King James Version

The King James Version Bible was translated in 1611. The Bible had been translated into English before that, but never the way the King James Version was. Many people have attacked the character of King James, and, to be honest, he was something of a character. One of the last people that you would expect to be interested in the Bible, but, it had come to his attention that his subjects wanted a Bible that they could trust, and there were various arguments against each of the existing translations. At the same time, the Roman Catholic Church made it very clear that the Bible should be studied in the original languages, Greek and Hebrew. This did not sit well with a lot of people. This would mean either going to school and learning ancient languages, or depending on religious leaders to explain what the Bible said. Some believed that was exactly what the church intended, for people to remain ignorant except for what their local parish priest taught them. This could, conceivably, give a lot of power to the church. In Great Britain, of course, that would be the Church of England, not the Roman Catholic Church, but, still. James gathered together the most learned men of the ancient tongues at Oxford, Westminster, and Cambridge and gave them a mandate: Produce an accurate translation of the Bible in English. James himself went to a number of rare book auctions and purchased the oldest texts that he could. 56 men, renowned scholars of Greek and Hebrew, divided up into groups and began translating. Much time was spent debating on what was the best English translation for this term or that term in the original language. It didn't get put into print until they had reached an agreement. The king had commanded them to produce an accurate translation, so they put their best into it. It’s an interesting thing. In Spain, a similar outcry had been made a few years earlier (perhaps influencing the uproar in England), and an evangelist named Casiodoro de Reina translated the Bible into Spanish in 1569 (at least, he is normally credited with it; many scholars who have studied the work have concluded that it was a collaborative effort, they just don't know who else was involved). Later another man named Cipriono de Valera oversaw a revision of the work in 1602. This became known as the Reina-Valera Santa Biblia (Reina-Valera Holy Bible). In Germany, Martin Luther not only started his own protestant church, but used the education that he had received from the Catholic Church to translate the Bible into German. Luther published the complete Bible in German in 1534. This became known as the Lutherischen Bibel (Lutheran Bible).I do not know for sure, because I am not a linguist by any means, but I am told that these three Bible translate directly back and forth between them with no contradiction. I have looked at the 1602 Reina-Valera Santa Biblia, and attempted to compare it with the King James Version, and, from my limited knowledge of Spanish, it holds up very well. I thought I had found a couple of discrepancies, but, both times, it involved words that have changed meanings since the early 1600's. Of course, as I said, my Spanish vocabulary is extremely limited, so I am not the best person to be making such comparisons.
The point is, although a lot of people attack the KJV, it is known to be an accurate translation. Some people prefer more modern translations, because the language is easier to understand. I haven't gone through every one of the modern translations; there may be some that are quite accurate. I have been less than impressed with the accuracy of those that I have checked. I also have a tendency to be suspicious of the motivations of people trying to produce new translations. It may be that they are simply trying to put the Bible in more modern terms, to make it easier to understand, but, it may also be that there is something, or perhaps several things, in the King James that they don't like, so, producing a whole new Bible, using contemporary language as an excuse, but changing those things that they don't agree with. My feeling is that, even though the language of the King James is awkward sometimes, it can be understood; it just takes a little prayer and effort. So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And, if there really is a problem with the King James, how many tries does it take us to fix it? There are a whole lot of modern translations out there, and there are more on the way. If one of the existing modern translations is accurate, then what purpose would be served by producing another one?

Joab

Joab was one of David’s most trusted advisors. He was the son of Zeruiah, David’s sister. There are many incidents in Scripture that show Joab to be a wise man, and yet…
The first thing that we told about Joab is that, shortly after King Saul’s death, another man, named Abner, tried to make Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, king instead of David. Joab led some of David’s men to go deal with this threat, and they met with Abner and some of Ishbosheth’s men, at the pool of Gibeon. There was a great battle there, a lot of people were killed, but the battle went worse for Abner than for Joab. Abner ran away, but Joab’s brother Asahel chased after him. The exchange between them makes it seem that Abner knew Joab, but Abner ended up killing Asahel. At the end of the day, Abner had lost 360 men, and Joab had lost twenty. Of course, one of the twenty that Joab lost was his brother, so that was a particularly difficult loss for Joab.
As the war continued, and David grew stronger and stronger, Abner came to David to try to make peace. Joab was not there when David met with Abner, and when Joab returned, the servants told him that Abner had been there, and that David had sent him away in peace. Abner became angry, and accused Abner of spying on the king, and sent servants after Abner. When Joab caught up to Abner, he killed him (more because of Asahel than because of suspicion of spying, but, there it is). Of course, David got upset with Joab for that, but apparently he somewhat understood, because Joab still had a job; in fact, 2 Samuel 8:16 says that Joab was captain over all the host.
In 2 Samuel 10, the Ammonites hired the Syrians to help them fight against Israel. David sent Joab to fight the Ammonites and the Syrians. While that was going on, David got himself into another little jam, and sent to Joab to help him out. Joab did as requested.
In 2 Samuel 14, David’s son Absolom had been exiled. Joab had a woman come into the king and describe a situation very similar to the one that led David to exile his son. After he pronounced judgment (the judgment that Joab had expected), then the woman asked the king why was Absolom still exiled? David only wanted to know one thing from her after that; he asked if Joab had put her up to it.
Unfortunately, later on, Absolom led a rebellion of his own, trying to become king in David’s place. Joab led the army that tracked Absolom down, under orders from the king not to harm Absolom. Joab realized that Absolom would always be a problem, so when he saw the king’s son, he killed him. David wasn’t happy about that, and he mourned his son. Joab spoke harshly to the king (I doubt whether anyone else could have spoken to David that way and gotten away with it), but pointed out that, if Absolom hadn’t died, he probably would have kept trying to become king until David was dead, and everyone loyal to David was dead, also.
In 2 Samuel 20, Joab pursued after a man named Sheba, and Sheba took refuge inside one of the cities of Israel. It looked like Joab was going to have to destroy the city in order to get to Sheba, but a wise woman called to Joab, and asked what he wanted. He explained who they were after, and she asked if he was prepared to destroy a city in Israel in order to get Sheba. Joab indicated that he would really rather not have to destroy a city, but he wasn’t going to leave until he had Sheba’s head. She told him to give a few minutes, and shortly thereafter, Sheba’s head came sailing over the wall.
In 2 Samuel 24, David told Joab to count the people of Israel. Joab reminded David that the number of people wasn’t important anyway, but David insisted. In fact, the Law forbade counting Israel, since God wanted Israel to trust in Him, rather than their numbers, so David got in trouble with God for this.
Then another one of David’s sons tried to usurp the throne, a man named Adonijah, but this time Joab threw in with Adonijah. The Bile doesn’t make it clear why. Perhaps simply because Joab had been too close to David for too long, and knew how many serious mistakes David had made. In any case, Joab seemed convinced that Adonijah would make a better king than David. Joab was a smart guy, but, in the end he outsmarted himself. I think sometimes we get close to someone that seems so godly and righteous, and we start seeing his or her flaws. Guess what? We all have flaws. Don’t let somebody else’s flaws cause you to outsmart yourself. The bottom line is that Joab did a lot of very smart, and very courageous things for an awfully long time, but, in the end, he was found to be fighting against the ordinances of God, because, flawed or not, David was the man that God had ordained to be king over Israel.

Making a Name for Yourself

There are a lot of people in the Bible whose names aren’t even mentioned. Paul’s nephew helped keep Paul alive once, when he overheard some zealots taking a vow not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul; not realizing that Paul’s nephew could hear their plan. Paul got away clean; I wonder if the zealots maintained their vow?
There was a widow woman that Elijah dealt with; she had a pot of oil that didn’t fail, all because she was faithful to God.
Philip had four daughters that were prophetesses, but we are not given their names.
There was a woman that was healed by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment. That’s an interesting story, in and of itself. She managed to sneak up, in the crowd, and touch just the edge of his robe. He stopped everything, and asked the question, “Who touched me?” The disciples didn’t know what to think of that. “Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?” But Jesus was aware that someone had received a healing. He didn’t mind that she had gotten healed, of course, but He wanted her to make a public profession of faith. If you want to sneak in to get a blessing that’s fine, but you’d better tell people what God did for you…
There was a man who had died, and his friends were on their way to bury him, when they were attacked by the Moabites. In their haste, they just threw the corpse into the open sepulcher of Elisha. As soon as his body touched Elisha’s bones, he revived, and went chasing after his friends (which probably gave them extra incentive to run).
The man that we know as the rich young ruler was never named; just as well, I guess, since he ended up walking away from Jesus…
The boy who gave the disciples the two fishes and the five loaves of bread that Jesus used to feed the five thousand, is not named.
The blind man that Jesus healed in John chapter 9 is not named. That’s an interesting story, in and of itself. This man was born blind, and the disciples wondered about that, because the cultural superstition of the time was that blindness was punishment for sin. How could this man have sinned before he was born? Was he being visited by his parents’ sin? Jesus told them that this man was born blind specifically that God might be glorified, then he made some clay, and put it on the man’s eyes, and told him to go wash in the pool of Siloam. So this guy goes to the pool that Jesus specified. Now, I don’t know how many pools there were in the area; Siloam may have been the nearest one anyway, so it would be no surprise that he went to that one, but it may also have been that there were several other pools closer, but he decided to do what Jesus told him to do, even if it wasn’t convenient (if I was trusting someone to give me my sight, I think I’d have done exactly what I was told to do). After he washed the clay off, he received his sight. Eventually, someone led him to the Pharisees, who, of course, didn’t want to believe that Jesus had opened the blind man’s eyes. Of course, the man couldn’t have picked Jesus out of lineup; he had never seen Him. The Pharisees called in the man’s parents. Is this your son? Was he born blind? How does he see now? The parents verified that he was their son, and that he was born blind, but refused to say anything about Jesus (the Pharisees were putting people out of the synagogue for confessing Christ). So they came back to the man that had been blind, and gave him the third degree again. Finally, they told him to give God the praise, because they didn’t know who this Jesus was, not realizing that he was giving God the praise. It ended up that the formerly blind man told them that if Jesus were not of God, He wouldn’t be able to do anything, and they put him out of the synagogue.
The point is that, it’s not about becoming famous. Jesus taught us in the Sermon on the Mount that we should let our light shine, that men may see our good works, and glorify our Father, which is in Heaven. Not that any of us are so great, but that God is great, and if we show His good works to those around us, they should come to know Him. If you get your name in the papers, that’s fine, but be careful that God gets the glory. The Pharisees at least had that much right.

Samson

Samson and Delilah is probably one of the best-known stories in the Old Testament. I mentioned briefly last week, when blogging about the women of the Bible, and pointing out that Delilah was the exception, rather than the rule. Samson was something of an exception, himself. I don’t think there was any hero in the bible quite like Samson.
First of all, the Bible tells us that Samson was a Nazarite. A Nazarite was supposed to be separated unto God. I think most of us know that he wasn’t allowed to have his head shaved. That was part of being a Nazarite. He also wasn’t allowed to imbibe alcohol, or touch a dead body.
Samson’s first choice of women was a Philistine woman. That’s generally a bad idea. Here is a man, that, for religious reasons, has to avoid a lot of different things, and he’s getting married to a woman who isn’t even the same religion. She’s not only not a Nazarite, she’s not even a Jew! There is enough stress in married life without those kinds of differences. In this case, we have a man who has a special calling on his life, married to a woman who would probably like nothing better than to see his religion go away.
Prior to the wedding, Samson killed a young lion in a field. After a few days, he was interested to note that, as the lion’s carcass decayed, some bees nested inside the remains. Samson reached in, and snagged some honey. Now, a case could be made that it was all right for him to be handling a dead lion, because the commandment was not to touch a dead body—implying human remains. Jews in general were not supposed to touch dead beasts that ‘go on all four’ which would seem to include lions.
Then he begins toying with the Philistine guests at his wedding (friends of his prospective in-laws). He asks them a riddle, “Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness,” and told them that if they could figure out what that meant, he would get them each thirty changes of garment, but if they couldn’t, each of them would buy him thirty changes of garment. Well, the Philistines and the Jews didn’t get along very well to start with. Toying with one’s enemy is a bad idea. Perhaps Samson didn’t consider these Philistines his enemy, because his in-laws knew them, but playing games with prospective in-laws isn’t very smart, either. The Philistines started putting pressure on Samson fiancée to find out the riddle, which she of course did. Samson was furious that his betrothed would betray him, and stormed off. That may have been the most intelligent thing he had done thus far in his entire life. But then he came back. Her father had married her to someone else, thinking that Samson didn’t want her any more (a reasonable assumption). Samson tried to take her back anyway, after she betrayed him.
So he decides he wants a different wife. Again he chooses a Philistine woman. He didn’t learn from the first one? By this time, the Philistines have a pretty good idea that Samson is a problem (they’ve already tried to kill him at least once). Not only is he a Jew, but he is a very strong individual, and he is unstable. They never know what he is going to do next. He must have some weakness, though, so they conspired with Delilah to find out what it is.
She asks him the secret to afflicting him, and he makes up some nonsense about binding him with green withs (cords). She tries it, while he is asleep, but it doesn’t work. She asks again. Now some would say that he didn’t even realize that she had tried the withs, and, certainly there is a basis for that belief in that he broke the withs so easily that he might not have even realized that they were there, but, why would she ask again unless she knew he had lied, and how would she know he had lied, unless she had tested it? So, maybe Samson wasn’t really consciously aware that she had attempted to take away his strength, but he should have been. He lied to her three times, and eventually told her the truth. Samson really was thinking impaired. I’m not entirely sure whether he didn’t think through how Delilah knew when he lied, or if didn’t think through what would happen if he told the truth about what could make him weak, when she’s already tried every thing she knows that could possibly have that effect, but, one way or the other, he really should have spent more time thinking about what he was doing before he did it.
We have a bad tendency to think that Delilah was Samson’s downfall. Delilah certainly didn’t help his situation any, but, realistically, Samson’s downfall was Samson. Delilah couldn’t have touched him if he had been doing what he was supposed to be doing. I’m not sure if Samson had just gotten so full of himself that he actually believed that he could do whatever he wanted, and nobody could touch him, or if he had led such a blessed life from his youth up that he just thought God would never leave him. Romans 8:37-38 provides a list of things that could not separate Samson from the love of God; it sounds like an all-encompassing list (but that’s New Testament—Samson lived in the Old Testament; God hasn’t changed), but notice that it never even suggested that Samson couldn’t separate Samson from God. It does make it clear that Delilah could not separate Samson from God, but she could help persuade him to put himself in a situation where God wouldn’t bail him out. Of course, God did eventually give Samson his strength back, but not until the Philistines gave their god, Dagon, credit for bringing down Samson.
Here’s the thing, though, Samson is a lot like most of us. A lot of times, for one reason or another, we start thinking that we can handle this situation, or that problem, on our own. I won’t bother God with this one; he’s busy. This is a no-brainer; I’ll be fine. The ‘no-brainer’ is thinking that you can do anything right without God. Don’t be like Samson

The Early Church

Occasionally you hear discussions about how different the early church was. Some people envy the disciples that got to walk with Jesus, and learn directly from Him. Others have no wish to be anything like the people in the early church, on the grounds that they were one step removed from primitive superstition. I think the correct attitude is somewhere in between.
I have to admit, there is a certain appeal to the idea of having been able to walk with Jesus, but, even though there are Old Testament prophecies that indicate that He would be a light unto the Gentiles, for the most part, He didn’t deal with us during His lifetime. There was the Gentile woman that asked Jesus to heal her daughter, and He did, but not before referring to her as a dog. She had faith enough to be willing to accept being a dog, in His eyes, if He was willing to grant her no more than what a dog could gain just by sitting under the Master’s table. He had what she needed, and if she had to endure a little bit of name-calling to get it, then so be it. To be honest, as a Gentile living in Israel, she had probably been called a lot worse. The point is, I’m not ethnically Jewish, so I don’t think that Jesus would not have let me hang out with Him during His ministry.
On the other hand, some people seem to think that they are so much smarter than the people in the early church. Well, you know they just didn’t understand this, or they hadn’t been taught that. Maybe not, but these are the people that God chose to spread the Gospel. Do you really think that God called them, and didn’t qualify them? Everything that we know about Jesus, we know because these faithful men wrote it down. Is there anything that we really know about Jesus that we didn’t learn from the Bible?
Some people also seem to think that people today are more moral than the people in the early church. Certainly a case could be made for the fact that in Biblical times arranged marriages were the rule (from what I understand, people were generally married at age 13). Usually when I hear talk like that, they make it sound like there were a bunch of dirty old men marrying 13 year old girls, which I don’t doubt happened, but, normally families wanting to ensure that their sons and daughters were taken care of would arrange for them to be married while both were 13. Certainly nowhere in the New Testament is there a commandment for arranged marriages. Some would say that the writers didn’t feel that it was necessary to specify, since the practice was so common. Maybe so, but the fact remains that there is no such commandment. Keep in mind also that, with regards to 13 year old girls, there really was no such thing in Biblical times: A 13 year-old was considered an adult; it isn’t so much a shift in morality as it is a change in the understanding of what constitutes an adult.
I think it’s interesting too that some people talk about declining morals in today’s society. I suspect that it has less to do with what people think or feel as it does just people getting to be less hypocritical. Are the people of 2008 less moral than the people of 1958? Somehow, I doubt it, but I do think that people today are less likely to be inhibited by social standards than the people of the 50’s were. I don’t think that it was even a question of did they sin less, I think it was more a question of how careful were they not to get caught. Perhaps it was more a question of what sins did they commit.
Quite frankly, I don’t think that we are any smarter, or any more (or less) moral then the original disciples of Jesus. Yes, sometimes we have to filter what was written, because society has changed. It seems to me, though, that people are still very much the same. Like it or not, we are the early church.

The Biological Clock

I mentioned Hannah briefly last week. She was the mother of Samuel, and promised to loan him to God before she even got pregnant. It is clear from her story that having children was very important to her. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7 that “if the flower of her age pass,” let them marry, that is not a sin. I think what Paul was referring to is what most people today would call the woman’s biological clock. Perhaps that is what Hannah was dealing with.
Not every woman wants children. Some women want children, just not right now. Sometimes there are other things they want to do first. Maybe they feel a calling to do something for God that they wouldn’t be able to do as a mother. Perhaps they put their career first, at least in their twenties and early-to-mid thirties. When they decide that they have established themselves, or succeeded in whatever it was that they intended to do in their professional lives, sometimes they are a little old to be having children. Of course, one can get married, and still choose not to have children (at least, in the twenty-first century one can; it was probably considerably more difficult in the first century). There is nothing wrong with that. I think that it’s important to note that Paul says that staying single is better, because one can do more for the Lord, but that getting married is good, too. There’s nothing wrong with having kids, but there’s also nothing wrong with not having kids. Being a mother is pretty much a full time job in and of itself. It doesn’t leave you a lot of time to encourage other people in the Lord. It can still be done, but raising children will soak up a lot of your time (if you do it right).
The point that I’m trying to make is that, the decision to have children, or not to have children, is a personal choice. There are some people that have a calling on their lives that simply cannot be fulfilled as a mother (or a father), but, for most of us, God has left that decision in our hands.
I am particularly concerned about women that put off family life for one reason or another, and then, when they start feeling their biological clock ticking, suddenly get anxious about finding a husband and having babies. Don’t tell me that doesn’t happen, it does. I realize that a lot of women that have had that happen to them don’t want to admit it, and that’s okay; I’m not asking for confessions. The sad part of it is, when a woman finds herself in such a situation, and starts trying to make things happen, instead of letting God have control, she winds up seeming desperate. Did you ever notice that a less-than-attractive confident person usually gets more dates than a very-attractive desperate person? On the face of it, that may not make a lot of sense, but desperation can make a person seem a lot less attractive. I think that guys tend to think that even if she looks good, there must be something seriously wrong with her for her to be so desperate. I’m sure that this works in reverse, too, but guys are much less susceptible to the biological clock. Yes, we sometimes act really goofy when we start thinking that we’re ‘getting old,’ but with us, we suddenly start trying to do things to prove that we’re still young; getting married and having kids isn’t usually a symptom of a male mid-life crisis. If anything, it’s more likely that a man will leave his wife and kids to go do something completely stupid because they are part of what makes him feel old.
Think about it, though, ladies, would you go out with a guy that came across as being desperate? Of course not. So, why do you want to chase after us acting desperate? Just relax, take a deep breath, and let God have His way. If that guy that seems like the perfect husband really is, then God will bring the two of you together. You don’t have to rush things; remember that patience is a virtue, and in your patience possess ye your souls.

Are There Modern Day Pharisees?

I know that some of us have a tendency to at least think of some of the religious people in the world today as Pharisees, even if we don’t actually call them that. I read something recently, someone said that we shouldn’t call them that, because the real problem with the Pharisees was that they didn’t accept Jesus or His teachings, but the modern-day religious people that we want to call Pharisees have at least accepted Jesus. That’s an interesting point, but…
I have posted before about the seven women who tried to take the name of one man, and that this is prophecy of churches wanting to call themselves Christian, but not being willing to accept the complete teachings of Christ. There are a lot of Christian people that Jesus wouldn’t be willing to claim as His own. I don’t say that to point fingers, but just to provide a warning. If someone tells you that they are a Christian, but there is no evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in that person’s life, then you should check what they say against the Word of God. Really, even if a person seems to be totally Christian, you shouldn’t base your salvation on that person’s word. If I tell you one thing, but the Bible says something different, then who is wrong? Obviously, I am, and if you follow what I say without checking up on me, then you are, too. And if you get to Judgment, and God says, “Why did you…?” and you say, “But, Pete Shepherd said…” He may very well tell you, “I don’t know any Pete Shepherd.” Let’s face it, if I’m teaching false doctrine, He’s not going to know me at Judgment, unless I repent and get right in between. I would hope that if I find out that I’m teaching false doctrine, that I would be able to reach the people that I misled, and get them back on the right path…
The point, though, is that the Pharisees were hypocrites. They were the great teachers of the Law, and yet they didn’t really follow it themselves. Oh, they made a show of obedience, but only the things that people could see. The weightier matters of the Law, they ignored completely. They tried to make everybody else obey the Law (in fact, they tried to get people to do more than what the Law commanded), and they were very quick to mete out punishment for those ‘sinners’ that did not obey, even though they were no better. In fact, frequently they were much worse, because the sinners that they looked down on so much were frequently putting forth more effort to try to fulfill the commandments than the Pharisees themselves were. Does that sound like someone you know? It sounds like a few people that I know, and a couple of televangelists that used to be on television. To be honest, there are probably several people like that preaching on the tube now that I just don’t know about.
Jesus said that all the Law and the prophets hang on just two commandments: Love the Lord thy God with all…, and love thy neighbor as thyself. Now, if one loves one’s neighbor, then one would at least put forth an honest effort to do right by said neighbor. You wouldn’t watch someone that you honestly loved struggle with a burden, if you had any ability at all to help, would you? The Pharisees would, though, and so would a whole lot of religious people. If you knew that your neighbor had a problem, and you could help them with it wouldn’t you? You see where I’m going with this. We should be trying to help people, not criticize them to death (not even the ones that we might consider ‘Pharisees’). Lift them up, and encourage them, keeping in mind that we are going to need some encouragement ourselves, sometimes.