The Best Bible Translation

Which Bible translation should you read?

As English speakers we are very fortunate to have so many translations of the Bible available to us.  And that in itself raises the question, which translation of the Bible should I use?

Firstly I would suggest almost any Bible!  All of the main translations are good translations of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts.  But, Bible translators have to broadly follow a translation philosophy.  In simple terms this means ranging from a word-for-word translation to a paraphrase.  Each has it's advantages and disadvantages.  The table below shows where the main translations fall on this scale.

Word for word translations are typically harder to read, partly because they try to preserve the word order as far as possible, and translate every word in the original languages.  That's useful for academic study but can produce language that just isn't normal English.  Take Matthew 5:2 as an example.  The English Standard Version (ESV) renders this, "And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying".  This is not something any of us would actually say.  Both the New International Version (NIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT) phrase it much better, "and he began to teach them".  

Proponents of word for word translations would argue that the NIV and NLT have dropped words - they argue that as these words were inspired by God, they should be translated.  I would suggest that what needs to be translated is the message, the ideas in the original text.  So I have no problem with "and he began to teach them" as to me that does translate the Bible accurately.  

Then we have idioms to deal with.  Take Amos 4:6 which the ESV renders, "I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities".  Was God advocating an Israelite dental hygiene programme?  No, the idiom refers to having nothing to eat.  So the NIV translates it, "I gave you empty stomachs in every city", and the NLT says "I brought hunger to every city".  Which is a better translation?  The word for word, or thought for thought?

How about this ESV translation of Psalm 147:10 - "His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man".  Should this make a gay man blush?!  The NIV says, "in the legs of the warrior" to clarify the idiom.  It's about human strength, not actual men's legs.

Then there is the issue of gender.  Often literal translations use a lot of male gendered language, which isn't a bad translation - but they criticise others for using more inclusive language.  The most common example is the Greek "brothers" used of Christians collectively.  A lot of new translations use "brothers and sisters" since the original term does apply to women too.  Again to my mind that is accurate translation.  To claim a more literal translation is more accurate seems to me to be splitting hairs.  If the Greek means all the people, men and women, then "brothers and sisters" is more accurate in English today.

The ESV, NIV and NLT are all excellent translations of the Bible, they take differing approaches on how to translate but that doesn't make one less accurate than the other.  My approach is to use the NIV for my day to day reading, consult the ESV when studying, and use the NLT as a casual reader, and sometimes for day to day reading.

I would wrong to not re-state this here, avoid the New World Translation (see other posts on this for why). It's biased against Jesus' divinity, and phrases things in such a way as to support Watchtower teaching.

Images: Google Images

Jehovah's Witnesses and 1914

Studying the Bible, not the Watchtower
or any other manual, will help us avoid error

It's been 100 years since the Watchtower said the world would originally end, and we are still here.  Yet the Watchtower tries to hide this from modern Jehovah's Witnesses.  The January 15, 2014 Watchtower Study edition says on p.28: "anointed Christians had keenly been anticipating 1914... They were not completely sure what would happen"  Really?  I have a copy of Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 2 - The Time is at Hand, published by the Watchtower in 1889.

On p98-99 it says: "within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and destroyed...we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914."

How then can the Watchtower today claim "they were not completely sure what would happen"?  Seems to me that they were sure!  Obviously that didn't happen, and that should have been the end of the Watchtower, but they got creative and started teaching that 1914 was when Jesus began to rule in Heaven.  The generation alive on earth would not pass away before the world ended.

The book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, published in 1989 says (p154), "[Jesus] meant the generation of people who were living in 1914.  Those persons yet remaining of that generation are now very old.  However some of them will still be alive to see the end of this wicked system."

On p.31 of the January 2014 Watchtower it now argues that the generation is now 2 groups of Christians!  The second who were anointed during the lifetimes of the first group will not pass away until they see the tribulation.

The Watchtower is so tied to 1914 (based on the wrong 607BC date anyway) that they are getting very inventive with their theology.  

What about what the Bible plainly teaches in Deuteronomy 18: "“But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared."

As the Watchtower's predictions have not come true, how can anyone doubt that they are false prophets?

UPDATE - May 2014
In the May 1st Watchtower they ran an article on "Predicting the Future" in which they said, "RELIGIOUS LEADERS sometimes predict tragic worldwide events to warn mankind and gather followers. Doomsday prophet Harold Camping and his disciples widely advertised that the earth would be destroyed in 2011. Needless to say, the world is still here." 

In light of their own failed predictions, is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

New New World Translation

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) have released a revision of the New World Translation.  I'll refer to it as the NWT2013. 

I've previously written about the JW "Bible", but this new edition calls for a review.  As I've only recently downloaded it, this post will be a work in progress (check last update date below).

The first thing I notice is the additional articles and book introductions in the NWT2013, which reminds me of the Gideon Bibles we were given at school.  One of the most surprising things is that this new edition neatly co-incides with the doctrinal change over the year 1914.  In fact, on p1767 (in the PDF) 1914 becomes "About 1914".  They are obviously moving away from such a strong emphasis.  They used to teach that the world would end before the generation alive in 1914 died out.  As 2014 marks 100 years since 1914, this is obviously looking to become another false prophecy.  So, they're sidelining it now.

NWT2013 - brackets gone!

The text of the NWT has also been altered.  In my last article on the NWT1984 I commented on use of square brackets in Colossians 1 and how misleading it is to add the word "other", even in brackets.  In the NWT2013 the brackets have disappeared completely.

If you can, get your hands on the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT) which was published by the Watchtower - it clearly shows that the word "other" is not in the text.  (The book is hard to come by, however it is available on the JW app)  The NWT2013 has gone to extreme lengths to hide the obvious teaching that Jesus is in fact God.

Having said that, there has also been a substantial change (or admission?) on John 1:1.  The main text reads as it did in the 1984 edition.  However, the Watchtower has always argued that it should never be translated as "the Word was God", and barely conceded that "divine" was correct.  However in the NWT2013 there is a footnote to John 1:1.  It acknowledges that "divine" is possible.

Of course, any world-class Bible scholar will still tell you that John 1:1 should read, "the Word was God". 

There does seem to be more in the line of alternate translations in the footnotes, which can only be an attempt to make the NWT2013 seem more scholarly. 

On a more positive note, John 17:3 has now been translated correctly with the incorrect translation relegated to a footnote.  But I wonder how many "rank and file" JW's expect a real relationship with God? 

One other interesting thing to note is that the 2013 edition is much easier to read.  Comparing verses with the NIV and ESV, I would say it's like reading a combination of them - in fact a few of the verses are rendered the same way as the ESV which suggests it was used as source material (or perhaps the RSV or NRSV which are the same "family" of translations as the ESV).  

The NWT2013 is as deceptive (or more in some places) as its predecessors as a translation of the Bible.  It is still to be avoided as a Bible for any serious student of the Scriptures.  

Last update: 13 May 2014

Images: Google Images, screen shots of my PDF copy
Source: http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/new-world-translation-accurate/ (Accessed May 2014)

Jehovah's Witnesses - challenge accepted!

I met the Jehovah's Witnesses today, and they gave me a copy of the Watchtower magazine.  On page 7 a challenge was issued.  It is this:  "The next time you meet Jehovah’s Witnesses, why not ask them why they trust their religion? Examine their teachings and their record."

Okay, let's do that:

1. They predicted the end of the world in 1914 (later changed), 1925 and 1975 (to name a few).  
2. They are as guilty as certain other religious organisations on child abuse and cover-ups.
3. They do not believe historic Christian teachings on the Trinity, the soul, salvation or eternity (to name a few).  Their beliefs contradict the Bible.
4. They mistranslated the Bible, and published it as the New World Translation - so that they have a Bible that fits their beliefs.
5. A "Bible study" turns out to be a study of a Watchtower book, rather than the Bible.
6. Their organisation bans "independent thinking", encouraging complete obedience to the Watchtower Society.  Members are not allowed to read books critical of JW teachings.

So their teachings and record show that they are not the true Christian faith they make themselves out to be, but are in fact a cult based on Christianity.

If you are thinking about studying with the Jehovah's Witnesses, by all means, "Examine their teachings and their record."

Image: Google Images

Bible Translations

With all the various translations of the Bible on offer, which should we be using?  I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately, after I saw a question about which translation was the best.  I've also seen the odd comment about different Bible's contradicting each other.

The first thing we need to remember is that all English Bibles are translations from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. This means that every translation is also, to some degree an interpretation of the Bible.  Some Christians argue that the King James Bible (KJV) is the most correct Bible.  They often point to how other translations differ from the KJV.  However the KJV is a translation like the others, and it too has its problems - not least that the English language it uses is now 400 years old.  This makes it harder to read if you are not familiar with the English language that was in use in 1611!

All Bible translations can be roughly grouped into three categories.

1.  Literal translations
Literal translations try to translate word for word as far as possible.  While this helps a modern reader to see the original structure, it can also make the text seem quite "wooden", or more difficult to read than paraphrases or Dynamic Equivalence translations. Examples include the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

2.  Paraphrases
Paraphrases take each idea in the original and render it into English.  The most popular one today is The Message, others include The Living Bible.

3.  Dynamic Equivalence
These translations aim for literal translation but also readability.  They are generally very accurate, which makes these the most commonly used Bibles.  Examples include the New Living Translation (NLT), and the New International Version (NIV).

I would suggest that for most people, a dynamic equivalence translation should be your main Bible.  I would also strongly recommend using a translation that was done by a committee rather than an individual.  I use the NLT or NIV for most of my reading.  

If you want to get into serious study then a literal translation would be helpful.  I use the ESV as my "literal" translation. Literal translations are also better when you're speaking to Jehovah's Witnesses, for example.  Mormons use the KJV, so it's worth having one in case they call.  And every now and then, when you just want to read the Bible - The Message is great at delivering Scripture in a punchy, fun and casual way.  I also have an audio version of The Message and I love listening to it.  The only issue with The Message is that the language is very American, so non-US readers may need to get used to the language.  I would give The Message to someone who isn't used to the Bible and is reading it for the first time - especially as it translates the so called "anti-gay" verses correctly!

Which leads to another question - are any translations anti-gay, or gay friendly?  As I say, The Message is gay friendly as the translation is accurate.  And in a sense yes, some Bible translations are anti-gay, however I think this is simply due to the beliefs of the translators rather than deliberate mistranslation.  The NLT interprets arsenokoitai (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9) as "practicing homosexuals" which is a bad translation.  The NIV is slightly more honest as it shows that there is some confusion in those two verses.  The 1984 edition translated one as "homosexual offenders" and the other as "perverts".  There is also a "Study New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bi, And Transgender" but I don't recommend it - it's not very readable and for 3 verses hardly worth it when you can do your own homework! 


One interesting version is the Amplified Bible.  There are many words in Hebrew and Greek which have many shades of meaning.  Obviously translators need to pick one, right?  Not necessarily, the Amplified Bible uses a system of punctuation and brackets to expand on the original meanings. This makes it longer to read, but you get so much more, which makes the Amplified Bible a valuable addition to your Bible study.  Have a look at Psalm 27:4 which says:

New Living Translation
The one thing I ask of the Lord— the thing I seek most— is to live in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, delighting in the Lord’s perfections and meditating in his Temple.

New International Version
One thing I ask from the Lord, this only do I seek: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze on the beauty of the Lord and to seek him in his temple.

Amplified Bible
One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek, inquire for,and [insistently] require: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord [in His presence] all the days of my life, to behold and gaze upon the beauty [the sweet attractiveness and the delightful loveliness] of the Lord and to meditate, consider, and inquire in His temple.

Talking of Bibles, there are some to avoid.  The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own Bible known as the New World Translation.  It's a doctored version of the Bible designed to support JW teachings, especially on the nature of who Jesus is.  It should not be used by any Christian for any purpose other than discussion with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and even then, you must have your own Bible on hand as many of the corruptions in the New World Translation are very subtle.

You can read different translations at Bible Gateway. Whichever translation you choose, read it regularly, asking the Holy Spirit to open your heart and mind, and to help you understand what he has to say to you through the Bible.

Personally, I would recommend the NIV or NLT as your "day to day" Bible, and compare them with the ESV for more serious study.  Here is how these 3 versions render a few different passages as examples.

Revelation 3:20

New International Version
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

New Living Translation
Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends.

English Standard Version
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Note, the ESV literally translates "him".  The NIV and NLT both use inclusive language as this refers to men and women.  The ESV brings out that literalness, that you wouldn't get in the NIV and NLT.

Romans 3:25

New International Version
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—

New Living Translation
For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,

English Standard Version
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

You can see the NIV and NLT both translate the thought, though you can see the NIV is more literal than the NLT.  The ESV literally translates the words.


Image: Google Images

New World Translation

The Jehovah's Witnesses "Bible"

The Jehovah's Witnesses are known for their distinctive beliefs.  Christians often wonder how they can read theBible and come up with such different answers.  One reason is that they read through the "lens" of Watchtower publications.  Another reason is  that they use their own version of the Bible, known as the New World Translation.


An article on the Watchtower website says, "some people have commented on or questioned the accuracy of the New World Translation because in places it differs from other translations of the Bible".  No, we criticise it because it is a bad translation, not because it differs from other Bibles - which is why we have no issue with versions like "The Message" which stick to the meaning of the original texts.

They go on to make claims that their Bible is an accurate, unbiased translation.  They cite scholars who said it was good, but just google the scholars and you find they said no such thing, or their words were taken out of context.

The NWT has been altered to fit what the Watchtower teaches.  This is most obvious when looking at passages dealing with Jesus' deity. Take Colossians as an example.  By inserting the word "other", they have changed the meaning.  

In the NWT Colossians 1:16-17 you can see that the word "other" has been inserted 4 time's.  It is true that it is sometimes necessary to use words not in the original, but surely this is to clarify meaning, not change it.  Read this passage without the word "other".  Now the passage's meaning is the same as it is in every other translation.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is a created being, through whom God created everything else.  Therefore he couldn't create "all things", because he couldn't create himself!  To solve the problem, the Watchtower edited their Bibles.

The Watchtower used to publish the Greek text of the Bible, known as the Kingdom Interlinear Translation.  This made them seem more scholarly - but right there, for all the world to see (or not see in this case!), the word "other" isn't in the Greek.

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation.  Image: CARM

To make matters worse for themselves, they forgot to fully edit John 1:1-3.  They infamously changed John 1:1 to read "a god" rather than "God".  But in verses 2 and 3 we have a parallel passage to Colossians 1:16-20.  In the NWT the passage reads:

"In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.  This one was in [the] beginning with God.  All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." (emphasis mine)

Oops.  Now their translation of Colossians not only contradicts the Greek text,  it contradicts their own translation.  To make it fit they need to add the word "other" twice here too.  

I don't mind people disagreeing on theology.  If you want to argue that Jesus is not God, fine.  But I do have a problem with blatant dishonesty.  It is dishonest to alter the Bible to fit your beliefs, and then use that to show people "what the Bible really says".  

If the Watchtower can't be trusted on Bible translation, it certainly cannot be trusted with Biblical interpretation.  

Images: Google Images/CARM
[Update May 2014 - See also my article on the 2013 revision of the New World Translation]

Is MCC a Cult?

I was watching one of Rev. Troy Perry's sermons online when another video caught my eye. It was called Queering Christ and the subtitle included the words "Metropolitan Community Cult". The video was published by Battling Christian and is also linked to a blog site (Journal of a Battling Christian).

Erik, the man behind Battling Christian admits to struggling with sexuality himself. He says, interestingly in the past tense, "At the time I was going to either deny my faith and pursue homosexuality, attempt to accommodate my faith to meet my desires or end my life". This is a struggle.  I and many other gay Christians know what he is going through.

Erik has studied gay theology (the study of what the Bible says on same-sex relationships). He concluded that people who say a man can have a relationship with Jesus and another man, are wrong. That's fair enough. I have no issue with people who (having thought it through) disagree with same-sex relationships. But Erik goes one step further and asserts that the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) is a cult. Why?

Erik says that there are 3 things cults have in common.

1. They claim a link to the Biblical Jesus
2. They twist Scripture
3. They have secret beliefs

Erik claims that MCC meets these criteria and therefore is a cult. Really?

Like Erik I come from a conservative Evangelical background. I have not abandoned that - I still think of myself in those terms. I was brought up in a Presbyterian Church (Erik's denomination) but switched to the Baptist Church over the issue of baptising babies. Later I started attending an MCC, and now MCC is my main Church though I still frequently go to a Baptist Church. So I know something of what MCC believes, and how this compares to other mainstream Christian Churches. So I would like to challenge Erik's view that MCC is a cult. I would also like to challenge his criteria for a cult as I think he is missing one important factor - which most people recognise as being "cultish". Specifically to "avoid independent thinking" (to borrow the Jehovah's Witnesses terminology). He also discusses MCC in the same breath as JW's and Mormons so I will be making references to them as well (see also other posts on my blog about them)

His first criteria is only half true. Not only do cults claim a link to the Jesus of the Bible, so do all legitimate Christian Churches. So we can ask if a Church is Trinitarian, does it accept Jesus claims to be the one true God, equal to the Father and Holy Spirit? MCC's statement of faith says, "Christianity is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and is the religion set forth in the Scriptures... We believe in In one triune God, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, of one substance and of three persons: God, our Parent-Creator; Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, God in flesh, human; and the Holy Spirit, God as our Sustainer". So, MCC maintains the same view of Jesus as Christians have held for 2,000 years.

Secondly he says that cults twist Scripture. I agree with that one, but this raises the question - how do we know who is twisting Scripture? It is telling that the JW's made their own version of the Bible, and the Mormons read the Bible through "Modern Scripture" - and both through what their organisations teach. If a JW or Mormon sees a verse, he is told what it means. "Independent thinking" is discouraged. MCC does not do this. Our Churches have Christians from a variety of backgrounds in our congregations. We hold varying beliefs on issues like creation/evolution, the end of the world etc. But on the core doctrines (Jesus, God, the Bible, salvation by grace through faith, etc) we agree. But we all hold to the Bible as our standard. MCC's statement of faith says, "the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, showing forth God to every person through the law and the prophets, and finally, completely and ultimately on earth in the being of Jesus Christ."

Differing opinions on side issues (divorce, women in ministry, same-sex relationships) do not mean a person has joined a cult. It is worth noting that the Church of Scotland (which is Presbyterian) has recently agreed that gay men currently in training can be ordained, and is considering opening this to all future ordinations as well. Has the Church of Scotland become a cult, too?

Finally Erik maintains that MCC must have secret beliefs. It's hard to argue with this one, since it's impossible to prove the non-existence of a non existent belief! All I can do is to give you my testimony, MCC is very up front about what it believes. Specifically that God loves us all, that he came here in the person of Jesus to pay the penalty for our sins so that we don't have to. Jesus died and rose again, and now intercedes for us before the Father. The Holy Spirit indwells all who trust Jesus for forgiveness. We try to follow God by seeking his will (through study of the Bible and through prayer). God calls us to a life of personal holiness, prayer and outreach. There are no "insider secret beliefs" in MCC.

Where MCC diverges (though many other Churches agree with this, and many Christians within Churches that officially don't also accept this) is that we not only believe that faithful monogamous relationships are fine (whether straight, gay, lesbian), we campaign for it. We also campaign for social justice across the board.  We do reject much of what the gay community stands for in terms of promiscuity, just as we reject heterosexual promiscuity.

It is true that there are some liberal elements in MCC, but that is true of every Church. But for Erik to brand MCC a cult because he disagrees with what some people in MCC say is wrong. I would encourage Erik to cease slandering MCC, and to have an open honest dialogue about what the Bible says, because that is what matters. Churches make mistakes, people make mistakes, but we always need to go back to the Bible. It alone is our standard.

My final point is simple. I encountered the Holy Spirit in the Presbyterian Church and in the Baptist Church. The same Holy Spirit is active in the Metropolitan Community Church as well. How could that be so unless the people there are also the Body of Christ?

Image: MCC Logo, from Google Images, Logo (c) Metropolitan Community Church www.mccchurch.org

Is Jesus God?

Lots of people claim that Jesus is just a good man, or that he's a prophet, a good teacher etc. They say the Bible doesn't claim Jesus was God - but is that true?

As an example, the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus was the first thing created by Jehovah. Jesus is not God, and so John 1:1 should be translated, "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" (New World Translation, published by Jehovah's Witnesses). They are right in that you can argue this translation from the Greek, but it can equally be translated, "In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God" (New Living Translation, cf. New International Version).

Who is right? The trick is to keep reading. In their own translation verse 3 says, "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence". If Jesus is a created being, this makes no sense. How could he create himself?

Those who heard Jesus understood exactly what he was claiming to be. When Jesus claimed that "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30 NLT), his listeners responded with aggression. Jesus asks why they wanted to stone him, and "They replied, “We’re stoning you not for any good work, but for blasphemy! You, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:33 NLT).

We see this again in John 5:18 which says, "So the Jewish leaders tried all the harder to find a way to kill him. For he not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal with God."  This is all the more significant as this is the Bible stating what Jesus was doing, as opposed to reporting what others understood.

Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. The Bible records those claims so that we can evaluate them. In a few weeks Christians around the world will be celebrating Easter. At Easter we remember why God came to the earth. He came to do something awesome - open the way for each of us to know him for ourselves, to be forgiven for everything wrong we've ever done, and to live with him forever.

In his own words: "When he came to the village of Nazareth, his boyhood home, he went as usual to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the Scriptures. The scroll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where this was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come.” He rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. All eyes in the synagogue looked at him intently. Then he began to speak to them. “The Scripture you’ve just heard has been fulfilled this very day!”" (Luke 4:16-21 NLT)

I love that passage! Jesus tells us what he came here to do - and it's quite different to what many people think he's about! He is about Good News, not judgement. He's about freeing the oppressed, not beating us down! To quote the Newsboys, "I'm not following a God that's imagined - can't invent this deity!... I'm not following a God I can read about. I can't train this deity! And that's why Jesus is the final answer to who I want my God to be".

Image: spiritualmike.org/.../Jesus_Smiling-224x341.jpg (Google Images)
Updated 10 May 2014