Jesus Hidden in the First Two Words of the Bible

October 31, 2017June 21, 2022 ~ Theologetics ~ 4 Comments

biblical_hebrew_modern_hebrew

****Warning: I am retracting my original stance regarding this blog (in a way). I first researched this concept almost 5 years ago and to this day, I still have found that the meanings of the Paleo-Hebrew letters can hold each of the meanings I outline in this blog, however, what I did not fully consider is how drawing meanings in such a vague way can be dangerous. Now, my stance has always been that Paleo-Hebrew letter meanings are certainly no way to derive new secrets or meanings from verses in the Bible. To me it seemed characteristic of our Omniscient God that His purpose and fingerprints could be seen even in the ancient letters used by His chosen people; the Jews. I thought this only because those meanings can already be seen clearly in the text and they only serve to confirm what God already made clear in Scripture. The problem with this, that I see now, is twofold; first, that the process of pulling the desired meanings from each letter requires one to do so inconsistently. So much so that while it is possible the meanings drawn could be true, it is simply too abstract to be evidence of a Messianic prophecy. The second problem is that if we grant this vague way of finding hidden meanings in the Bible, the same inconsistent process could be used by others to confirm almost any idea they want from the Bible. And if we promote this inconsistent process for confirming Christ as Messiah and as Creator, which is already made clear in Scripture, denying the process to be used to promote poor or bad theological ideas would be somewhat inconsistent.****

The claim: The first two words in Genesis act very much like a Messianic Prophecy, so the story of Jesus as Creator and Savior is outlined in just two words which happen to be the first two words in the Bible!

There have been several videos on YouTube and various people who teach about this hidden meaning of the first two words in Genesis (and other words in Scripture). This is a brief blog about my personal research into this claim that the first two words, in their ancient language form, are actually a shadow of Jesus.

This claim is that in ancient Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew) there is an idiographic or pictographic meaning assigned to each letter of the alphabet. These are symbols that depict an idea and because of this, the idea of Jesus as Creator and Savior can be seen in the words themselves. Now, I am no Hebraist so I did some research online from various sources to see if the claim about the first two words in the Bible really did hold up and as far as I can tell (and to my surprise), the claim is true (but with a very important caveat; the process used to come to this conclusion is not consistent and is very vague). Since it’s not a perfect science where hermetically you could apply the same rules to all Biblical texts, this idea at best might be said to be used as a shadow of Christ (in my opinion) but as mentioned in the warning above, this is too abstract a process to be good evidence for that.

A few things to keep in mind; Hebrew reads from right to left in case anyone looks this up themselves (which I encourage everyone to do with all claims like these) so don’t let this confuse you. Also, when translated from the Hebrew to English the first verse in Genesis reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” While this is accurate for the English sentence structure, the proper reading of the verse in the original Hebrew would be “In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth.” So here is a breakdown of the first two words in Genesis;

The 1st word Barasheet translated as “In the beginning”
The letters in order are: Beyt Resh Aleph Shin Yud Tav
Beyt + Resh together form the word Bar meaning “Son of” (in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is Ben)
Aleph = Ox head meaning Power, Authority, Strength; said to be used by the Hebrews to represent “God”
Shin = Two front teeth meaning Sharp, Press, Eat… (the function of the teeth when chewing; consume/destroy)
Yud = Arm meaning work, make and deed; the functions of the hand
Tav = Crossed Sticks meaning Mark, Sign, Signal, Monument

So the first word in the Bible, in the beginning, holds this idea (according to the claim);
The Son of God (will be) destroyed (by His own) work on a cross. Even from the beginning, the Son of God was to die on a cross for us by His own hand to save us from our sins.

Also, the 2nd word Bara translated as “Created”
The letters in order are: Beyt Resh Aleph
Beyt + Resh together form the word Bar meaning “Son of” (again, in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is Ben)
Aleph = Ox head meaning Power, Authority, Strength; said to be used by the Hebrews to represent “God”

The second word in the Bible, “created,” (according to the claim) pictographically means Son of God, so as Scripture plainly tells us (John 1:1-3), it can also be seen in the word “created” itself that Jesus was the one who created us; everything that was created was created by Jesus, the Son of God.

So even though this way of deriving hidden meaning from the text may be too abstract to be a type of shadow of Christ or a Messianic prophecy, there are many other shadows of Christ and Messianic prophecies which are hermeneutically sound. If you would like to know more about Jesus and how to know Him personally, please email us at Theologetics3.15@gmail.com

A few things of note; Beyt alone = house or tent as well as family
Resh alone = head meaning man, chief, top, beginning and first, each of which are the “head” of something
Shin can basically mean “the function of the teeth when chewing” and other sources say “to destroy” which is what the teeth do to food. Yud basically means functions of the hand which could be understood as “by His hand”. And Tav which amazingly looks like the cross and can mean “sign”, “mark” and other online sources say “covenant” so this process is taking the letter itself as a literal sign of the cross.

*Disclaimer: Some Christian organizations teach that Paleo-Hebrew meanings are completely unrelated to the Hebrew language and that it can be dangerous to try to derive meaning from Scripture in this way– and as stated in the warning at the beginning of this blog, this can be true. But I will say I was never condoning or promoting some new secret way to interpret Scripture. I’m not saying this is hermeneutically sound when applied to all words in the Bible, just that it is at the very least, interesting how some key words appear to hold shadows of Christ in their original pictographic form and that it should not be surprising to find that given an almighty, all-knowing God planned Jesus coming to earth from the very beginning, even though it would not have been known to man. With that said, it is my stance now that this process is too inconsistent to be of much help apologetically and at worst opens a door for those who seek to promote non-biblical theologies.

Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

https://youtu.be/W2-o0WI_qz8
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_beyt.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_resh.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_aleph.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_shin.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_yud.html
http://www.ancient–hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_tav.html

ancient-letters

The 2nd Hidden “Verse” about Jesus in Genesis

August 9, 2017October 5, 2017 ~ Theologetics ~ Leave a comment

Descent-from-the-Cross — *Rembrandt, The Descent from the Cross: the Second Plate,* Date
1633

It is incredible to think, that the God who created the entire universe by speaking it into being, would love us and want to know each one of us on a personal level. And that this same God inspired various imperfect people from all walks of life to write about his love for us in a collection of ancient manuscripts we call the Bible. But it’s not only that his love was written about and revealed to us but when you dig into the original languages the Bible was written in, you can see the story of Jesus thousands of years before he was even born hidden in unique ways.

It is more apparent to me today than it has ever been that God is incredibly multi-faceted, so much more than 3-dimensionally and I feel like the more I learn about the Bible the more this can be clearly seen. One example of this is a previous blog we wrote that talks about the hidden “verse” about Jesus in Genesis 5 which outlines the various definitions of the names of the line of Adam to Noah which reads much like a Messianic prophecy. This blog is similar in that it outlines various definitions of the names of the twelve sons of Jacob which has another amazing resemblance to the story of Jesus. I was first made aware of this from something someone else posted on social media.

Lets begin…

Genesis 29:31-35, 30:1-24, and 35:16-18 describes the 12 sons of Jacob who would become the fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. The following are a list of the 12 sons in order of birth with meanings of each name listed next to it;

1 Reuben – Behold A Son, Son Of Vision, Son Who’s Seen
2 Simeon – Hearing, He Who Hears, Man Of Hearing, Hearing With Acceptance
3 Levi – Joined, Adhesion
4 Judah – Let Him (God) Be Praised, Praised
5 Dan – Judge, Judging
6 Naphtali – My Wrestling
7 Gad – Good Fortune, Harrowing Fortune
8 Asher – Happy, (happiness, to be right in the eyes of someone, to obtain this person’s approval)
9 Issachar – Man Of Hire, He Is Wages, There Is Recompense
10 Zebulun – Glorious Dwelling Place, a rather reserved Dwelling, Wished-For Habitation
11 Joseph – Increaser, Repeater or Doubler, May He (Yahweh) Add, He Shall Add, He Adds, Increases, May God Add
12 Benjamin – Son (building block) Of The Right Hand (of God)

Each name has multiple meanings and even different roots. Taking into consideration that some of the names clearly describe God and others describe man, one translation of each of the twelve names, one name after the other, reads in this way:

“Behold a son who hears with acceptance, joined to (us), let Him be praised. A judge of my wrestling bringing good fortune to obtain His approval. He is wages (for) a glorious and reserved dwelling place. He shall add (us) son(s) of his right hand.”

Now, Hebrew to English is a little rough to begin with but the main idea is pretty clearly seen even without the added pronouns and conjunctions to aid in connecting the words. This isn’t to say these are the only meanings of the names, some may not even be the primary meanings but it’s amazing that God had Jacob give his children names that could be translated in a way that shows the story of Jesus coming to offer salvation to the world!

Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

Defending the Unborn

February 19, 2017January 18, 2018 ~ Theologetics ~ 2 Comments

Leonardo da Vinci’s sketching of an unborn baby, circa 1512

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves… -Proverbs 31:8

At the time of this writing, since the American legalization of abortion, 59.8 million human beings have been aborted in their mother’s wombs in the U.S. That number worldwide, since 1980, is close to 1.5 billion. Almost 30 years after America helped fight a war that ended the Jewish Holocaust, our country hypocritically legislated that some of the most vulnerable among us can be killed on a whim.

As an apologetics ministry…as Christians period, we must speak out in defense of those who cannot speak for themselves. The Constitution of the United States of America proclaims “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness…” Meaning it’s obvious that God has given us certain rights that cannot be taken away. A chance at life being one of them.

The Bible says we are all created in the imago Dei (image of God). Genesis 1:26-27

Secular humanism says that morality comes from considering what’s best for the human species. How is killing our unborn best for the human species?

While the abortion debate has raged on for decades, it will continue as long as caring people speak out against injustices done to the innocent. Here I intend to provide some arguments against abortion. While, I know this is one pro-life blog out of thousands, maybe millions, we can’t keep quiet on the issue. If these words help save even one life then it is worth it.

Perhaps the most common argument pro-choice advocates use is that the child in the womb is not a person but merely a clump of cells. A zygote. A fetus. “Personhood” is what’s at stake. Does abortion just terminate a growing group of human cells like removing a skin tag? Or is it the termination of a human being?

S.L.E.D.(pro-life argument)
This argument outlines the only 4 differences between a baby inside and outside the womb.
Size– Does the size of a person determine personhood? Is an infant less of a person than the tallest person? Of course not. Therefore size shouldn’t matter in the case of the fetus. Why is it different than any other “human cells”? Because given the chance it will grow into a full grown adult human.
Level of Dependency– Just because the fetus depends on his mother for life, does that make his life any less valuable? Does that exclude personhood from him? What of the newborn that must still depend on others for life? What of the severly disabled or elderly that depend on others to sustain life? Are they persons? They are all people.
Environment- How does changing from one location to another determine personhood? Especially since the change of location is literally a matter of inches.
Development– Pro-choice advocates argue that it’s not a child, but it has the potential to be a child. Yeah. And the newborn has the potential to be an adult. Is the newborn that can’t sit up on his own less of a person than the crawling toddler? Is the toddler that can barely form words less of a person than the greatest orator? Is a prepubescent child less of a person than an adult? None of this matters in determining whether a person is a human being. Most of us would consider it self-evident that they are all people. Logic states the same is true for the unborn child.

TROTTING OUT THE TODDLER (pro-life argument)
Many can understand the same rationale used for abortion can be applied to the toddler. Any argument the pro-abortionist uses must be taken to it’s logical conclusion. If it is OK for the unborn then is it OK to do to the toddler? Most would argue no. If not, then why is it logical to do to the unborn?

WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE NOT MEN’S ARGUMENTS (pro-choice argument)
Answer: It goes without saying that the child grows in the woman’s body. It is the woman’s body that nourishes the baby growing inside her. So it’s often argued that it’s the women’s rights that are being infringed upon by pro-lifers. And since men cannot carry babies or understand firsthand what childbearing entails, then we as men have no right saying what a woman should do with her body.
This has only a bit of truth to it. A woman does have the right to do with her body as she chooses. But even that has limits. Heroin use is illegal. Driving without a seat-belt is illegal. However, when a woman is pregnant, then the conversation is no longer about one person’s right or one person’s body. Its about the other person growing inside her having a chance at life. And anyone, male or female, understands living and has the inherent right to that chance. It doesn’t take a special gender to speak out in defense of someone’s life.

WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER IS IN DANGER BECAUSE OF CHILDBEARING? (pro-choice argument)
Answer: An ectopic pregnancy is the occasion in which the fertilized egg did not complete the journey to the uterus but instead implanted in the fallopian tube. The fetus cannot grow if not implanted to the wall of the uterus and if it stays in the fallopian tube it can be seriously detrimental to the mother. Ectopic pregnancies cause 40 deaths a year in the US. However, pregnancy terminations due for reason of the health of the mother only account for .1% of all abortions. Some places don’t even consider the termination of an ectopic pregnancy as an abortion. Also, there have been medical records of a successful transplant of the fertilized egg from the fallopian tube into the uterus which is another option instead of termination discussed in one of our papers HERE. Either way, stopping the growth of a child in a place that would likely kill both the child and the mother is different then intentionally taking the life of a growing child in the womb.

WHAT ABOUT RAPE OR INCEST? (pro-choice argument)
Answer: Rape and incest are horrendous acts. The victim should be treated with care and compassion. Any women who are victimized by these crimes have gone through traumatizing experiences. And the perpetrators of these crimes should be held criminally accountable for their actions.
While I can’t put myself in the shoes of a woman who has become pregnant due to rape or incest, it is a fact that the child (who also didn’t ask for this) should not have the death sentence placed upon him or her because of it. Two wrongs do not make a right. Aslo, there is evidence that many women who have gone through the termination of a pregnancy due to rape report regret for taking the life of the unborn baby and would not recommend abortion to other women in their situation.

Kathleen Dezeeuw, who gave birth to a child conceived in rape said “I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child ‘conceived in rape’, feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we’re being used to further the abortion issue, even though we’ve not been asked to tell our side of the story.” And, “I am not sorry, nor ever will be, that I kept and raised my son. The life I tried to snuff out was the very tool that was used to bring me to a place where I could forgive those involved in what happened to me. God truly did work it out….”

NO ONE KNOWS IF IT’S A PERSON (pro-choice argument)
Answer: Does using a condom cause abortion to the sperm, as some pro-choicers have argued? No. No matter how much a sperm is nurtured, it will stay a sperm until it dies. The same goes for the unfertilized egg. When a woman has her monthly cycle the unused egg is voided from her body. But it would always remain just an egg. But when the sperm and egg come together, they have together made a tiny human being that will grow into a bigger human being. It doesn’t matter if it senses it’s surroundings or its own existence. It doesn’t matter if it can feel pain. There are plenty of older people that many of us may know that lack some of the basic sensory perceptions that most of us take for granted. That doesn’t make them any less human than the rest of us. Even if we don’t know it’s a human being does that mean we shouldn’t error on the side of caution. If I’m going to demolish a building would me saying I don’t know if anyone is inside be any reason to go ahead and knock it down? If I’m driving at night and see a pile of clothes in the road that could be a person, should I just drive through it?

“There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.” Dr. Bernard Nathanson, ex-abortion doctor and former director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, The Hand Of God, Regnery Publishing, 1996, p.131.

ABORTIONS OCCUR NATURALLY (MISCARRIAGES) (pro-choice argument)
Answer: It’s illogical to place miscarriages and abortions in the same moral category. One is happenstance of nature and the other is caused by man. No one is held morally responsible for naturally occurring miscarriages, nor should they be.

ABORTION IS LEGAL (pro-choice argument)
Answer: What’s lawful and what’s moral are not always congruent. Slavery was once lawful in our country. That didn’t make it moral.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (pro-choice argument)
Answer: Why is defending human life a religious only argument? It’s probably a safe bet that even the most secular modern civilized society has laws against killing. No religion has to be brought into the conversation. Anti-abortion advocates don’t just come from the “religious right”. There is even a pro-life movement for the non-religious. However, of it take those of us that believe man has intrinsic worth – that human beings were created with purpose. If it takes believing that God, the Creator of the universe, cares enough for the well-being of people, to speak out against atrocities done mostly in the name in inconvenience, then so be it. Legislation has already deemed it illegal to do violence against another human being. It should be consistent and include the unborn as well.

Facts about the unborn and abortion:

With our current medical technology, just 21 weeks after conception, babies can survive outside the womb.
9 weeks after conception, all the baby’s structures that are necessary for pain sensation are functioning.
A baby’s brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks from conception.
62.7% of abortions occur after 6 weeks.
21 days from conception, the baby is making and pumping her own blood through a closed circulatory system but the baby’s heart first began to beat at just 18 days.
The baby’s genetic makeup which includes gender, physical characteristics, facial features, body type, hair color, eye color, skin tone, etc. are determined at the moment of conception.

Derrick Stokes with input from Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

Homosexuality from Multiple Perspectives

July 12, 2016October 6, 2017 ~ Theologetics ~ Leave a comment

Destruction of Sodom — The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain (Lot and his daughters running for cover in foreground. Mezzotint with etching, c.1830s.) ~ by James G S Lucas

So the LGBTQ movement is something that is becoming more and more common and personally affects Christians more than ever before, quite clearly because of the acceptance of the movement in mainstream media.

I have recently wrote about the importance of loving everyone regardless of their race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, etc. which can be found HERE but the definition of what that love looks like is very much debated among Christians and everyone else.

As such, I thought it may be helpful for some Christian’s and non-Christians alike for us to outline what we believe at Theologetics.org and why we believe it.

Let’s start by looking at what is at stake. For someone who identifies as being gay or a lesbian, if Christians take a stance against same-sex attraction and these Christians are wrong about it being a sin, the individuals that embrace same-sex attraction will rightly feel ostracized and hurt because what they are identifying as is the same thing many Christians would wrongly be calling a sin. But if Christians stand against homosexuality because it really is something that is wrong, something God condemns, and something that is a hurtful lifestyle, then Christians that lovingly condemn the sin are showing true love to the sinner.

As Christians, it is important for us to realize how deep this goes, many if not all people that embrace same-sex attraction are not just lightly making the decision one day to like the same sex, they had been feeling an attraction for a long time.

Lets take a brief look at the attraction itself. Often it is believed this attraction is something people are born with. While there is not much evidence for that stance, the truth is it really doesn’t matter from a Christian perspective. Some people are born with a disposition for the abuse of alcohol or drugs but that doesn’t make that desire healthy or right. So I would caution Christians or secularists that take a side of the issue using the logic that it is or is not in the genes since the Bible clearly states that we all have sinned and have a sin nature, so genes are not a good measuring stick for this issue or any other for that matter.

So to the Christians reading this I say please be kind, gentle, loving and patient when dealing with this issue as those who are lost need to see Jesus in you more often than hearing about what the Bible says is wrong. Remember, “A gentle answer deflects anger, but harsh words make tempers flare.” Proverbs 15:1

So now, let’s take a quick look at the Bible.

The Bible doesn’t address the issue of homosexuality much but when it does it is clearly condemned as being sin. For the purpose of keeping this blog short I won’t go into the meanings of the verses about homosexuality but for someone that questions what the Bible really says about it being sin, you can find some information on it HERE. Basically there are several ways the Bible is read and how it is read depends on the reader.

In my opinion, the four basic types of Bible readers are:
1. Non-Christians
2. Cultural Christians
3. Non-Fundamentalist Christians
4. Fundamentalist Christians

Non-Christians consider the Bible to be either just another book of many, that it is out-dated or maybe even that it is a bad book. They may believe it has some good ideas or no good ideas but definitely not a book that has any authority over how people should live their lives. As these beliefs are unfounded, it would take at least another separate blog to begin to explain the reasons why but some information about the authority of Scripture can be found as a PDF HERE.

In reality, a Cultural Christian is someone that really follows culture over the Bible regardless if it aligns with the Bible or not. They don’t really read the Bible that often and usually don’t care to either. They may consider themselves a Christian because their parents are Christian, or they were baptized as a child, or something to that effect. A Cultural Christian says one thing and does something else. This is hypocrisy. It is illogical to say you believe something or identify as something but live as though you do not. In reality, many Christians have areas in their lives that they may say they believe what the Bible says but live as though they do not believe it. All who say they follow Christ should examine their hearts in any area of life and truly compare it with what the Bible says regarding that area.

Non-Fundamentalist Christians are among varying denominations and individuals that generally don’t believe in the complete authority of the Bible. They may believe that the Bible is either only partly inspired by God or not at all, or that the inspired word of God has been changed and not to be taken literally today. Similar to Cultural Christians, a Non-Fundamentalist’s belief is also illogical, let me explain.

If I were to believe the Bible is only partially inspired by God, and that some of it are men’s ideas added in, I would have no way of knowing what to really believe is true or not and thus, it would not make sense to put any faith in the Bible at all. The same logic applies if I were to believe the Bible were originally 100% God’s inspired words but that it has since been changed.

Similarly, if I were to believe the Bible was written completely by men, not inspired by God at all, it would have no authority and would just be another book among millions, so calling myself a Christian would really be pointless as all other ideas, religions, and philosophies would have equal merit and truth. (That’s not to say other non-Christian sources of information don not have some truth to them, just that the Bible is the only ancient manuscript that can be shown to be without error in it’s original manuscripts, and divinely inspired with hundreds of fulfilled prophecies. Again, some information about the authority of Scripture can be found as a PDF HERE and other good places to start would be books by Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias, C.S. Lewis, and Dan Story)

Which leads to the last type of Bible reader; the Fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalist Christians believe the Bible is completely inspired by God. They look at context when interpreting the Bible and take it to be literal when the language is not poetic or allegorical. If you claim to be a Christian, this is the most logical way to read the Bible. If you are not a Christian, there are many reasons why you should look into what the Bible really says, specifically about Jesus, and the historical, archeological, theological, and simply logical reasons why the Bible is the inspired Word of God which any of the previously mentioned links and authors are great places to start.

So, if the Bible is completely inspired by God (which the evidence is well in favor of it being so) and the passages that discuss homosexuality are examined in context and taken literally (the most logical way to read and interpret the Bible), homosexuality is clearly found to be a sin.

Anytime anyone chooses sin, they are saying to God that they want to do things their way instead of God’s way. Anytime we try and do things our way leads to pain, sickness, destruction, and death. Being a sin, homosexuality is destructive to those who practice it and thus, the most loving thing Christians can do is lovingly stand against the sin while being loving and like Christ to those who embrace same-sex attraction. This is our stance. I hope this was helpful for those who read it, at least in understanding where many Christians and Christian organizations are coming from when they say they will not compromise on Scripture when it comes to these specific issues of homosexuality.

By Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

So You Have Gay Friends and Think You Are a Christian?

June 26, 2016October 6, 2017 ~ Theologetics ~ 2 Comments

Jesus and Peter — Treasures of the Bible (Jesus’ Ministry) — Jesus, Walking on the Water, Rescues Peter

A friend of mine recently couldn’t find his youngest boy. He and his wife looked all over their house and once they realized he really wasn’t there, they called the police. This father assumed (and hoped) his son went to a friend’s house without telling them and he planned on yelling at his son and even spanking him on the spot for wandering off when he found him. After an hour of scouring the neighborhood, an hour that felt like an eternity, he finally found him at a neighbor’s house. But in that moment, he couldn’t yell, he couldn’t spank his son like he planned on doing, all he could do was hold him in his arms because he was safe.

He said that he got just a small glimpse of what God feels when one of his lost children is found. That he was shocked that he didn’t react the way he had planned and that his heart was so full of gratitude that the only thing that came out of him was love for his lost son.

Jesus came to this earth to get back what was most precious to God; his lost children.

“his lost children”

But who are his lost children? Who are the ones that are SO precious to God that he would send his only begotten Son to die a horrific death in OUR place just to reconcile us, to save us? Who are the ones that have God’s love, his affection, his heart?

The answer… We ALL are!

Every.

Last.

One of us.

It doesn’t matter what you have done. God loves you. It doesn’t matter what mistakes you have made. God wants you. Not everyone will accept this gift and many will choose to live eternally apart from God and stay lost but regardless, God loves all of us!

So when some in the body of Christ elevate certain sins over others, namely homosexuality, and don’t reach out to those individuals in love because of that sin, they are not only making a mistake but committing sins (plural) themselves.

The sin of hypocrisy. The sin of arrogance. The sin of selfishness…

So if you have gay friends and think you are a Christian, you are truly living like Christ. If you are trying to be a light to those who are lost, you are living the way Christ called all of us to live. We are called to be in the world and not of it. I think the Church focuses on the second half of that verse a little too much sometimes, “not of it.”

Sometimes while trying not to be of the world we forget to be in it.

Don’t get me wrong, we cannot condone sin in any form. Being gay is clearly a sin and should not be celebrated (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-28). But those who struggle in that area should be loved, should be befriended and shown that they are important to God. Let them see God in you, not God’s judgment through you, after all, there is not one of us who does not struggle in some area. As I see it, Jesus treated the lost this way, never condoning sin but always loving the sinner. He was the most critical of the religious of His time; the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the religious leaders… Jesus called them “white-washed tombs” (Matthew 23:27) meaning they were hypocrites, self-centered and missing the point of true love. They focused on the law too much and did not love people.

The law is important but it never supersedes God’s love. Love fulfills the law. Like many things in life, you cannot have one or the other, there needs to be a balance of the two. But it seems to me more and more “Christians” in our day are known by the law, not by the love. Again, not to say one replaces the other, just that Jesus was known by His love and I really believe we should too.

So while some celebrate the LGBTQ community and others treat them like they are committing the unforgivable sin, we should open our arms, our hearts, and our homes to EVERYONE in love to show them that they are cherished by us and subsequently, by God. Just maybe that will make the difference in their lives and help open their eyes.

By Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

Go and Make Disciples, Not Just Converts

April 14, 2016October 6, 2017 ~ Theologetics ~ 1 Comment

Farewell Discourse from the Maesta by Duccio (1308-1311)

At any given Sunday service, youth retreat, children’s church, Christian concert, etc, there is typically what is known in American Christianity as an “altar call.” It is usually an invitation of those who want to make Jesus Christ their personal Lord and Savior and those who already are Christians but want to rededicate their lives to Him. Some attribute the popularity of alter calls to Billy Graham and his popular crusades. While there is no direct biblical reference to alter calls, I cannot speak negatively of them. Many have come to Christ by the way of altar calls.

I want to talk about what happens after the altar call. I think we falter when we see altar calls as a litmus test of how well a ministry or sermon or gathering is going. We like seeing crowds come to the front. We like knowing that (x) amount of people filled out commitment cards. But there is a danger of a false sense of accomplishment here.

How many of these decisions to come forward were caused by family or peer pressure? How many of these decisions to come forward were based on emotions being drawn by the worship leader? What happens after the music stops? Are these conversions genuine? I’m sure millions are. But, who seeks to pour into spiritual growth afterwards?

In what is known as The Great Commission found in Matthew chapter 28, Jesus commands “Go and make disciples of all nations…” While making converts is vital to the growth of the Church, there has to be a continuous maturing of the believer after that. Otherwise you’re left with large amounts of spiritual infants who, often by no fault of their own, haven’t moved from milk to meat. They were simply a face in a crowd. While the angels were rejoicing at their salvation the elders bragged about the number of hands that were raised.

If a man has been working at a job for 20 years and showed very little knowledge or skill in his work, you might believe something to be very wrong, either with him or the training program. If a man is a Christian for 20 years and can’t name something elementary like the four Gospels and shows very little spiritual fruit, we should be wondering what went wrong. He is spiritually a 20 year old infant.

Wikipedia defines a disciple as a “student”. Merriam Webster defines a disciple as “someone who accepts and helps to spread the teachings of a famous person.” In traditional Chinese, the disciple was a person “who believes in the ideas and principles of someone famous and tries to live the way they do or did.” In the original Greek of Matthew 28, disciple (didaskalos) is a pupil of a master or teacher. The root Latin word that we get disciple from (discipulus) actually means “scholar”.

As we can see the meaning of disciple is far from someone who stays in spiritual infancy. A disciple should be steadily growing in knowledge and holiness. While the Holy Spirit has His part to play, so do other believers. When Jesus called out Lazarus from the dead, he left it up to his family and friends to make sure he didn’t stay in his grave clothes. In other words when we are saved from our spiritually dead selves, it is the responsibility of those who have been waiting and praying over us to help us look like the spiritually awake individuals that we become. This is one reason being an active member of local church is so vital.

I know of many churches that don’t just leave the new believer alone after their conversion. Many send mail, call, or even visit to help ensure the believer is growing. Many churches have discipleship programs where the new believer or even the 20 year old infant can learn to grow in Christ. There are missionaries who don’t just leave the people they find with a new faith but actually ensure the natives they converted learn and grow to become new pastors and teachers. These are the churches and believers that are fulfilling Jesus’ mandate to make disciples.

If you are a new believer or believer who realizes that you haven’t been growing since you got saved, then my advice is to surround yourself with believers who are maturing spiritually. Find a church that encourages Bible reading and group study. And make the time often to study for yourself.

Helping believers grow in knowledge is one of our goals here at Theologetics.org. Every believer must also mature in spiritual fruit. It is our prayer that reading this will cause us to evaluate ourselves and motivate growth in both aspects of your Christian walk.

Applicable verses:
Matthew 28:19
Hosea 4:6
Psalm 1:1-3
2 Peter 1:5-6
2 Peter 3:18
2 Corinthians 13:5
Colossians 1:10
Ephesians 4:15
Galatians 5:22-23
Titus 2:1-8
Hebrews 5:12

Derrick Stokes
Theologetics.org

What Believing in Evolution Actually Means

February 14, 2016October 6, 2017 ~ Theologetics ~ 5 Comments

Earth — The geocentric model according to the Bible of Martin Luther.

There is no denying it, micro-evolution exists, although the term itself is quite misleading. Micro-evolution is a term that is commonly used to describe adaptation within a species to help them survive. These adaptations never result in a new species, there is not even one piece of observable scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. Adaptations always result in the same or less information within that species DNA code and for macro-evolution to occur would require new information which simply does not happen.

This blog is not meant to be about the absurdities of macro-evolution. There are great resources out there that go in to much detail about micro and macro-evolution from a Biblical standpoint (Mike Riddle and Answers in Genesis are two resources that immediately come to mind but there are many more). This blog is about what it means for a Christian to believe in macro-evolution (which I will simply call evolution from here on out). So it is my hope that if you have read this far, you will find this helpful and not hurtful.

For a Christian to believe in millions of years of evolution means:

1. The authority of scripture is compromised since the writing style of Genesis is “historical narrative” and not poetry:

The normal order for a Hebrew narrative sentence is:
Conjunction–Verb–Subject–Object.

The order in poetic writing is:
Subject–Verb–Object

The style of writing of Genesis 1 is historical, using the waw-consecutive to express consecutive action (waw = and).

http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html

So for example, if I were to choose to believe that the creation account is not really a literal six day event as recorded in Genesis but a figurative allegorical story, that would be similar to me believing Jesus was not really a literal man but a figurative fictional character. It would be one thing if Genesis were written as poetry but the fact is, it was not. If I were to treat it like it is poetry and not literal, what stops me from doing the same thing with the rest of the Bible?

2. To believe in evolution means man wasn’t made distinct from the animals as recorded in Genesis but is an animal.

“Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.””
Genesis 1:26

“then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”
Genesis 2:7

The Bible teaches that God made us unique, that there was a distinct moment where we were created in God’s image. Not slowly becoming more human, and thus, more like God over millions of years.

3. To believe in evolution means Eve would not have been made as a help-mate for Adam from his rib.

“20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:20-22

Again, the Bible lays it out clearly, man was literally alone and God took part of Adam to provide a suitable mate for him since no creature that already existed was fit to fill that void.

4. To believe in evolution means thorns, disease, and death would have existed before Adam and Eve since fossils (supposedly existing millions of years before Adam and Eve) show thorns, disease, and death; all of which should have only happened after Adam and Eve sinned.

“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”
Genesis 1:31

“16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.””
Genesis 2:16-17

“17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.”
Genesis 3:17-18

Using faulty dating methods, the fossil record is believed to show death and disease existing way before Adam and Eve would have existed. But in Luke 3:23-38 it shows Jesus’s bloodline all the way back to Adam who is portrayed as a literal man. This bloodline places Adam roughly 6,000 years ago. If Adam existed 6,000 years ago but we have fossils supposedly hundreds of thousands to millions of years old that show thorns, disease, and the death of humans and animals, then the Bible would simply be wrong. There is no combining evolution and the Bible, there are logical and scientific ways to show that the Biblical account of creation is the most likely and that the scientific assumptions and dating methods currently used today are false.

5. If humans merely evolved instead of being created the way the Bible says we were, that means God used death to create us and it had nothing to do with Adam and Eve’s sin which seems to negate our need for a savior.

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–”
Romans 5:12

I know there are Christians out there; sincere, God-fearing, and Jesus-loving Christians, who hold to the belief that God used evolution to create us. Aside from a lack of true evidence, it seems to me that it is a serious compromise of the authority of Scripture to hold such a view. I hope this blog has given food for thought to any Christian with a theistic-evolution viewpoint or any Christian who hasn’t really considered how to reconcile evolution and the Bible. I do not mean to try and condemn anyone, only to point out what seems like the logical conclusions of a theistic-evolution worldview.

By Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

Thoughts, Prayers, Amens and Lies

December 23, 2015October 6, 2017 ~ Theologetics ~ Leave a comment

Praying-Child — Jacques Hnizdovsky (1915-1985) Praying Child Notecard

I had a discussion about prayer with a few individuals online that brought up some interesting ideas, this is just part of that conversation. It all started when this statement was made:

Person A “Any of us who tweet or post “prayers” for people in tragedy and do not follow through on them are in sin. Any of us who merely tweet or post “thoughts” going out to people in tragedy are painfully mistaken. And any of us who broadly dismiss the honest prayers for people in tragedy are tragically blind to true power.”

Now this first statement seemed pretty straight forward to me and a rather truthful statement as well but the conversation that ensued brought up some interesting questions about prayer.

Person B “Just making the statement “you are in my prayers” requires the conscious thought in reference and affirmation [of] a higher power and if sincere IS in essence ……a prayer”

So as I see it, here is the “theory” being presented for lack of a better word;

A Christian’s thought is a prayer.

If someone has a prayer request and you say to them “You are in my prayers”, because you think it, agree with what they are saying, and have a relationship with God, because God knows your thoughts, you in essence just prayed. Let us continue…

Me “Person B, your statement is an interesting one, at first thought I’ll admit it sounded like a cop-out to actually taking the time to say a specific prayer but when I thought about it, I’m wondering if there could be a little something to that statement…”

Person A “Not sure that I agree with that person B. Tacitly referring to a higher power and affirming the existence of a higher power is not in essence communicating with that higher power. Prayer is directed to God. Telling someone “you are in my prayers” is directed toward that person. Also, what is the content of this “prayer” when you say “you are in my prayers”? It seems rather vacuous. In other words, when you say “you are in my prayers”, what are you actually praying for or about on behalf of that person?”

Person B “If a person is in your thoughts even and you have a personal relationship with God – any conscious thought of that person while thinking of God would be as sincere and direct a petition to God as any plastic prayer one could muster.

One could go to church and pray every prayer in the book standing or kneeling or arms raised….it matters not.

I would say the almighty needs not for you to do that. Your own relationship with God and your conscious and heartfelt sincere thought is enough. …”

Person A “…When you say “my prayers are with you,” there is no specific petition attached to that, and that is directed at the person and not to God. Prayers can be communicated all sorts of ways, but there must actually be a communication, which implies specific content. So, I’m not sure in what sense simply saying it makes it true…”

So, what is being presented now is that saying you will pray for someone is not a prayer because prayer is a conversation between you and God, but that conversation has not happened yet when you simply tell someone you will pray for them. A valid point.

Person B “Do you believe God knows your intent? God has grasp of your conscience? God is aware of your conscious and subconscious? That God knows exactly what you are thinking?”

Person A “If you do not actually pray, did you have intent to pray?”

Person B “I agree that if you say that (with intent to pray) and never pray- you’re right (right about not praying being a sin). However if you have a conscious contact with God- and you tell someone you will keep them in your prayers- God can take it from there- you just prayed.”

Me “The one point that has not been specifically brought up is that the Bible, and Jesus Himself, commands us to pray specific prayers beyond just agreeing with others needs. The agreement is basically the amen part of the prayer. I personally think that person B is onto something if the comment to someone’s request for prayer was “amen” because that implies “I hear your need, I agree with you and stand with you and believe God’s will will be done.” But if someone were to say “I’m praying” since the Bible is clear on what prayer is, that person should actually take the time to say a prayer.”

A few more things were said but one last statement stood out to me:

Person B “If God already knows your specific content whether it be verbalized or not- what need there be for an Amen. God already knows you are in agreement. God already knows if you’re NOT in agreement!!”

So one last point I would like to make is that by this logic, one could argue that prayer is not needed at all. If God knows all and is all powerful, then who are we to think that making requests to God in prayer will make any difference?

Well, the problem with this line of thinking is that, like I brought up in the conversation, the Bible and Jesus Himself commands us to pray. Prayer is for our benefit not Gods and is specifically defined. Prayer allows us to grow closer to God, and while God is unchanging by nature with His immutability and impassibility, we can change, so the outcome of a situation can change because we pray.

An example of this is in Genesis 6:6

“And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.“

Did God make a mistake in making men on the earth? Did he change his mind about his creation? If he was grieved in his heart, does that mean he has changing emotions the same way we have changing emotions?

No. No. And no.

The simple answer is that God does not change, we do. God is holy and we are not. When sin enters the picture, God must act, he is unchanging in this way. So the same principle can be applied to prayer. While we cannot change God’s mind, I believe prayer can move God to act in ways we cannot fully understand and no matter what, prayer lets us become more intimate with the one who made us, we can draw closer to him through our prayers. Who wouldn’t want that?

By Clark Campbell with quotes from a random online conversation
Theologetics.org

Option c: The Time-Salvation Paradox

December 14, 2015October 16, 2017 ~ Theologetics ~ 3 Comments

Calvin-and-Arminius — Portraits of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius

There is one aspect about God and our understanding of Him that I felt compelled to write about. This one area has divided Christians for centuries, and that is the subject of God’s sovereignty in relation to man’s free will.

Now, I know this is a topic which has been perpetually argued, but it is because of this fact that I had felt so passionate about the subject. I would love to end the debate, although I am not that naive to think that the argument I am about to outline could do so but it is my hope that it might possibly provide Christians who take a strong stance for Calvinism or Arminianism a more common ground and that is Option c.

To preface the argument, there are two reasons I think it is so important that Christians (notably Christian apologists) come to some agreement on the subject of God’s will and man’s will.

The first reason, is that when skeptics see how different Christians, churches, and denominations disagree and possibly even argue about God’s omnipotence, it builds a wall instead of providing a door.

The second reason, is that if the subject comes up when witnessing to someone who has doubts about how God’s will and man’s will can be understood, I feel taking a strong stance for Calvinism or Arminianism has the potential to hurt one’s witness, allow me to explain this:

For the Calvinist, “IF” he is wrong about the elect and we do have free will when it comes to choosing Christ, this can cause people to reject Christ when presented this view because they may feel their decision doesn’t matter when really it does (remember this is “IF” the Calvinist is wrong, similar reasoning is used in Pascal’s Wager).

On the other hand, a skeptic may argue against an Arminian’s views stating those views place God in a position of diminished authority, which causes logical inconsistencies with the Christian’s beliefs of God. So what I suggest is the third option which is my argument, so let’s examine Option c and what I like to call the Time-Salvation Paradox.

In my studies and thoughts about salvation, human will, and God’s transcendence, I have realized I was limiting God by thinking that what God has decreed is in the past. For example–when God chose the elect. And as it turns out, this is a very important detail with some surprising consequences. The idea occurred to me one day after reading this passage in the Bible:

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day
is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”
2 Peter 3:8

This is not a verse one typically sees referenced when God’s sovereignty and man’s free will is argued, but stick with me. The one conclusion that I have come to is that the only people who choose God are the ones He elects, but God only elects those who choose Him. This statement alone may not sound logical but the reasoning behind it however, I believe, makes all the difference.

Option-c-

If you take into account the fact that God did choose those He elected before the foundations of the earth, and since God exists outside of time, what has happened with God may not have happened yet with us. To say that it did would mean that God is subject to the same confines and laws of time as we are. Because God is outside of time, what has already happened, (i.e. His choosing the elect) can be said to have not yet happened until we choose God (illustrated in the symbol above).

What I like about this stance is that it focuses on what God can do instead of what God cannot do. Calvinism says that God cannot make man with free will because that would compromise His authority. Arminianism says that God cannot choose people unto salvation because that would compromise His love and justice. Option c says that God can do both of those things, the paradox, if it can even be called that, is understanding how.

Again, God exists outside of our laws of time and space, and thus, outside of our understanding. God’s “time” is not faster or slower than ours, it is nonexistent as He is the creator of it and not bound by it. This is a foundational Christian belief about God, so with that in mind…

A summary of the argument is as follows:

Time-Salvation-Paradox 1.36.13 AM

God is spirit and He is eternal. God exists outside of time.

Man is physical and he is temporal. Man exists inside of time.

Because God exists outside of the laws of time, a moment that has already happened to man could be said to be happening right now with God.

But because man is temporal, a moment that has happened inside of time has already happened and will not happen again with man.

Also, since God exists outside of time, a moment that has not yet happened to man could be said to have already happened with God.

Similarly, consider how God had chosen the elect outside of time before the foundations of the Earth were even set. (Eph 1:4)

Because man is temporal, a moment that has not yet happened inside of time has not yet happened with man. (1 Cor 7:18, 20, 22, & 24)

And because man exists inside of time, man has not yet been chosen inside of time until the moment he chooses God. (1 Tim 6:12 & 1 Pet 5:10)

So it can be demonstrated that people who do not choose God are personally responsible for their choice for eternity, while people who do choose God do so because they were called by God.

This is because everyone has a God given ability to choose God inside of time, while God has chosen the elect outside of time.

So, brothers and sisters, I hope at the very least this argument has brought you another way to look at God’s sovereignty in conjunction with man’s will. Whatever view you feel fits God’s Word and His character best, let it unify us as the Body of Christ. We are not labeled Calvinists, Arminians or a combination of the two; we are Christians, “Little Christs” saved and loved by God. Let our views bring us together for the sole purpose of glorifying God and spreading the Good News. As long as we are doing that, what else could possibly matter?

By Clark Campbell
This blog was written from multiple papers on our List of Theologetics Papers page posted here and here.

Omitted verses. Omitted message?

December 7, 2015March 2, 2018 ~ Theologetics ~ Leave a comment

One common objection to newer Bible translations like the NIV is that some verses appear to be missing. And when compared to the King James Bible, there are missing verses. One such list that I saw on social media stated the following verses were missing from modern translations.

Screenshot_2015-05-18-12-44-46

Now, my purpose here is not to argue if the verses are omitted in the original manuscripts or even why they are omitted in modern translations (Biblical scholars have agreed that newer translations have omitted many verses that the KJV included because older and more reliable manuscripts that have been found after the KJV was written do not have these verses. http://www.gotquestions.org/missing-verses.html). I also do not intend to recommend one version over another. My reason for writing is to dispute the claim that modern Bible translations purposefully omitted the messages these passages would have otherwise conveyed. In fact, often the same phrase is found and included elsewhere in the Bible.

So let’s put these verses to the test. For this blog I will be comparing the King James version to the New International version. The verses in italics are omitted from the NIV but included in the KJV. The bold verses are included in the NIV.

Luke 17:36 (omitted)
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Matthew 24:40 (included)
Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.

Luke 23:17 (omitted)
For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.
Matthew 27:15 (included)
Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd.
(Also included are Mark 15:6 and John 18:39)

Acts 8:37 (omitted)
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
(This verse is an area of contention because of the obvious Christian doctrine; particularly believing that Jesus is the Son of God. However:)
Romans 10:9 (included)
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
(Also included Acts 16:31, John 5:18, 1 John 4:15, 5:5) Jesus is also called “Son of God” numerous times in the NIV: Matt. 14:33, 16:16, 27:43, 22:54, Mark 1:1, 3:11, 15:39, Luke 1:32 & 35, John 1:49, 11:27, 19:7, Acts 9:20, Romans 1:4, 2 Cor. 1:19, 1 John 4:15, among many others.

Matthew 18:11 (omitted)
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Luke 19:10 (included)
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.

Matthew 23:14 (omitted)
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.
Luke 20:47 (included)
They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.
(Also Mark 12:40)

Mark 7:16 (omitted)
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
(A common phrase that’s included at Mark 4:9, 23; Matthew 11:15; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17; 3:6, 13, 22)

Mark 11:26 (omitted)
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Matthew 6:15 (included)
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
(Also Matthew 18:35)

Matthew 17:21 (omitted)
However this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting
(Mark also chronicles this account yet Mark says Jesus only mentioned prayer.)
Mark 9:29 (included)
He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”

Mark 15:28 (omitted)
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 22:37 (included)
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’…

Mark 9:44 and Mark 9:46 (both say the same thing and are omitted)
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:48 (included)
where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

Romans 16:24 (omitted)
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
2 Thessalonians 3:18 (included)
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
(Also similar phrasing in 2 Corinthians 13:14, Revelation 22:21, and Philippians 4:23)

And for good measure, a verse not on that original list:
Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
The underlined portion is missing in modern translations. Does that mean modern versions maliciously leave out the importance of Jesus’ blood? No. We find the same message (with Christ’s blood included) in other passages of newer translations.
Ephesians 1:7
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.
(Also Romans 3:25, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:19, Revelations 1:5)

The following verses were also included on the list but none of these verses change the message that writer was conveying if they are not included:

John 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Acts 15:34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there.
Acts 24:7 But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of your hands.
Acts 28:29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves

So, while some may hold a sense of allegiance to the KJV, the “missing” verses in other modern translations is due to evidence and archaeological discoveries which not only make the newer translations likely closer to the original manuscripts but it clearly doesn’t take away from theological meaning and message of Scripture! This is not to put down the KJV which is a great translation and has accomplished much for God’s kingdom but as believers, we must remember that God’s Word is perfect in it’s original form. There are good translations and there are better translations. Some versions convey certain passages better while others do a better job with other passages.

For information on picking out the best translation for you click here.

By Derrick Stokes and Clark Campbell
Theologetics.org

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: