Jesus who will save you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. from hell, from the lake of fire ).

The Bible is clear: There is ONLY ONE SAVIOUR: The LORD Jesus Christ, THE Son (capital S) of God (big G). Jesus is the ONLY one who saves from the fiery furnace, NOT “a” son of the (plural) gods (little g). Jesus saved in the past, He does it today, and He will save in the future ! Amen ?

So let’s put this in some context.

The Hebrew word listed here is Ela and is 424 in Strong’s. Now going to BlueLetterBible, let’s see where else this shows up in Daniel.

2:11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.

2:18 That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

2:19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

2:20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

2:23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter.

2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

3:14

Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?

 

3:15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

3:26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.

I have only covered chapters 2 and 3 here as these terms also show up in 5 and 6 and then stop, though surely it is not because God is not mentioned. It’s interesting that this term only shows up when it is interacting in a pagan environment. Both the Hebrews like Daniel and his friends and the pagans like Nebuchadnezzar use this term. When the Jews use it, it more refers to their God in the singular and when the pagans use it, it refers to the gods in the plural. Sometimes King Nebuchadnezzar will use it to refer to the God of Israel, but only when directly speaking to a Jewish person.

So what is more likely here?

When Nebuchadnezzar is speaking to his fellow pagans, he is not likely to say the Son of God. He is more likely to say a son of the gods, which is the way a pagan would understand matters. Now does this diminish Jesus? Not at all. Assuming that Jesus is the fourth man in the fire, which I have no problem with, this is still painting Jesus as a divine being and a Jewish reader would think that the divine being was a son of God in some sense.

It might be easy for Johnson, the author of the work in question, to paint to a conspiracy, but it’s far more level-headed to just look at the text. The pattern is consistent and rather than seek to impugn someone else, it’s better to just understand why they translate the text a certain way. It might not be as easy, but it is more fitting in Christian character.

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