King James Only

I have previously written about choosing a Bible translation but I've been seeing a lot on certain sites lately advocating the King James Bible only position.  This is the view that only the King James Version of the Bible is correct, and (usually) that it is literally the inspired word of God. 

Those of you familiar with my work know I use the New Living Translation for my own day to day reading, and the English Standard Version for study. Obviously I don't agree with the KJV Only view.

Essentially the notion is that God has preserved his word in the Majority Text (the texts translated into English that became the KJV).  They point out that in other Bibles (usually the NIV is the target!) there are missing verses, or verses are translated in a different way to the KJV.

I have a couple of problems with the KJV Only view which I will pose as questions.

1. Given that the KJV was published in 1611, which version of the Bible was right in 1610?
2. The KJV has been revised several times, is only the 1611 edition inspired?
3. Do you believe that the translators of the KJV were inspired by God?  If so, why not other translators?
4. What Bible should a German speaker use?
5. If you point out that a verse is missing or translated differently, you are setting the KJV as the standard.  How different would that be if I used the NLT as the standard and accused the KJV of adding or mistranslating verses?

Perhaps from this you can see why I disagree with the KJV Only.  Perhaps the best thing to suggest in terms of which Bible translation you should use is the old adage - the one you will read!  

Image: Google Images

Book Review - God and the Gay Christian

I've done one book review before, but after reading this book, I just had to write another!

Matthew Vines has written what I think is the best book so far on what the Bible says about same-sex relationships. Matthew covers everything from where the traditional "non-affirming" view comes from through to examining what the Bible does say. 

For me this book is significant because it's written by someone who is an Evangelical Christian holding to the authority of the Bible.  Often people resort to trying to dismiss what the Bible says rather than seeking a full understanding of it - which is what Matthew has achieved.

One of my favourite chapters looks at the issue of mandatory celibacy for gay and lesbian people, and at how this conflicts with both Biblical teaching on celibacy and how the Church has understood celibacy.  That alone undermines the arguments against same sex relationships.  

"God and the Gay Christian" is very well researched, and the arguments are sound, one other thing I like is that Matthew gives his work a personal touch by telling how he and his family have been on a journey to better understand the Bible on this issue.  

I cannot say I have found anything I would disagree with in this book, and it's much more detailed and better argued than anything I have written so far!  My only criticism is that Matthew refers to John Boswell's work, which as I understand it has been undermined by scholars.  However, even ignoring that, this book builds a solid case in support of same-sex relationships.

If you are looking for a sound, Biblical study on what the Bible says about same-sex relationships - this is it! 

For someone who thinks the Bible condemns same-sex relationships, I would encourage you to read this book prayerfully and with an open mind.

Image: Google Images

Charismatic Christianity

Being open to the Holy Spirit
 is a vital part of being a Christian

I used to identify simply as an Evangelical Christian, but these days I am adding Charismatic to that description.  What does it mean to be Charismatic?

The Charismatic Movement goes back to Easter 1960 when an Episcopal priest related his Pentecostal experience to his congregation.  From there the movement exploded and is now a worldwide phenomenon. 

Charismatics believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today as well.  This comes from the Bible:

"A spiritual gift is given to each of us so we can help each other. To one person the Spirit gives the ability to give wise advice; to another the same Spirit gives a message of special knowledge. The same Spirit gives great faith to another, and to someone else the one Spirit gives the gift of healing. He gives one person the power to perform miracles, and another the ability to prophesy. He gives someone else the ability to discern whether a message is from the Spirit of God or from another spirit. Still another person is given the ability to speak in unknown languages, while another is given the ability to interpret what is being said. It is the one and only Spirit who distributes all these gifts. He alone decides which gift each person should have." (1 Corinthians 12:7-11)

There was a time when I believed that these gifts had ceased - mainly because I never saw them in the Churches I grew up in.  But I realised that this was the common experience of Christians in the first century. When I came back to Church after reconciling my faith and sexuality, I attended a Church which did believe the gifts were active today.  There I was able to meet people who had experienced the Holy Spirit directly.

In time I experienced this as well.

So, how are Charismatics different to Pentecostals?  The main difference is denomination.  Pentecostal Churches trace their history to the early 20th century whereas the Charismatic Renewal saw Charismatics remaining in their own Churches.  So a Charismatic Christian may be a Baptist, a Methodist, Roman Catholic, or an MCCer.  We share similar beliefs on the Holy Spirit, but retain our Christian traditions.  

Now that Easter is passed, we come to Pentecost in a few weeks.  Why not take time out to seek the Holy Spirit in your life?

Image: Google Images

Happy Easter!

Christ is risen - he is risen indeed!

Because Jesus rose from the dead we can have new life in Christ.  That means a fresh start with God, hope for the future, and eternal life with God.

If you would like that new start with Jesus, or if you would like to find out more - please click on the link above on becoming a Christian.  

Christianity or Islam?

Many people think that Islam and Christianity are just two ways of worshiping the same God.  Yahweh is Allah and Allah is Yahweh.  Is that true?

It is true that Arabic speaking Christians use the word "Allah" for God.  Simply because Allah just means "God".  If we have a man called John Smith, and I tell you that he is married with children you learn something about him.  If someone else tells you John Smith is single with no children, what would you conclude?

We see the same thing when we compare the Bible with the Qur'an.  

[Jesus asked] "why do you call it blasphemy when I say, ‘I am the Son of God’?" (John 10:36)

The Bible says, “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31).

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” :desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. (Surah 4:171)

And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, “Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah”? He will say: “Glory to thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I have not known what is in thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden.” (Surah 5:119) 

Jesus clearly says he is the Son of God, the Qur'an denies this.  Both cannot be true.  Notice also, that the claim is that Jesus asked us to worship his mother, which is not Biblical anyway.

So clearly Allah and Jesus are very different - they cannot be the same God.

Furthermore, a cursory reading of the New Testament shows Jesus was crucified, died and was raised from the dead.  The Qur'an denies this:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain". (Surah 4:157)

Ancient Jewish and Roman records also record the crucifixion of Jesus, which means the Qur'an stands in opposition to both the Bible and secular history.

Furthermore the Qur'an goes so far as to claim to confirm the Bible.

He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. (Surah 3:3)

So for the Qur'an to be true, the Bible must be true.  But if the Bible is true, the Qur'an cannot be true. Therefore, whichever way we look at it, Islam is a false religion.  

Image: Google Images

What does the Bible say about Hell?

Hell is a topic many are uncomfortable with.  I want to take a quick look at what the Bible says about hell and where many of our ideas come from.

Many of our ideas about hell come from the imagination of writers and artists from the middle ages, and look more like Dante's Inferno than the Bible itself.  Then the King James Bible used the one word, "hell" to translate several different Hebrew and Greek words.  Modern translations have corrected that problem, but the KJV's influence is still strong in the popular mindset.

"Sheol" and "Hades"
The Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek word Hades are roughly equivalent.  They simply mean "the grave", or place of rest following death.  It had two areas, which we see in Jesus parable in Luke 16:22-23 ESV.  Abraham's side and Hades were the same place, but separated.  It is not permanent since we know from Revelation 20:13 that death and Hades give up their dead for judgement.

"Gehenna"
Gehenna is the Greek word that should be translated as hell.  Historically it was a place, in fact it was the rubbish dump outside Jerusalem, and it was always burning.

Is hell a place of literal fire?  I don't think so because lots of images are used for hell - including gloomy pits of darkness (Jude 1:13; 2 Peter 2:4), which would not make sense if it's literal fire.  We see the same thing in Jesus' teachings.  He uses "fire" and "darkness" interchangeably in Matthew 8:12; Matthew 13:42, 50; Matthew 32:15.  The other interesting notion some people have is that people in hell are tortured, however the Bible uses the word "torment" instead (Revelation 14:11).  I think what Jesus and the Bible writers were trying to do was portray an image of a place you do not want to end up.

Revelation 20:14 describes death and Hades being thrown into the second death.  Remember that in the Bible death just means "separation".  The first death is physical, when your soul and body are separated.  The second death is separation from God.

So what is hell?  It's being separated from God for eternity.  It is not a good place to end up, which is why Jesus and the Apostles warned us against it.  Is is also why Jesus died to take our punishment, so that we could spend eternity with God instead.

Image: 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?