Hebrews 1:3 Person, substance, essence, nature?

[brandplucked]

Hebrews 1:3 Person, substance, essence, being or subsistence? Is the King James Bible’s “Person” a “poor translation”?

At one of the Bible clubs I belong to a certain King James Bible critic posted the following as an alleged error and poor translation. This particular man is one of the loopier Bible Agnostics I have ever run into. He does not defend any Bible in any language as being the pure words of God. For example, he thinks John 7:53 to 8:12 should be omitted from all bibles, and that whole verses (about a hundred words) not found in any Bible on earth should be added to Mark 16.

In any event, here is what this man writes:

“A classic case of supposed re-inspiration as portrayed by KJVOnlyism!

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnesse of his glory, and the expresse image of his *person* (hupostaseos), and vpholding all things by the word of his power, when hee had by himselfe (heauton) purged our sinnes, sate down on ye right hand of the Maiestie on high, (KJV 1611)

Did the translaters/revisers receive the notion the word "person" instead of "substance" should be used for the Greek word "hupostaseos" by inspiration from God?

The Greek word "prosopon" is the most often used word rendered in English as "person". (Mat_22:16, Mar_12:14, Luk_20:21, 2Co_2:10, Gal_2:6, 2Co_1:11, Jud_1:16)

The Greek word "hupostaseos" and the Latin "substantiae" usually would be rendered "matter" or "substance".

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the *substance* (hupostasis) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Somehow "person" just wouldn't fit!

2Co 11:17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence (hupostasei) of boasting.

Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence (hupostaseos) stedfast unto the end;

2Co 9:4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident (hupostasei) boasting. “

Part One of my Refutation

When this self appointed Bible critic tells us that “Somehow "person" just wouldn't fit!”, then the obvious should be pointed out to him as well. Neither would the word “confidence”. Would it make any clear sense to say that the phrase should be translated as to show that the Son of God is “the express image of his confidence”?!?

Or how about any other of the possible meanings this word can carry as listed in the various lexicons? Would they “fit”? Let’s try any of these to see how well they might do. How about the Son of God is the express image of His “assurance”, or “steadfastness”, or “placing under”, or “substructure”, or “foundation”, or “firm trust”? Would any of these possible meanings of the word “fit”?

The Bible critic continues:

“Consider other versions of Heb 1:3

Heb 1:3 qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura *substantiae* eius portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae purgationem peccatorum faciens sedit ad dexteram Maiestatis in excelsis (Latin)

Heb 1:3 Which whanne also he is the briytnesse of glorie, and figure of his *substaunce*, and berith alle thingis bi word of his vertu, he makith purgacioun of synnes, and syttith on the riythalf of the maieste in heuenes; (Wycliffe 1385)

Heb 1:3 Which sonne beynge the brightnes of his glory and very ymage of his *substance* bearinge vp all thinges with the worde of his power hath in his awne person (?; heauton) pourged oure synnes and is sitten on the right honde of the maiestie an hye (Tyndale 1535)

Heb 1:3 Who beyng the bryghtnesse of the glorie, and the very image of his *substaunce*, vpholdyng all thynges with the worde of his power, hauing by him selfe (heauton) pourged our sinnes, hath syt on the ryght hande of the maiestie on hye: (Bishop's Bible 156

Heb 1:3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his *substance*, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (RV 1881)

Well glory be! The KJV translaters/revisers must have received this revelation by divine inspiration from God himself! Re-inspiration!!!!! But from which god?

Well not so fast! Let's see if we can find a source for such a poor translation of the Greek! Hmmmmmmmmm! Here it is!

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his *person*, and bearing vp all things by his mightie worde, hath by himselfe purged our sinnes, and sitteth at the right hand of the Maiestie in the highest places, (Geneva Bible, 1560, 1599)

Sorry no re-inspiration here, just someone copying a poor translation!

Maybe the "Bishop's Bible revisers" would have been more accurate by following the Latin and retranslated the reading into the English as "the representation (figura) of His substance (substantiae)". Following the Bishop's Bible would have been more accurate! But then accuracy was never the issue with the KJV (revisers)!

Codex_z”

Part Two of my Refutation:

This Bible critic only mentions a few of the various ways different Bible versions have translated the word hupostasis. His suggested reading of “substance” when referring to God the Father is the worst of the lot. God the Father does not have any substance. The Bible clearly tells us that God the Father is a Spirit and not flesh and bones, and that He is invisible Spirit. See John 4:24 “God is a Spirit”, and Colossians 1:15 tells us that Christ “is the image of the invisible God”. See also 1 Timothy 1:17 and Hebrews 11:27.

Bible versions like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops’ bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, and Darby are just flat out wrong. The English Bible was in the process of being purified, and none of them got it right until God’s timing brought forth perfection in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Though I firmly believe the King James Bible is by far the best of all Bibles in any language, I do not have a serious problem with other versions that translate this phrase as something like “the express image of his BEING” (NIV, Weymouth, Berkeley), or “NATURE” (NASB, RSV, ESV, HCSB), or “ESSENCE” (NET, Complete Jewish bible), but I do have a big problem with translating it as “express image of His SUBSTANCE”.

One of the meanings of the word “substance” lends itself to rank heresy, whereas the word “person” cannot. One of the clear meanings of the word “subtance” is this as given by any good dictionary: Substance = physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence b: matter of particular or definite chemical constitution c: something (as drugs or alcoholic beverages) deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction .”

The Mormons even use this translation of “substance” to support their idea that God the Father has a literal body. See one of their sites that promotes this idea based on the misleading translation this Bible agnostic promotes.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/hebrews1.htm

This Mormon defender states in part: “The Bible clearly teaches that God has a physical body. With serious proof-texting, many come to the conclusion that God is a spirit and hence without a physical body. New Research has shown that the scripture used for this has been misapplied. We believe that Hebrews 1:2-3 is one of the most clear, powerful and straight forward for showing that God is embodied with a divine body, with a human shape....Since the substance of Jesus is clearly flesh and bones, then the substance of the Father is flesh and bones. The scripture is quite clear on that!”

Let’s Define the Terms

Person - Webster’s Dictionary 1913 - “6. (Theol.) Among Trinitarians, one of the three subdivisions of the Godhead (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost); AN HYPOSTASIS (Caps are mine) Three persons and one God." Bk. of Com. Prayer.”

Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary of the English Language, New York, 1917. Page 1007 defines Person as: - “Theology. One of the three individualities in the Trinity; HYPOSTASIS.” Again, just as Webster’s dictionary, it uses the very word this Bible agnostic uses when he ignorantly criticizes the King James Bible. The Greek word hypostasis is used to define the theological use of the word Person when referring to the Godhead.

Definition of hypostasis.

Merriam Websters Dictionary - hy·pos·ta·sis Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin, substance, sediment, from Greek, support, foundation, substance, sediment, from hyphistasthai to stand under, support, from hypo- + histasthai to be standing

1 a: something that settles at the bottom of a fluid b: the settling of blood in the dependent parts of an organ or body 2: PERSON (caps are mine) 3 a: the substance or essential nature of an individual

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 1. the unique nature of the one God 2. any of the three persons of the Trinity, each person having the divine nature fully and equally 3. the union of the wholly divine nature and of a wholly human nature in the one person of Jesus Christ

The American Heritage Dictionary hy·pos·ta·ses Christianity a. Any of the persons of the Trinity. b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures are united.

Bible Commentators

John Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 1:3 supports the King James Bible reading of “person”. Calvin seems to be a bit mixed up and self-contradictory, but I believe one of his points is quite valid. Calvin comments: “The word (upostasis) which, by following others, I have rendered substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father, but HIS PERSON (caps are mine); for it would be strange to say that the essence of God is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same. But it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father. And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the essence (ousia) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word substance for PERSON. But though it be not the Apostle’s object in this place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Arians and Sabellians; for he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two distinct PERSONS, as to the Father and the Son. For we hence learn that the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense distinct from him, so that a subsistence or PERSON belongs to both.”

John Gill comments on Hebrews 1:3 and the phrase “the express image of his person” saying: “And the express image of his person; this intends much the same as the other phrase; namely, equality and sameness of nature, and distinction of PERSONS; for if the Father is God, Christ must be so too; and if he is a PERSON, his Son must be so likewise, or he cannot be the express image and character of him.”

Other Bible translations

Other Bible translations that agree with the King James Bible’s “express image of HIS PERSON” are the following: The Geneva Bible 1560, 1587, 1599, 1602, John Wesley’s translation made in 1755, Webster’s bible 1833, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

The French Martin Bible 1744, the French Louis Segond 1910, and the French Ostervald 1996 all read just like the = KJB -”et qui, étant le reflet de sa gloire et l'empreinte de SA PERSONNE...”

The NIV Portuguese translation, put out by the International Bible Society 2000 reads just like the King James Bible - “imagem perfeita da SUA PESSOA.” (HIS PERSON)

The King James Bible is always right. Don’t let the Bible Agnostics move you from your faith in a perfect, inspired and inerrant Bible.

Will Kinney

[Upholder]

Thanks for posting that, brandplucked.
I find it interesting that the KJV critics single out the word "person" in Hebrews 1:3 to attack. That, and the fact that they often like to attack many other verses in the KJV that speak of Christ and His Deity, speaks volumes about the motives of these critics.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist...
(1 John 4:2,3a)

I wonder how many of the critics are prepared to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?
Do they actually believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God the Son?
And if they do, how do they prove it from a modern Bible version that has omitted much of the evidence for this important doctrine?

[brandplucked]

Upholder Wrote:Thanks for posting that, brandplucked.
I find it interesting that the KJV critics single out the word "person" in Hebrews 1:3 to attack. That, and the fact that they often like to attack many other verses in the KJV that speak of Christ and His Deity, speaks volumes about the motives of these critics.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist...
(1 John 4:2,3a)

I wonder how many of the critics are prepared to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh?
Do they actually believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God the Son?
And if they do, how do they prove it from a modern Bible version that has omitted much of the evidence for this important doctrine?

Hi brother Daniel. Yes, you are absolutely right. Many modern versions do attack the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Here are a couple examples from the NIV.

In Micah 5:2, the King James Bible says: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING.”

Other versions that read like the KJB "whose goings forth" are the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NKJV, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, NASB, Darby, Spanish, Hebrew-English translations of 1917 and 1936, Coverdale, Bishops', Hebrew Names Version, Bible in Basic English, Young's, the Geneva Bible, and the Catholic Douay.

The NIV says, "whose ORIGINS are from of old, from ANCIENT TIMES." The JW version, and the RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard say, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite (or "origen..from ancient days)."

KJB - Psalm 93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

NIV - Psalm 93:2 Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity.

The NIV says God is everlasting/eternal based upon the Hebrew word for everlasting.

But when the NIV and other MVs gets to Micah 5:2 where the reference is to Jesus Christ then suddenly the Hebrew word for everlasting changes to "ancient of days" or "from ancient times" – Now Jesus is not eternal anymore. Why is God eternal in Psalm 93:2 but Jesus is not eternal in Micah 5:2 according to several modern versions? It is the same Hebrew word.

Daniel Wallace's Net version likewise reads in Micah 5:2 - "As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah— from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose ORIGINS are in the distant past."

Then the good Doktor footnotes - "Hebrew “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins or to his activities."

Why do the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NET, and the JW bibles say “origin” or "origins"? The Son of God did not have a beginning, but He Himself is the beginning, the source of all that exists. Revelation 22:13 tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Compare these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ with those found in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

The JW’s teach that the Son of God is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, that He is less than God the Father. The word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."

The KJB says his goings forth are from everlasting. Yet the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET say his origin is from ancient times. Ancient times may be long, long ago, but it is not the same as everlasting.

The Hebrew word olam can be translated as “ancient” when applied to created things or people as it is in Psalm 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark”, or as in Isaiah 44:7, “since I appointed the ancient people”, but when the word is applied to God, it is rendered as “everlasting” as in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.”

The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this word as “everlasting” 60 times, as eternal or eternity 8 times, as “forever” 202 times, but as “from ancient times” only twice - one of them here in Micah 5:2 where they apply it to our Lord and Redeemer!

Acts 13:33 "This day have I begotten thee"

There is another phrase. that is “hard to be understood” that has been changed in the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, and the NASB. It is found in Acts 13:33 where it refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The KJB reads, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The versions that read as the KJB, “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN” are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB. The modern New English Bible and the New Century version both read “raising Jesus from the dead”. The Living Bible says “bringing Jesus back from the dead”, and God’s Word Translation says, “by bringing Jesus back to life.”

It is of great interest to see how many foreign language Bibles render this phrase “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN”. The Spanish says: “resusitándo a Jesus”, the Latin resuscitans Iesum, the French - en ressuscitant Jesus; the Portuguese- ressuscitando a Jesus, and the Italian has risuscitando Gesu. Thus it is easy to see that they all consider this verse to read as does the KJB. I believe it is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The modern NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB versions make this verse refer to the incarnation of Jesus, rather than His resurrection by merely saying, “God has raised up Jesus”. They leave out raised up Jesus AGAIN.

Some new version defenders tell us that the word “again” is not in the Greek text. Yet again, I believe this is a false statement. All the versions, frequently translate the verb anistemi as raised up again. For example the NIV renders this word as “rise again” 6 times, “raised to life” once, and “raised from the dead” once. It is frequently used in the phrase that Jesus would be “raised” on the third day. The noun form of this verb is anastasis and is always used in referrence to the resurrection.

What does the phrase, “This day have I begotten thee” mean? Jesus Christ did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation. This false doctrine is called incarnational sonship. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His taking on a human body.

The orthodox doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten before His incarnation was firmly established in 325 A.D at the council of Nicea when the church was combating the teaching of Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a created being; that He had an origen and was inferior to God the Father.

Here is part of the well known Nicean Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

I John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." He was the only begotten Son before He was sent into this world.

The NIV teaches heresy with its rendering of Acts 13:33 by saying, "Today I have become your Father." And now the two new versions coming out, the ISV (International Standard Version) and the Southern Baptist Holman Christian Standard also have: "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has his goofy NET bible version on the internet. The NET version says: "13:33 that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE FATHERED YOU."

Then D.Wallace footnotes: " Greek “I have begotten you.” The traditional translation is misleading to the modern English reader because it is no longer in common use. Today one speaks of “fathering” a child in much the same way speakers of English formerly spoke of “begetting a child.”

While Dr. Wallace speaks of updating, or "modernizing" the English language, he utterly fails to see the blatant theological heresy his easy to read version has introduced. This reading of "today I have fathered you" teaches that there was a time when Jesus Christ was not the Son, and God was not His Father. This is the same teaching and reading of the Jehovah Witnesses' bible version.

The verb used here is gennao, to beget or to be born. There is no Greek word here for the NIV's " have become" or " Father" in any Greek text on this earth.

In what sense then can Jesus be said to have been begotten on a certain day? This happened at the resurrection.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary: this day have I begotten thee-- (Psalms 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (4) By actual possession, as heir of all . I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).The context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb. 1:4)."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament: "This day have I begotten thee. What day is referred to in the prophecy? Acts 13:32, 33 answers the question by quoting this very passage and declaring that it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead and God, who raised him, thus demonstrated that he was his Son.

The Expositor's Greek Testament: "Today" is evidently intended to mark a special occasion and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated and it is as King the person addressed is God's Son. Thus Paul applies it to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:33.

John Wesley comments on this passage:

"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - It is true, he was the Son of God from eternity. As St. Paul elsewhere, declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead,(Romans 1:4) And it is with peculiar propriety and beauty that God is said to have begotten him, on the day when he raised him from the dead, as he seemed then to be born out of the earth anew."

Dr. Douglas Stauffer, a Baptist pastor and preacher, has written a book called One Book Stands Alone, which is a good defense of the King James Bible. Regarding Acts 13:33 and its meaning, Mr. Stauffer notes on pages 24-25: KJB Acts 13:33 "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE.

When the Father said this to the Son, it was not at His birth. It was at His resurrection. He became the "first BEGOTTEN of the dead" Rev.1:5. God did not become the Lord's Father when He was born or Mary or at the resurrection. He is from everlasting, with no beginning. The Son always was...but not so in the NIV.

NIV Acts 13:33 "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

The Lord Jesus Christ did not become THE SON of God at any time during His earthly life or ministry. (Psalm 2:12) The Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son) can be found throughout the Old Testament. Numerous appearances are revealed prior to His being born of Mary. A great passage in proof of this truth is located in the book of Daniel when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace. Notice who else shows up... the ETERNAL Son of God." (End of comments by Dr. Douglas Stauffer)

The Son of God refers to Himself in Revelation 1:5 as, "the firstbegotten from the dead", and in Colossians 1:18 He is referred to as "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence."

I believe the NKJV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB are wrong by applying Acts 13:33 to Christ's incarnation instead of His resurrection, and the NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard along with the NWT, are heretical by teaching Christ was not the Son, nor God His Father before a certain day.

I hope this little study has been helpful to you and that we all will appreciate and love the Person of our Blessed Redeemer more for His amazing grace to us unworthy sinners. May our attitude towards His true words as found in the KJB be as that of king David- “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128.

Will Kinney

[Jim]

Good posts Gentlemen, very good.

[Mongol Servant]

Thanks, Will. If Christians would honestly meditate on the benefits and blessings of having our own personal copy of the pure word of God(KJB), much of the "criticizing" and analyzing of texts, worshipping Hebrew/Greek, etc, would cease.

[brandplucked]

Mongol Servant Wrote:Thanks, Will. If Christians would honestly meditate on the benefits and blessings of having our own personal copy of the pure word of God(KJB), much of the "criticizing" and analyzing of texts, worshipping Hebrew/Greek, etc, would cease.

Hi saints. Thanks for your comments. It is of God's mercy and grace that we can believe The Book. I see so many out there that continue to blast the position that we have a complete and inerrant Bible, and yet all they have to offer us is human reasoning and a "general message" (never really defined) gathered from numerous contradictory, textually divergent and radically different translations. They have a hypothetical, imaginary, unseen bible that they claim is the inerrant and inspired words of God. But of course, each of them is perfectly free to make up their own translations as they go merrily on their own individual ways. It is really quite pathetic to see. But God Himself said there would be a falling away from the faith in the last days, and it is definitely happening now.

We can only thank God for His mercy in revealing the truth of His precious words as found in the King James Holy Bible, and ask that He continue to keep us believing the Book.

"kept by the power of God through faith" - 1 Peter 1:5

Will K

[Jerry80871852]

brandplucked wrote:
<<"But of course, each of them is perfectly free to make up their own translations as they go merrily on their own individual ways.">>

I've stated this before on other sites, and have been mocked, but those you refer to in this statement, in effect, become their very own god, and therefore never submit to the one and only living God.

May God bless,
Jerry

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

[George]

Quote:but those you refer to in this statement, in effect, become their very own god, and therefore never submit to the one and only living God.

You are exactly correct in this statement Brother Jerry. It has gotten to the point that people are worshipping they know not what again. These series of posts are wonderful. The only time I look at anything other than the King James Bible (it is not the King James version) is when making comparisons for others.

One thing that fascinates me is that most folks when asked about their use of some other "version" say the reason is the King James Bible is too difficult to read. Yet I have seen a number of studies which show the King James Bible is actually the easiest to read and understand of all the different "bibles" there are out in the world today. I just do not understand why people feel the need to change the wording so that their "bible" says something entirely different than what was intended.

Let me give you a small example that has major implications. The King James Bible says the following:

(1Jn 4:19) We love him, because he first loved us.

The other day I heard someone quote this verse as saying, "We love, because he first loved us." Do you see anything wrong with that? My word, it left God out of the equation. How can people stomach such drivel? It is beyond me. I have been successful in converting a number of people to the King James Bible. It is rather easy in some cases more difficult in others. When shown the historical aspect of the King James and proving it came first and then showing people how the New King James, the NIV, The ESV and others change the meaning of the scripture a lot of folks are ready to throw the impostors in the trash where they belong and begin using the True Word of God. Of course in each instance I have made myself available to the people by telling them that if they are struggling with any particular area in the King James to get in contact with me and I will help them with it.

In Christ,
George