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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
(And I affirm the virgin birth)