Luke 18:10-14
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extotioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
We see this so often in this day in age, even in our church houses. Dress nice, carry the big Bible, say a prayer no one understands, and act as in a "Holier than thou" way. It is very easy to be judgmental and look at someone and say "well if I was them.... I wouldn't have done this and that and they don't read their Bible or they don't pray... etc." much like the Pharisee did in this passage. We should be more like the publican here, acting as if we were dogs and not above God while in prayer and in our every day life.
We are all different, and we are only ourself. Thus, we should only worry about ourself, when it comes to our spiritual life that is. We are to pray for each other (James 5:16), we are to encourage others (as Paul did in Hebrews 12), and we are to care for each other (Matthew 22:39), however we are not to judge others. Only one "person" (and I use quotes because He's not just man) has a right to judge us, and it is He, who is without sin. He came down to this Earth, he experienced what we do every day (Ecclesiastes 1:9). If we live our lives and holding ourselves accountable for our own spirituality, instead of everyone elses, we would be growing more and more as a Christian.
Finally let's look at verse 14. I think the best story (or rather, stories) in the Bible to illustrate it is Martha and Mary with Jesus. Every time we see these three, Mary is at the feet of Jesus, listening, washing his feet with oil, or praying. Martha, on the other hand, right in Jesus's feet, telling Him what he should be doing, much like a pharisee would do. God honours the humble. In 1 Samuel 3:10, Samuel is being called by the Lord, but he doesn't know it. He thinks it's his brother Eli messing with him or something. Finally, Eli realizes it's the Lord calling him, and he tells Samuel next time he hears his name called, to answer to the Lord. Samuel hears his name again, and he says "Speak, for thy servant heareth". That should always be our response in anything God wants us to do for him.
"The world has yet to see what God can do with one man fully surrendered unto him."
Don't just play the game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So I have to ask, what is with the KJV only?
ReplyDeleteMany many reasons.
ReplyDeletehttp://cbcflorida.org/Articel%20Which%20version.htm
This is obviously the site of you current church home and I find that interesting. I disagree with most of this article.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I was looking at the "Our Beliefs" page and noticed this: "We believe the "holy scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:15) have been preserved in the English Authorized King James Version, and are thereby "given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16)."
Can you explain this a little more? Is the KJV the only Bible that has been preserved? If so is it only the 1611 edition?
Yes it is only the 1611 version, and no we do not accept the Apocrypha (just for future reference) :)
ReplyDeleteThe KJV is superior to other versions of the Bible.
Why do you not agree with that article? It's 100% researched by my pastor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you own a 1611 edition of the KJV? I'm sure you don't. Check the date of the KJV that you use I'm sure you use an updated version and not the 1611 edition. Your Bible is probably a 1769 update.
ReplyDeleteThe original 1611 edition looks like this and you can see some of the words are spelled very different than the version you use:
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product_slideshow?sku=631609&actual_sku=631609&slide=4&action=Next
I don't believe that the passages supplied in the article effect anything. I believe some of them were taken out of context such as Luke 2:33.
The oldest copies of the original manuscripts don't contain the added passages that are included in the KJV. If the oldest manuscripts don't include the passages such as 1st John 5:7, than why do the later copies such as the Textus Receptus?
By the way, what do you do with the fact that the Apocrypha was originally included in the Authorized KJV?
Here is a recent question and answer my pastor did. Should answer some of the questions you asked, and yes, it is a 1611 edition.
ReplyDeleteQUESTION
- Do you accept the Apocrypha as part of the Cannon? Do you consider it to be inspired? If not, how do you reconcile that the one of the marginal references cites the Book of Maccabees? Not to mention, the Apocrypha was part of the original KJV.
ANSWER
I do not accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible; neither did Jesus Christ (see Christ’s statement in Matt. 23:35 and Luke 24:44); or the King James translators. The title page to the 1611 reads:
“The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament, and the New”
It does NOT read: “The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament, and the New AND THE APOCRYPHA!”
If you look at any reprint of a 1611 you will notice that the Apocrypha is placed between the Bible (the Old and New Testaments). It was added obviously because of the historical significance relating to the time period between Malachi and Matthew.
QUESTION:
- Why are there marginal notes in the KJV offering other translation possibilities? This seems unnecessary if the KJV is completely without error - one would think that, if this is the case, no other possible translation is necessary to be given.
ANSWER
Marginal notes are no more “inspired” than map indices, chapter headings or study notes from a particular publisher. When the statement is made that the KJV is inspired no one is referring to things inside the book other than the text.
QUESTION
-Why were all the marginal notes and additional readings removed from the KJV Bible, along with the Apocrypha, the opening dedication to James I, and a introduction titled, "The Translators to the Readers?" If the KJV is inspired, then weren't all these things that were in the original KJV also inspired? And, isn't this like taking things away from the Word of God?
ANSWER
Why were they removed? Ask the Bible publishers and printers. Some KJV Bibles still have the dedicatory. The next question about “all these things…in the original KJV” is simply filler. As stated earlier no KJV only advocate has ever claimed inspiration for the chapter titles, cross references, page numbers, or Apocrypha no more than they claim inspiration for chapter divisions, maps or study notes.
QUESTION
ReplyDelete- What about the italics found in KJV? Standard Biblical Translation practice uses italics for words that do not exist in the original manuscripts. If you believe fully in the KJV inerrant word-for-word translation, then why are these italics necessary and present?
ANSWER
Anyone who has every done translation work knows that it is absolutely necessary to add words in order to convey the meaning of the passage into the other language. A “word-for-word translation” WILL have added words or it simply will NOT make sense. The KJV translators were honest enough to show with the italics where they added words.
Read the following verses and see if they make sense without the italics: Gen. 13:9; Ex. 2:1,2; Deut 33:27; Job 19:25,26; Psa. 32;1,2; Prov 1:7; Isa. 26;3; John 10:29,30; Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil 4:8; 2 Tim. 2:11,12; 1 Pet. 4;11; Rev. 19:10.
In Deut. 8:3 “word” is found in italics because of no Hebrew authentication. In Matt. 4:4 and Luke 4:4, the Greek quotation of Deut. 8:3 contains “word.” If the Greek reading “word” is inspired in Matt. 4 and Luke 4, why wouldn’t it be in Deut. 8:3?
Other examples of this are Isa. 42:1 (where “in whom” is italicized, and Mt. 12:18 contains the italicized word), and Isa. 61:1 (“them that are” is italicized, and Luke 4:18 has it in the Greek).
Deut. 32:21 and Rom. 10:19 demonstrate that the translators didn’t rely on N.T. quotations for the italicized O.T. words. If the translators were copying the O.T. they would have used the same italics – they don’t!
“those which are” (Deut 32:21) “them that are” (Rom. 10:19)
1 JOHN 2:23 – [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
The AV translators assigned the epistles (Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John Spenser, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, Mr. Michael Rabbeth, Mr. Thomas Sanderson, and professor William Dakins) added these words without any Greek manuscript authority.
After 1611 (when the AV was published) Greek manuscripts surfaced containing the reading. The manuscripts were: a(Siniaticus 330 A.D.), B (Vaticanus 330 A.D.), A (Alexandreanus 400-450 A.D.) and C (Ephraem Rescriptus 450 A.D.). The “Textus Receptus,” and the “majority text” do NOT contain the reading. This demonstrates how God used Latin, as well as Greek to preserve the correct readings culminating in the AV.
Wycliffe (based on the Latin Vulgate) inserted the passage into his English Bible. It was NOT in Tyndale, Coverdale, or the Geneva edition of 1560. The Great Bible (1539) put the passage in italics, and added brackets in 1568. Beza also included the passage in his later Greek editions.
QUESTION
- When there is a difference between the TR Greek and the KJV English, which one is supposed to be accepted? Is it not ridiculous to say the source of a translation has error, but the translation itself is innerant? Isn't it a bit illogical to assume that the more modern Bible language is more accurate than the language the New Testament was written in?
ANSWER
Give me the examples and we will answer.
QUESTION
ReplyDeleteBut where does it say that all translations are inspired by Him? And as stated above and agreed upon by many, the original version, the one written by the authors themselves, is Holy and without error. One cannot say that a translation is written by the original authors, as it is not.
isn't it a little arrogant to assume that a single, perfect copy of the Bible that we have is in English? What is the non-English-speaking world to do? Or have we made judgments about their versions too and determined which one is the "right" one?
There's a HUGE gap though that the KJV doesn't fill---mostly prior to the KJV's printing...if that's the only perfect copy are you saying that anything before that isn't perfect or God inspired?
ANSWER
The Bible doesn’t say “all translations are inspired” but biblical inspiration does pass along to the translation.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The word “scripture” as used in the previous verse is defined in verse 15 as a copy that Timothy had read from. Timothy didn’t have the original manuscripts of the Old Testament. In fact if you will look up the word “scripture” you will find that it never refers to ONLY the originals – but also copies and translations!
THE FOLLOWING WAS TAKEN FROM MY ARTICLE ON WEBSITE
The Biblical Teaching of Inspiration
“Inspiration” comes from the word “inspire,” and means to infuse life by breathing on or into. The term “verbal inspiration” is simply a term used to describe how God inspired the texts of scripture. 2 Peter. 1:20 describes the process perfectly, and it is demonstrated in Jeremiah:
Jer 36:18 Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.
The “inspiration” from God (which had to be inerrant and infallible – Prov. 30:5,6; Psa. 119:140; Psa. 12:6; Acts 1:3) took place when a man was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. In some cases (i.e. David’s Psalms) the inspiration occurred when writing. Most instances in scripture, however, are patterned after the former layout. [For example see: Rom. 16:22, and the postscript at the end of Paul’s epistles.]
The teaching of double inspiration is not “Ruckmanism,” or “King James Onlyism.” It is biblical. Moses broke the “original autographs,” when he came down the mount, but they were “doubly inspired,” and God “rewrote” them (Ex. 32:19 with Ex. 34:1). The “original copy” of Jeremiah’s writing was burned, and then inspired again! Not only were they “doubly inspired,” they were ADDED TO (See: Jer. 36:23, 28-32).
Inspiration is most definitely applied to scriptural documents OTHER THAN the “original autographs.” It is perfectly acceptable and biblical, to say the AV is “given by inspiration of God.” For, if it is NOT, then it is NOT “scripture” (see 2 Tim. 3:15,16). A careful examination of the occurrences of the word “scripture” will demonstrate this fact: Dan 10:21; Mark 12:10; Mark 15:28; Luke 4:21; John 2:22; John 7:38; John 7:42; John 10:35; John 13:18; John 17:12; John 19:24; John 19:28; John 19:36; John 19:37; John 20:9; Acts 1:16; Acts 8:32; Acts 8:35; Rom 4:3; Rom 9:17; Rom 10:11; Rom 11:2; Gal 3:8; Gal 3:22; Gal 4:30; 1 Tim 5:18; 2 Tim 3:16; James 2:8; James 2:23; James 4:5; 1 Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20.
QUESTION: Why wasn’t the KJV around before 1611 if it's the true Word of God?
ReplyDeleteANSWER
Why wasn’t Genesis written until 1500 B.C.? People who ask questions like this are generally ignorant of History, and Church History in particular. This consideration also delves into the sober thought of God using men. For if God wanted to, He could have printed a Bible, bound it in book form, and delivered it in, say, 150 A.D. [Revelation was complete after 90 A.D.] Instead, He chose to use men, copyists, and the historical timeline (which of course He already knew) as to when the whole revelation could be transmitted in book form with all 66 canonical books. He actually waited till:
1. man was smart enough to invent a printing press,
2. the Reformation was nearly over
3. the modern period of the English language became dominate
4. a new country was in the building, which would grant the first real liberty to Bible believers apart from the state, and would put His book (biblos) out all over the globe.
QUESTION
- How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
ANSWER
There is no grammatical error. The King James as well as Geneva chose to add a plural “s” to the word much like “fishes” for the plural “fish.”
I still doubt that you use a KJV 1611 Edition, for example in Genesis 1:2 does it read, "and the earth was without foune and voyd, and darknesse was upon the face of the deepe".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611-detail2.html
If you don't than it is a later update probably 1769 which is far more common. Original 1611 editions are rare, even most Christian book stores don't sell them, but you can get them online.
You can find out what version you are using here:
http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/1769.html
Correction: I use a 1769 edition of the King James, but nothing is different than the 1611, as evidenced by your verse in Genesis 1:2. Our spellings have changed, but not the words themselves. That's why an EDITION of the King James, and not an updated translation.
ReplyDelete