12/21/2018
Forget griping about the rain, it isn’t going away. We’ve lived through two floods and watched from a near distance two others. Perhaps those experiences cause some of the angst about the many days of rain here. But this is a mountain top! We can’t flood here, can we? Pretty sure we’re alright up here.
I’d like to explain something I see in a verse of Scripture which I believe is being misused. When reading, if in your mind you change a pronoun, you alter the intent of the writer to a great or lesser extent. That might be alright in conversational narratives like this one or if it is an obvious error. The King James Bible, however, should not be thought of as less than perfect narrative or a pronoun being used incorrectly. The verse is this: Phi. 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” When this verse is quoted what seems to happen is the quoter wants to be sure to give the Lord Jesus Christ the credit for one’s ability to “do all things,” and that is correct and admirable. However, the context begs the more perfect quotation.
What gets changed most often is “which” becomes “who” to the detriment of the verse. I know from several passages that Paul was always dependent on Christ for his strength, that isn’t the question. From verse 10 through verse 18 in this chapter, however, Paul is describing the reason he can get through the ills and the sufferings foisted upon him is that the knowledge that he can do all things through Christ is giving him strength. Of course! his strength comes from Christ, but it “strengtheneth” him because he knows it! Hence, the pronoun “which.” I hope I’ve made myself clear. In the past, some have thought I was trying to say his strength doesn’t come from the Lord. Not at all, I am acknowledging a greater truth brought about by the doctrinal position of Paul’s reliance on Christ. See the previous chapter, look at the phrasing of his hope in ch.3:8, “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord,” and verse 10, That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.”
I’m willing to discuss this further, but I will not change the word in the verse. (I’m just an old hardhead when it comes to my King James Bible and my reliance on it.)
One morning I’m going to be awake enough to write about why the King James Bible instead of any other. (Unless I start correctly that subject can get long.) There are really good books written by men much more adept than me which all defend the KJB as the word of God for English speaking people. Over the years, I’ve read and enjoyed many of them. If they write 200,300,400 pages to define the reasons for believing the KJB, how can I write an explanation in a two page blog? It will be simple, and when done, it should drive you to seek some fuller understanding of this most important topic and doctrine for yourself.
Oh, hey! I tell you what, let’s start it: Let’s just take one verse and look at it through as many translations of the bible as you can find in your house. Everyone get your shelf of bibles down and turn them all to Mark 1. Here’s what you’ll see: every version you look at will say in verse 2, some phrase that makes you see he’s quoting Isaiah, the prophet. Well, he does quote Isaiah. But, you see, he quotes two Old Testament verses back to back and Isaiah only wrote one of them. Now, if you were going to go study the context of the quotes, how long would it take you to find the non-Isaiah verse? You would get discouraged, say you can’t trust these words to always be correct, put aside bible study till later, or something like that. Now, look at the King James Bible—surely you have one somewhere—in Mark 1:2, Mark plainly wrote, “As it is written in the prophets…prophets!
The Holy Spirit inspired bible doesn’t make the Isaiah-thing mistake!
Incidently, any of the new versions which have notations and footnotes will say that Malachi said one of the verses. So, here’s the much worse mistake: why did the translators write the verse so that it looks as if Isaiah said both prophecies if they knew it was in error to do so?I’ll tell you why: because they were sold a bill of goods about the Greek version from which they were translating, they were told it was the best manuscripts. Well, not so in Mark 1:2, not so. More to come on why they “bought into” that manuscript.
Thanks for reading, the Elder