I'm not trying to start a fight or a "King James Bible Only" debate or fight. But I have been reading a bit on King James translations - and what I have found is that a LOT (read that likely 99.9+%) of people just think of one King James Bible - that came from the original 1611 Authorized Version, or the last of the major revisions - from 176

9 (where the "Standard Text came from). Yet little could be farther from the truth. There multiple significant "camps" of King James Bibles today- One is the "Cambridge" text, while another is the "Oxford" text, not to mention that "Standard Text" that a good percentage of contemporary printings use. All lay claim to being the "King James Version".

But even within those camps, there are variances - for example, the Cambridge Press at this time has 5 distinct "King James Version" editions:

The Cambridge Standard Text Edition [also called the Emerald edition], the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text Edition, and the 2011 Cambridge edition edited by David Norton.

The Cambridge Standard Text Edition has a good number of differences from the Cambridge Concord and Pitt Minion editions. It may be supposed to be the edition that Cambridge took over from the King's printer in London. It has a number of spelling updates or differences. Some examples include "assuaged" (Gen. 8:1, "plucked" (Gen. 8:11), "mortar" (Gen. 11:3), "aught" (Gen. 39:5), "plaster" (Lev. 14:42), "rearward" (Josh. 6:9), etc.

The 2011 Cambridge edition edited by David Norton has some 4,000 differences (not to mention it removes most of the italics for inserted words). Around one thousand of them is where Norton whent back and followed 1611 edition renderings. This edition makes consistent the use of "thy" or "my" as possessive adjectives instead of "thine" and "mine" in front of nouns, which makes for another 1,000 differences. This edition attempts to make consistent the use of "a" and "an", which (about 300 differences). This edition updated the spelling of many words to standard English spelling of today such as "spoke" for "spake," "show" for "shew," etc. which is over 1,700 differences.

One example difference between Norton's 2011 Cambridge edition and Norton's 2005 Cambridge edition is the 2011's use of "awoke" instead of "awaked" (Jud. 16:14. Ps. 3:5, Ps. 78:65]. The 2011 Cambridge has "Lord" at Acts 2:34 while the 2005 Cambridge has "LORD." The 2005 Cambridge had a misprint "fellow-disciple" at John 11:16 instead of "fellow-disciples." There are a few differences between their use of "thy" and "thine".

So which is THE King James Authorize Version?

To Judge, or Not to Judge?

Matthew 7:1-5 is likely one of the most mis-used and abused passages in all of the New Testament. How often do we hear, both from not only those who have rejected Christ's gift of Eternal Life, but even from those who have professed Christ as their Lord and Savior just the first verse "Judge not, that ye be not judged"... or even more selectively out of context "Judge Not!". Further, how often do we hear this put forward as some kind of "proof" that Christians are not suppose to pass any form of judgment on anyone else, under any circumstances?

One cannot take verse 1 alone - but instead must take it in context of at least the next 4 verses - and also look at WHO Jesus was addressing - The Pharisees, who were judging everyone by their own standards (that had grown to be completely outside of God's commands in His Word). Instead, they had substituted some adulterated and completely unscriptural "Code of Conduct" for God's otherwise relatively simple Law. They were fond of pointing fingers.

The beam in their own eyes was their blindness to God's Word. It was their own man-created codes. Even worse, they often didn't live up to the very standard they held everyone else up to.

What is clear here is that Jesus was addressing hypocrites who wanted the world to live by their misguided standards. What the Pharisees needed was to remove these "beams" that were blinding them to reality.

When we come to Christ, we too remove the "beam" from our eyes - making us better equipped to help others see the "mete" - aka - splinter or sin in their own lives.

This is one of the many purposes of assembling together in a local New Testament church - to hold each other up, to help each other resist temptation, to preserve our testimony, and to live lives that are, as Paul put it, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1)

Judgment by man-invented standards, would thus be wrong. Judgement by God's standards is NOT wrong. But the spirit of such "judgment" should be a spirit of love and restoration.

Jesus told those hearing him (Luke 12:54-59) to judge what He said - according to the scriptures. We are not to judge according to personal preferences, but according to the Word of God.

Christ specifically endorsed judgment by men - but not based on appearance, but on what a person does and/or continues to do as compared to "righteousness" - moral issues for which the standard is clearly set in God's Word.

Hand-in-hand with this (indeed, probably best exercised before) would be the admonition to examine ourselves regularly (2 Corinthians 13:5-7)

Live By Faith? or Can Christians Compartmentalize Their Faith?

Some who read this may be quite familiar with the American Family Association and their somewhat frequent calls to boycott certain businesses and corporations.  These boycotts are generally tied to some direct support for immoral groups or activities.  I know many well-intentioned Christians who fall in and support each and every one of these boycotts, but I know far more that never engage in such protest of immoral businesses.  Let me give a few examples:

There are several clothing retailers who have chosen to engage in advertising that borders on pornography (or more concerning - child pornography).  Take the case of Abercrombie & Fitch of several years back.  The short story - their advertising took a disturbing turn towards portraying young children engaged in rather intimate and suggestive behavior.  At the same time, they began selling undergarments for girls under 10 that would compete with Victoria's Secret in intent and purpose.  Yet many good church families continued to shop Abercrombie - and many youth continued to show up to church and other Christian events proudly wearing Abercrombie & Fitch-emblazoned fashion.

And who isn't aware of the now somewhat officially-sanctioned "Gay Days" at Disney in Orlando, Florida?  What began as an outside-organized event has become an official date on Disney's yearly calendar (first weekend of June).  For those who may not be aware of this "event" - Homosexual organizers promote "Gay Days" at Disney as a day to "blow the lid off" at the park.  Everything from extremely offensive T-shirts, to open displays of affection that would be considered rude and offensive between heterosexual couples.  As pressure was applied to Disney by pro-family groups, Disney initially pawned it off as not organized by the company, and that the park is open to anyone.  But then the next step turned the event into an official day on the Disney calendar, with group rates and hotels with a park-wide "celebration of the gay, lesbian, transgender, and cross-dressing lifestyle".  Yet millions of Christians continue to support the park with their business and dollars.

Many are familiar with the steady progression of Home Depot and its support of the homosexual agenda.  What began as somewhat quiet sponsorship has become open and unrepentant direct support for these groups.  From official "Home Depot" floats, shirts, and other materials in so-called "Gay Parades", direct funding of legislative lobbying, and specific advertising and promotion of the homosexual agenda, Home Depot has actively taken a stand.  Yet how many Christians blindly (or maybe knowingly?) regularly patronize this business?

We can look at the fairly recent revelations about another very popular organization - the Susan G. Komen Foundation.  This organization with a reputation for being on the front lines in raising money in the "fight against breast cancer" has been funding Planned Parenthood, the primary provider of abortions in the US.  The preliminary response by Planned Parenthood to this revelation was that the money given to PP was to provide mammograms to poor women.    When it was revealed that PP doesn't provide mammograms, and further - was hit by a sting operation that showed that Planned Parenthood actually engaged in and promoted illegal activities, the Susan G. Komen Foundation notified the media that they would cease funding Planned Parenthood.  Yet only hours later, reversed course and restored funding to Planned Parenthood with essentially no comment.  But many well-intentioned Christians regularly give to the SGK Foundation despite the fact that money they contribute helps to fund abortions as well as the promotion of premarital sex, homosexuality, sodomy, and a variety of other activities that are both offensive to most dedicated Christians, but are encouraging the further destruction of this nation.

But is this any different than the political realm?  I never cease to be amazed at how many Christians enter the voting booth having left their Christian faith at home.  I will freely admit that no political party has a corner on biblical moral standards.  Yet when otherwise upstanding Christians and church members willingly cast votes for candidates (again - regardless of the letter printed beside the name) who are diametrically opposed to all or nearly all Christian/biblical values, how can we be surprised when this nation's morality has dissolved, and a President speaks before the world saying that the United States is no longer a Christian Nation - we should be concerned.  The behavior of Christians in relation to politics, finance, marriage, and who we do business with indeed does seem to paint a picture of a nation that has rejected God.

I have heard the argument made that if we stopped doing business with every company that does or has supported things we stand against, we would quickly run out of businesses to patronize.  While this might be an easy argument to agree with, we can make decisions based on the blatant nature of the behavior/support given.  In the case of clothing - there are numerous retailers who do not openly promote pornography.  In the case of medical research and disease fighting - there are non-profit groups that do not engage in direct support of ungodly activities.   In the case of candidates for public office, we have choices (and if we don't, it may well still be our fault for not supporting Godly men and women when they do run simply because of a letter next to their names).  

Isn't it amazing how Christians can be some of the most vocal to complain about "how bad" our nation has become (at least to each other), yet they continue to vote with their dollars in favor of said behavior and positions.

Galatians 3:11-12 deals with living by and in faith.  Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that he was not "ashamed of the gospel".  What did that mean?  It meant that he was not only willing to speak up for Christ, but also to live out the Gospel before the world, regardless of the cost.  When we as Christians support those who work and act against Christian values and principals- we are not living our faith.  Indeed, such behavior indicates a form of being ashamed of the Gospel.  

Will we, from time to time, find ourselves without alternatives - maybe so.  But we can make a concerted effort to make all our decisions- fiscally, socially, and politically, based upon what brings honor and Glory to God.  Every time we compromise our stated beliefs, we compromise Christ.

Did God Create Evil?

What a loaded question!  Did God create evil?  There is a verse in the Bible that is often used by those who claim to not believe in God (so-called "Atheists") to try to bring doubt to the Christian view that God is perfect, totally good, and without sin.  This verse is Isaiah 45:7:

I form the light, and create darkness:  I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

WOW!  This verse, alone, certainly seems to say that God is "confessing" to creating "evil". There are several "explanations" often given to try to deal with this seemingly difficult verse.  Unfortunately, when dealing with people who reject the truth, who are the modern-day fulfillment of 2 Kings 17:14 - 

Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God. 

no explanation will do.  Indeed, their hope and desire is to plant seeds of doubt in the heart of the believer, and to place stumbling blocks before those who are lost, that they might not respond to God's drawing.  But this verse demands and answer.  Many of God's people face questions from both those who are genuinely seeking answers, as well as those who are mocking.  How do you answer?  What is this verse really saying?

It will help if we go back to what the Bible says about God's character in relation to evil and sin.  Psalms 5:4 says For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.  This verse would seem to indicate that God not only does not take pleasure in wickedness, but that evil cannot exist in the same place/context as God.  Some might question this and say that God could, in theory, create evil, but then separate Himself from that evil.  The problem with that theory is that the Bible also makes it clear that God is unchanging (immutable).  In Malachi 3:6, God states that "I am the LORD, I change not..." In Psalm 102:27, the psalmist writes (addressing God): "But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."  Further, Hebrews 13:8 clearly states, in describing Jesus Christ (who, according to John 1:1, IS God): "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."  I could go on, but there is no need - the pattern is clear - God is unchanging, thus He could not create evil and then remove Himself from it. 

"The LORD is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works".  If God created "evil" as the naysayers claim, then how could that align with this verse from Psalm 145:17?  It clearly states that ALL His works are Holy and righteous (good)!

James 1:13 states that "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."  Since Paul penned in his First Letter to the Corinthian Church (14:33),  "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace", it would seem that we can safely say that evil was not "created" by God.  The only thing God cannot do, is act in conflict with His character.  

There are a few lines of thought.  The most prevalent is that it is a matter of translation.  The Hebrew word רעה (likely won't appear correctly if you do not have a Hebrew font installed) - transliterated raw-aw' can be translated several ways:

• bad (noun)
• evil (natural or moral)
• adversity
• affliction
• calamity
• distress
• grief

In our King James Bible, this word occurs 663 times.  Out of those many instances, 232 of the time the word is translated as wicked, bad, hurt, ill, sorrow, mischief, displeased, adversity, affliction, trouble, calamity, grievous, misery, trouble, and harm.  The other 431 times, it is translated as "evil".  Those who look at the translation of this term point to many other translations that use "calamity", "disaster", "sorrow",  and even "doom".  While this may very well be the case - and would be supported by the fact that God is indeed a righteous God who brings judgment (generally in the form of those above descriptive words) on those who are disobedient and rebellious, for many, word games just won't cut it.

Another, and what I believe far simpler explanation might be to simply look at this verse of Isaiah through the lens of Hebrew poetry, as well as the context.  If you back up and start at verse 5, you then get a more clear picture:

 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, Though thou hast not known me: 

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the set, that there is none beside me.  I am the LORD and there is none else. 

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:  I the LROD do all these things."

God is spelling out His relationship to creation, to the natural world.  But in this natural world, created by

God, evil here is "natural" evil.  In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, what was over the face of the earth?  Darkness.  But then God created light, and darkness fled (and continues to do that).  Where there is no light, what do you have?  Darkness.  The absence of peace is - natural evil.  

David, in Psalm 65:7, says of God "which stilleth (literally quiety or still) the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves, and the tumult (disturbance/multitudes/noise) of the people.

I once heard someone say, and I wish I could recall who it was so that I could give due credit, that evil is the absence of God.  I have further heard an extension of that to say that what makes Hell, well - "Hell" is the absence of God.

I like to keep things as simple as possible.  While there may be legitimate reasons for translating the Hebrew in Isaiah 45:7 in terms other than "evil" - and that "calamity" might very well be a better understanding of the word in this verse.  It is far simpler to just see what the context says.  The verse is a short compare and contrast sort of passage.  With light, you recognize darkness.  With peace, you can readily see evil.  

I welcome comments and feedback.  What view do you take of this passage?

October Baby - Abortion on the Front Lines

We just got home from a pastors/ministry leaders screening of the upcoming release from Provident Films: October Baby.  To say that I am emotionally exhausted would be an understatement.  This film deals very strongly, yet in a healing way, with abortion - likely the most divisive and painful issue facing this nation.

I don't plan on giving a full review of the film here, but did want to say - it definitely makes it to the "must-see" list.  I will also warn the reader - bring tissue.  This film from John and Andrew Erwin, in their feature-film debut (primarily known for producing Christian music videos), could have taken a bully path and driven through this sensitive subject with an "in-your-face", judgmental attitude.  Yet these brothers deal with this tragic and painful issue with Christ-like love, and while they did not soft-step on the issue - the message is that of healing and forgiveness.

But back to the bigger issue - Abortion.  It is surprising that this word - this practice - this "procedure" isn't spelled with four letters.  On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives - and that single attack continues to occupy the minds of most people and still makes news on a regular basis.  But a far larger tragedy is continuing to this day here in the United States - over 50,000,000 lives have been taken from the most innocent since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that granted a "constitutional right" for a woman to murder her unborn child under the auspices of "privacy".  Under this logic, a woman could theoretically murder a 3, 12, or even 17 year-old child if they become to heavy a "burden".

Even well-intentioned Christians find themselves with conflicted views that do not align with God's Word. They say they are "pro-life" yet believe in exceptions for this including for the "to protect the life of the mother" or in cases of rape and incest.  This is little more than moral relativism - and flat inconsistent.  God's Word is either true and trustworthy - as 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly states, or it faulty.  David, in penning Psalm 51:5, spells out his pre-birth nature (his "life" began at conception).  Exodus 21:22 clearly spells out protection for not only the mother, but the unborn.  The shedding of "innocent blood", according to Numbers 35:33, literally "pollutes the land".  Amos 1:13 describes the crimes of Ammon which included literally ripping the unborn out of women's wombs.  And I encourage the reader to ponder on Proverbs 6:16-17- What is listed among those things God "hates" (abomination)?  The shedding of innocent blood.  That unborn baby, while inheriting the sin nature from Adam, has yet to commit any sin of his or her own - thus that unborn baby is as close to "innocent" as any human being.

But lets deal for a moment with the "acceptable" excuses for abortion, beginning with "to protect the life of the mother".  By definition, child birth and pregnancy is a "risk to the mother's health".  Just check out the liability release one signs when arranging pre-natal care and obstetric care, as well as the admission paperwork when going in to the hospital for delivery - they all make it clear that there are dangers inherent in childbearing.  Recent statistics point to 550 maternal deaths in the US (out of over 4 million births).  This number hardly compares to the 1.2 million babies who's lives are taken annual in the US.  A helpful statistic would be the number of mothers who's lives were saved by having an abortion.  But this figure is not made available for a variety of reasons.  I am also fully aware that, even if such a case could be made, the decisions would - for many - be a gut-wrenching "decision"... and there is a reason.  This reason is the same that is why the other common "excuses" for abortion are given:

The case of rape or incest.  While I know no-one who believes that rape and incest are minor problems, indeed rape is one of the most atrocious and evil acts against a women,  how is committing murder of the unborn baby a "positive outcome" to such a heinous crime?  The obvious answer is - it doesn't.  Indeed, abortion creates more victims than just the one who's life is taken.   The same holds true for cases of incest - while no-one in their right mind would think that such an act is acceptable, what is a baby conceived by such an act, guilty of?  He or she had no say in the matter - indeed, none of the millions of babies who have been aborted were asked for their "choice".

Abortion is not just a political issue, a moral issue, and a financial issue (the abortion industry is a multi-million dollar business) - it is a heart issue.  Just consider  the following facts:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (click here for more info).

But of extreme importance is the reality that God forgives.  Jesus Christ willingly gave His life, pouring out His blood for my sins and yours.  Jesus came to fulfill what Isaiah penned in Isaiah 53:6 "All we ilk sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all."  When Jesus die, he carried away our sins- all past, present, and future, and along with it the "iniquity" - the guilt of our decisions.  Because of the forgiveness that God freely gives, we no longer have to be bound by guilt and shame.  The only unforgivable sin, is the rejection of Jesus Christ!

For more information and resources on this serious issue:

Abort180

Circle of Prayer - Abortion Survivors

Hope After Abortion

Every Life Is Beautiful

CareNET

Are you looking for acceptance, and healing?  We would like for you to consider visiting Park View Baptist Church - where we won't judge you by your past, but will help you to find the forgiveness and freedom offered in Jesus Christ.