Reply to a KJVOer (King James Version Only)

We can still agree on the doctrines contained in the Bible even if we do not agree on the mechanics of how God provides the Bible to us in the English language.

If you will accept a friendly critique of the KJVO position from the perspective of a polyglot (I speak 11 languages), translations never convey the exact meaning of the original text--you always lose something in translation. Additionally, you bring over the presuppositions of the translator which contaminate the translation.

Thus a translation can only give you the sense of what is being communicated. For analysis of the text, you must go the original language of writing--these are the languages in which inspiriation by the Holy Spirit occured via the hands of the inspired writers.

The KJV is a good translation (with an interesting manuscript theory) but that is all it is--a translation. Many (many) times the KJV translation simply does not communicate in English the thought being communicated in the original languages, either because of archaic language (the English language has changed considerably since 1611) or because of translator error or bias.

This is how I see it, as someone who specializes in this area. However, the important thing is not to let one's Bible version preference get the way of true Christian Unity as Jesus said:

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 17:21.

The Minimalist Gospel

John appears to me to give the most concise presentation of the precise information that must be communicated and believed in order for the recipient to have eternal life.

That is: Something Jesus Christ did is enough to save me.

It is the transference of faith that saves:

From: something I do saves me (my good works must outweigh my bad works, etc..)
To: something Jesus Christ did saves me.

Most importantly, I do not necessarily need to know or understand the "something" of what Jesus Christ did in order to have eternal life.

This is the Minimalist Gospel.

For example, the gospel can simply be presented as: "Look to Jesus Christ, the Lifted Up One and Live"
As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. John 3:14-15.

I actually give this presentation here:

Here is an excellent article which gives a more detailed presentation of the Minimalist Gospel--this is a position hated and attacked by many Christians (e.g., "Easy Believism") but I feel very strongly that it is the essence of the Gospel, with all the superfluities stripped away.

http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000ii/Hodges.htm

Seraphim as Angels?

In Numbers 21:6 Yahweh sent הנחשים השרפים (HaNachasim HaSeraphim) "Burning Serpents" among the people.

In Numbers 21:8 God tells Moses to make a שרף (Seraph) and set it on a pole.

In Numbers 21:9 Moses makes a נחש נחשת (Nechash Nechoshet) "a Bronze Serpent" and sets it on a pole.

Thus, it appears that both נחש (Nechash) "Serpent" or שרף (Seraph) "Burning One" can be used as a synecdoche for these "Burning Serpents."

What is the connection between the use of the שרף (Seraph) in Numbers 21 and elsewhere where it means a Burning (and Flying) Serpent and the use in Isaiah 6:2 and 6:6 where it is used of Angels?

Certainly it simply means that these Angels (who I submit are Cherubim) are "Burning" in the sense of the following verses:

Exodus 3:2: The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

Heb 1:7 (which is a quotation from Psalm 104:4): And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE."

Certainly there is no distinct order of Angels called שרפים (Serpaphim)? These are simply כרובים שרפים (Kerubim Serpahim) "Burning Cherubs."

The obvious connection here is Satan. He is a נחש-כרוב-שרף (nechash-kerub-seraph) a "Burning (flying) Serpent-Angel"...

Are שרפים (Seraphim) really different than כרבים (Cherubim)?

This is an interesting question because the majority view of commentators is that שרפים (Seraphim) and כרבים Cherubim are two different orders of angels.

However, this appears to me to be clearly incorrect. שרף (seraph) in the Hebrew simply means "burning", "a burning one", "a burner".

This is clear from Num 21:6

The LORD sent burning serpents (הנחשים השרפים haNachashim haSeraphim) among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.

The "burning" serpent probably called thus because of their fiery red color or because of the burning inflammatory effect of their bite, or both.

and from Num 21:8-9:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a burner (שרף seraph), and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." Num 21:8

And Moses made a bronze serpent (נחש נחשת nachash nachashet) and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.

Note that God told Moses to make a Seraph and he made a Nachash--Moses certainly did not think God was asking him to make an angel...

The only use of (שרף seraph) as referring to angels is in Isaiah 6:

Seraphim (שרפים) stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. Isaiah 6:2

Then one of the seraphim (שרפים) flew to me with a hot coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. Isaiah 6:6

However, these two uses should simply be translated "Burning Ones" or "Burners." They are simply Cherubim, the same as described in Ezekiel chapters 1 and 10.

These Cherubim are "burning" probably in the same sense that the Angel of the Lord was in Exodus 3:2

The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

and in Heb 1:7 (which is a quotation from Psalm 104:4):

And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE."

The connection between a Seraph (burning) Cherub and a Seraph (burning) Serpent is of course Satan, who is both a Cherub ("the annointed covering Cherub" Ezekiel 28:14) and a Serpent ("the Serpent of old who is the Devil and Satan" Rev 12:9) 

πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (face to face) in 1 Cor 13:12 - What does it mean?

1 Cor 13:12 states:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον prosopon pros prosopon); now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

This is a very enigmatic verse, I think possibly one of the verses Peter had in mind when he said of Paul's Epsitles:

"...in which are some things hard to understand..." 2 Peter 3:16

My opinion is that the key to unlocking the passage is to understand what πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (prosopon pros prosopon) means.

This phrase is a direct translation from the the Hebrew פנים אל־פנים (panim al panim) which occurs in these OT verses:

ויקרא יעקב שם המקום פניאל כי ראיתי אלהים פנים אל פנים ותנצל נפשי
So Jacob named the place Peniel (פניאל face of God), for he said, “I have seen God face to face (פנים אל פנים panim al panim), yet my life has been preserved Gen 32:30

וירא גדעון כי מלאך יהוה הוא ויאמר גדעון אהה אדני יהוה--כי על כן ראיתי מלאך יהוה פנים אל פנים
When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD, he said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face (פנים אל פנים panim al panim)." Judges 6:22

Thus πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον means "to see God face to face" i.e., to discern perfectly God's nature, will, and purposes (Thayer's Lexicon).

So how can we "discern perfectly God's nature, will, and purposes"?

The key is in the previous three verses of 1 Cor 13:

9Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

This passage means that the temporary spiritual gifts of prophecy, tongues, knowledge, etc. which were only needed to confirm the New Testament revelation (Heb 2:1-4) would be done away when "the perfect" comes. The perfect is the completed canon of scripture, Old Testament and New Testament.

Thus with the completed canon we have the potential to see God πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (prosopon pros prosopon) פנים אל פנים (panim al panim) or face to face, to know him fully, just as fully as we have been known by Him (and He is omniscient)--because He has made full and complete revelation of Himself through his completed canon of scripture, the Bible.

Additionally, this is the same thought Peter is expressing here:

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature... (2 Peter 1:4) 

Why Islam must be rejected

Yet another reason to reject Islam:

And on the Day when He will gather them together and that which they worship besides Allah [idols, angels, pious men, saints, 'Iesa (Jesus) - son of Maryam (Mary), etc.]. He will say: "Was it you who misled these My slaves or did they (themselves) stray from the (Right) Path?" Surah 25:17 (Muhsin Khan)

Jesus accepted worship:

Matthew 14:33 “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him (Jesus), saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

John 9:38 “Then the man said, ‘Lord Jesus, I believe,’ and he worshiped him.”

Jesus never corrected these people

The three wise men also worshipped Jesus at his birth:

After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Matt 2:11

This is protrayed as a righteous act.

 

If you carefully study the Bible, OT and NT, you will see that Jesus is God, the Son, the second member of the Trinity, who became flesh, died for our sins, and then ascended back to heaven and is seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father. This is the only possible conclusion. Islam says that Jesus is just a prophet. This is simply incorrect. The Biblical data do not bear this out. This is why Islam must be rejected.

Plural of Intensification in Hebrew

[quote=ooTRAV1Soo;57297579]The Hebrew word "Eloh'im" is the word most often translated to "God" in the English bible. The ending "im" in Hebrew is a masculine majestic pluralization of words, meaning not to say that a word is plural literally in numbers, i.e 2, 3 or more gods, but pluralization to show respect to God.[/quote]

There is no difference in form between plural of number and plural of intensification (this is the more correct term in Hebrew--but same concept that you are stating). It's simply a matter of subjective interpretation to determine whether a plural of number or a plural of intensification is in view.

Let's take an example and then move to אלהים (Elohim).

His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death (במתיו bemotav), Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9

In this verse מות (mavet) is plural (construct state) but is translated as singular because "deaths" would not make sense in the context. The plural is being used to intensify the word death.

However, with אלהים (Elohim), you certainly cannot make the assumption that this is plural of intensification. God revealed himself as a singularity that is also a plurality in the Old Testament (see this paper for an excellent presentation of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament By Nathan Kassulke).

Thus to me, it is much better to take אלהים (Elohim) as a plural of number. Thus, the very beginning of God's self revelation in the Bible: בראשית ברא אלהים (bereshet bara elohim) presents God via a plural noun אלהים (Elohim) used with a singular verb ברא (bara) because God is a Singularity that is also a Plurality.