Quotes: God Shaking Our Foundations

Charles C. West once said “We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking, only to learn that it is God who is shaking them.”  This is a quote that has had a profound effect on my life; both in its truth, and in its reality.

Very often in our lives, it seems like the world is falling down around our ears. Everywhere we look, things are being torn down; no matter where we are in life, it seems as though it is nothing more than complete upheaval. For those in positions of power and wealth, times like this can be extremely concerning; for those who have far less, it can be downright terrifying.

The thing to keep in mind is that God is always in control. It is hard to focus on this in moments like these, but it is in these moments when it is vital to turn to He who directs our steps and lights our paths.

Here in the United States, there is a partial government shutdown taking place. I'll not go into the politics of it at the moment, because those views are better left to my personal blog, for one; and for another, politics can be a grave distraction from the things of God for many. Suffice to say, our political leaders have dropped the ball once again, but in doing so, have granted us all a fantastic opportunity to seek God in our daily lives. We must seek Him not only for guidance and direction in our spiritual walk, but now we have a "real" reason to seek Him as our provider.

I use quotations because many of us know that He is always our provider. Many of us know Him to be the source of all we have. Yet in this current time, many more are having to face the reality that God is not just the Provider in hard times, but He is the Provider at all times.

Our foundations have been shaken, my friends; shaken by political upheaval; shaken by personal tragedy and hardship; and shaken by a sudden lack of those things which we consider to be vital and important in our lives- Indeed, things which we consider to be necessary. Some of us have lost our methods of transportation; some of us are facing uncertainty in the area of benefits; some are seeing the warning signs of layoffs; some seem to be trapped in locations far from home with no way of getting back; and still others have found a loss of will to continue on.
Yes, these are all times of hardship, and can indeed be times of chaos - If we allow them to be.

The answer to the hardships and trials we face is a mere prayer away; nay, even a simple whisper. Our loving Creator will provide all our needs, but there are times when we must ask. The days are coming, and coming soon, when we as followers of Christ must rely upon Him solely for the provision that we require, and now is as good a time as any previous to make that change.

Allow me to give an illustration from my own life- I was uprooted from my home state of New Hampshire and brought to New Mexico for no other reason, it seemed, than to languish. I had a job lined up out here, but when I arrived, I discovered that they had given it to someone else. I found myself staying with a friend, my benefactor to whom I will forever be grateful, and looking unsuccessfully for employment. No matter where I went; no matter how many applications I filled out; no matter how many resumes I dropped off, I could find no work anywhere.
That is when I realized that God had brought me here for the sole purpose of learning to rely upon Him, and at that point, I'd been attempting to make my own way- All the time, complaining to Him for not opening doors. I required a time of sincere repentance, and refocused my vision so that my eyes were upon Him day and night.

Shortly after these events, I found work with a gentleman from my former church in his auto detailing business. Yet again, I find myself forever grateful to him not only for the work, but for opening his home to me when my other living situation fell through. After about a year, he received one of the desires of his heart, and was accepted to study at Oxford.
No matter what events transpired, however, so long as I kept my eyes upon Christ and relied upon God for the provision of all my needs, He saw to everything. Employment when needed, housing when required, and the provision of money, food and transportation at all times. Never have I gone without my needs since I returned control of my life to Him.

I share this story with you all, not to show how righteous or amazing I am (because such a statement would be a far cry from the truth!), but to encourage you, our readers, to look to God for all things. He will always provide- I have learned this truth in my own life, and will continue to learn this lesson in greater and bigger things.
My prayer for each of you is that God shows Himself to be as amazing, if not more so, in your lives as He has in mine. Indeed, I pray that each of you see greater blessings in your lives than I have seen, so that those around you may see and believe.

May God bless and keep you all in His mighty hand, safe from the intentions of the enemy, and provide all your needs- For though your foundations are shaking, it may very well be He who is reminding you that He must be first in all things in your lives.

The 23rd Psalm: Restoration and Salvation

In verse one of Psalms 23, we saw that David had made an astonishing statement: The Creator of all, YHVH, not only provided for him personally; but acting as a Shepherd, did so on an intimate level.  In verse two, he made another massive statement by detailing the level of care the Shepherd went to on his behalf.  Now, we are moving on to verse three, and yet another revelation.  (KVJ here)

he restores my inner person. He guides me in right paths for the sake of his own name. (CJB)

The KJV says "he restoreth my soul."  Most Onlyists point to translations such as this as evidence of foul play in the translation department.  However, David knew full well exactly what the soul was: The inner person.  Some people refer to the soul as the "inner man."  More properly, the soul is comprised of three main areas.  These are the mind, the will and the emotions.  It is this same understanding of "soul" that is also referred to as "the heart" in verses such as Matthew 12:34, when Christ stated that from "the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

So what is David actually saying here?  He is stating that YHVH brings his entire soul, his inner person, back into proper alignment with His word and will.  Adonai refreshes his mind, and refocuses him on the things of righteousness.  The Lord adjusts his will, bringing him back into line with His own.  Finally, YHVH takes his emotions and brings calm to them.  This is the refreshment of the soul.

Another thing David states is that he is led along the right paths.  What's the difference between the right and wrong paths?  In shepherding, if one were to lead the sheep down a path of brambles, thorns, and so forth, not only does one risk losing precious wool by having to cut out the offending brambles, but one also risks the sheeps discomfort as well.  If the path is rocky and loose, one risks also their less than certain footing in such conditions.

Let's move on.

He will turn back my soul: he will guide me into the tracks of justice for sake of his name. (JULIA)

Once again, Mrs. Smith uses the future tense, showing the care of the Lord pressing forward beyond just the present.  The phrasing here is also interesting, as "turning back" refers to returning to a point prior to diversion from an appointed path.  This is the same thing that "refreshing" or "restoring" does for David, as it returns him to where he needs to be.  (It should be noted that the original Hebrew does not actually have tense, so any argument over tense sensitive translation is without merit.)

Some may wish to call into question the translation of justice in this verse.  The original Hebrew, however, is able to go either way.  In this case, the Julia version brings about another interesting aspect of this verse.  While most translations prefer the term "righteousness," (meaning a state of right living and purity of heart), justice refers to another aspect, one far more familiar to the shepherd: The seeking of an offending lamb.
A lamb which spurns the rest of the flock and heads off on its own is often in for a very rude wake-up call.  Alone and on its own, it soon winds up in danger of all different variaties, from brambles and thorns to ledges, rivers and predators.  The shepherd keeps count of his sheep, and when one goes missing, leaves the flock in the care of the under shepherds in a safe a protected place, and goes in search of the lost.
This is comparable to the tale of the Good Shepherd told us by Yeshua.  However, simply finding that lost lamb is not the end of the ordeal, for the lamb must learn not to wander again.

In David's time, this was accomplished most often by breaking one of the lamb's legs.  In this modern era of SPCA and PETA, such an action seems cruel- However, it would be far more cruel to allow the lamb to run off again.  Each time, the odds of finding the lamb alive dwindle; the more the lamb runs off, the more headstrong it becomes and the further it wanders.  With each extra length of wandering, the dangers to its life increase.  Breaking its leg is not solely for punishment, but to draw it closer to the shepherd.
Once the leg is broken, the shepherd carries the lamb everywhere.  He tends to the leg and makes certain it heals properly.  He feeds the lamb from his own hands, since the lamb cannot stand to graze.  He snuggles the lamb when it sleeps, so that it maintains the sense of physical contact it needs.  He speaks to it and sings to it, so that it grows used to his voice.  When all is said and done, and the lamb can once more walk on its own, it will never again run off, so dependant has it grown on the shepherd.  It will graze with the flock, of course, and sleep with them; but when moving from field to field, that lamb will be at his side always.

Justice does not simply mean punishment for a wrong deed; it requires corrective action so the deed is not repeated, or it is not justice.  Thus, the use of justice here shows us a great deal about our common Shepherd.

He renews my strength. He guides me along right paths, bringing honor to his name. (NLT)

Note the first part of the NLT's translation.  This is yet another aspect of the restoration of the soul.  Of course physical nourishment renews physical strength, but the provision of this has already been addressed.  Now, David references the renewing of his inner strength.

On long walks from one distant field to another, the flock of sheep can grow weary; one might even use the word dejected.  Sheep do not like to move for extended periods of time.  They are meanderers, happy and content to drift slowly with one another across a field.  Long marches, however, can slowly cause them to be depressed, in a manner of speaking.
For this reason, when on long walks, the shepherd will talk and sing to his flock.  The speaking and singing lifts the spirits of the flock, and keeps them strengthened.  David is telling us here that not only does Adonai strengthen him physically by providing sustanence, but that He strengthens him spiritually through encouragement- The same way David himself encouraged his own flock.  David was not a shepherd aspiring to be a musician, carrying around a harp to play in his downtime.  He had the harp to provide music to his flock, and in the process, worship YHVH.

He refreshes and restores my life (my self); He leads me in the paths of righteousness [uprightness and right standing with Him--not for my earning it, but] for His name's sake. (AMP)

The Amplified sums it all up very well.
Adonai refreshes and restores David's strength and his soul- Indeed, He safeguards David's life as a whole.  Adonai leads him, and us, in the paths of righteousness- Right standing and uprightness, of which justice is a part.  However, in all of these verses, we've seen the same basic phrase ending this verse: "To bring honor/glory (for the sake of) His name."  Why?

I said in the last section that it has been a long held belief of mine that David had a revelation of the redemptive work of Christ long before it happened.  I believe firmly that David knew of this gift of salvation; knew of the Gospel; long before it was actually presented.  This section here gives further evidence of that.
The most major of God's gifts to us, which we cannot hope to earn or be worthy of, is salvation.  This is not to say that we are trash- YHVH finds us valuable enough to have died for us!  Nevertheless, we cannot attain salvation through any other means aside from Yeshua and an appeal to His sacrifice.  That is what the Amplified is saying here: We cannot earn this right standing, but He gives it to us anyhow- For His name's sake.  For the honor and glory to His name.

I used to read this and wonder why I could not be prideful, but God seemed to demand people brown-nose Him.  I wasn't being heretical; I was honestly inquisitive.  That question has remained with me for some time, even since finding the answer, because I believe that there are other people out there who wonder the same thing.  Here's the answer:
If you were a doctor who had come up with a cure for cancer, but the general attitude of the world was set against you, how would you get the word out?  The solution is simple, yet most businesses will report to you that word of mouth accounts for the majority of their clientele.

Likewise, YHVH is able to remove the most insideous and lethal disease of them all, one which modern science has not yet been able to even track- But the general attitude of the world is dead set against Him.  So rather than advertise, (a neon sign, no more war, showing up and punching the atheist, take your pick), He chooses word of mouth.
We are given salvation and redemption, restoration and refreshment, not because we have earned it or deserved it but because we will then tell everyone about how good the Shepherd is.  We praise and extoll and lift up His name above all other names; and as a result, more come to Him for the operation they need and the gift they truly desire, and the cycle begins again.


Next time, we'll look at verse four, and the immortal "yea, though I walk" portion.  Until then, may YHVH continue to strengthen, restore and refresh you as you spread the word of His goodness, mercy and the gift that He offers to all.

God bless!

The 23rd Psalm: Rest and Provision

Last time, we looked as Psalms 23:1 and saw how this verse by itself was an earth shattering statement.  From the name God is given in this verse, (Adonai), to the statement that David wanted for nothing because of the Lord's provision, the verse is full of meaning that many far too often miss.  The simple assertion that YHVH is a Shepherd, an ever present guide, protector and provider, challenges the thought that God is unapproachable.

Now we will examine verse two. (KJV)

He has me lie down in grassy pastures, he leads me by quiet water (CJB)

Remember that at the time he was writing this, David was a shepherd.  He knew the importance of two things above all when it came to sheep: Pasture and water.
Grassy pastures are more than food for sheep; they are the places for repose and relaxation.  Sheep at peace are happy sheep, and happy sheep are healthy.  Moreover, the word picture of grassy pastures, or green pastures as it says in the KJV, speaks to the abundance of provision.
However, the softness and greenness of the grass was not all there was to settling the flock down to graze and relax.  If there was no water nearby, the flock would grow thirsty after a short time of grazing in the sun and be too weak to then move onward to drink.  If the water was too loud, it would spook the flock and there would be a risk of injury and/or loss of life as chaos ensued.
Thus, when David says that Adonai leads him by quiet waters, and makes him lie down in grassy pastures, he is making another major statement.  He is saying that not only does God lead him, but knows him so intimately that He knows where he'll be best kept.  Moreover, Adonai cares for him so deeply that He finds him a place where there is not only soft, green and abundant grass, but still water to soothe and water him.

Let's move on to another translation for another look at this verse.

He makes me lie down in [fresh, tender] green pastures; He leads me beside the still and restful waters. (AMP)

Not only does God care for and provide for David, He provides only the best.  He doesn't just provide food for David's nourishment, but the very best; exactly what David needs to live a full and complete life.  God doesn't just care enough to give him food and water, but is intimately concerned with his rest as well.
Sheep cannot sleep next to water that makes noise.  Gentle babbling is one thing; gurgling, dropping and rushing water, however, keeps them awake, paranoid and frantic.  Sheep only spend an average of 3.5 hours sleeping every day, so it is vital that they have the very best conditions for sleep possible.  Because their hearing is one of their sharpest senses, loud water's constantly alternating patterns confuse them, adding to their unease and preventing sleep.
That said, one cannot have sheep rest beside stagnant water, either.  Not only does this invite sickness in the flock if they were to drink it, but it brings yet another problem only a shepherd would know of: It offends the nose of the sheep.  Sheep have great sight, but poor depth perception, meaning they depend upon their hearing and their sense of smell to warn them of danger.  When a sheep's hearing or olfactory system is overwhelmed, it places undue stress upon them because they can no longer hear or smell clearly.
What this means, then, is that David is seen to with the utmost care and attention to detail.

He lets me rest in green meadows; he leads me beside peaceful streams. (NLT)

The NLT's reading is important for an almost imperceptable reason: "He lets me rest."  The KJV and other translations can often be misunderstood to mean that God forces David to rest.  While it is sometimes the case in our own lives, and undoubtedly in David's as well, that God will introduce circumstances that cause us to rest, God does not force us to do anything.
This translation introduces a vital understanding to the attentive reader: Adonai, like any good shepherd, allows His sheep to rest.  While there are times when He will cause them to rest for their own sakes, and likewise keep them awake for the same reasons, He allows them to rest on their own schedule when in a place of safety.

He will cause me to lie down in pastures of tender grass: he will lead me to the water of rest (JULIA)

Mrs. Smith's translation is unique for several reasons, least of all that hers was an already accepted version among many churches in the late 1800's.  Additionally, she was a Greek and Hebrew scholar well regarded in her time.  In her own words she wrote out her translation "...endeavoring to put the same English word for the same Hebrew or Greek word, everywhere, while King James's translators have wholly differed from this rule..."  Thus, we have this beautiful passage reflected slightly differently, thereby giving us yet another glimpse of the Shepherd.
While other versions use past tense or present tense on this verse, Julia used future tense.  This is consistant with our God and the relationship we all have with Him.  Prior to coming to Him, we do not necessarily experience plenty, nor do we experience rest or peace.  Upon returning to Him, however, we are- And it continues on throughout our future with Him.



As we conclude this section, allow me to point to the fact that Yeshua called Himself the Good Shepherd.  In Psalm 22, we see Ha'Meshiach on the cross meeting the demands of YHVH's law.  Here, we see Him providing for the daily needs of His flock- The Church.  It has long been my firm belief that David had a revelation of the redemption and salvation that was to be offered to all peoples over two thousand years later.  His intimate references to YHVH and their relationship evidences this.

There is one final note which should be made on this passage in regards to shepherding: Sheep ill at ease cannot nurse their young.  Thus, not only is God concerned with the current generation of His flock by leading them to quiet water and the best pastures, but also the needs of the next generation.  By providing the best for the adults, the young also recieve the very best care.

Next, we will look at verse three.  I look forward to that time, but until then, I pray that you will find the rest and provision that Yeshua has for you.  God bless.

The 23rd Psalm: Adonai Our Shepherd

As I stated in the introduction to this study, Psalms 23 is a psalm not for the dead, but for those of us that still live.  Death itself is never actually mentioned in this Psalm, and the word is used only once.  Yet, for whatever reason, we equate death, dying and funerals with this beautiful illustration of God's provision and guidance throughout our lives.


Without any further ado, let us begin with the first verse. (KJV here)

A psalm of David: ADONAI is my shepherd; I lack nothing. (CJB)

I love this version for the simple fact that they used in text the Jewish manner of vocal reading.  The original text uses YHVH, (what we usually write as YHWH), but the Jews do not pronounce YHVH aloud; instead, they vocalize Adonai, or in some cases, Adon.
Adon, singular, means "Lord," whereas Adonai, plural, literally means "Lords."  When used with singular modifiers, it is meant to accent the preeminence of God. (1)  Thus, in this case, David is writing that the all powerful, ever present God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is his Shepherd.
This is an astounding claim to this day, because even then as today, many believe God to be an impersonal and distant deity.  David is saying that this is not the case at all; in fact, just as the shepherd is with his flock at all times, so too is God with him at all times.  Far from being distant and aloof, Adonai is personally concerned with the wellbeing of every one of His sheep.


Let's look at how the Amplified words verse one:

THE LORD is my Shepherd [to feed, guide, and shield me], I shall not lack. (AMP)

The Amplified here takes the very job of the shepherd and inserts it in brackets to further amplify what the Lord is doing for David- And indeed, all of us.  He feeds us; He guides us; and He shields and defends us.  Again, this does not line up with the concept of God being distant, impersonal and unapproachable.  To the contrary, this says exactly the opposite.


Let's move on to the second half of verse one.  The New Living translation reads:

The LORD is my shepherd; I have everything I need. (NLT)

The New Jerusalem Bible phrases this last section as "I lack nothing."  The Message says "I don't need a thing."  The Easy-To-Read Version states "I will always have everything I need."  The God's Word Version announces "I am never in need."  Brenton's English Septuigent terms it "I shall want nothing."  Finally, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot trumpets "not one thing lacks for me."
Regardless which version you prefer, the meaning is clear- God's provision for His own is complete.

KJV Only Alert

A quick aside to those who turn up their noses at these other versions and the way they word the verse: The original Hebrew reads closer to some of these than it does the King James.  The word here is châsêr, pronounced khaw-sare', and literally means "lack."  "Want" and its synonyms are implied, but are not the literal translation for this Hebrew word.  What's more, the Bishops Bible of 1568, (which is one of those listed as source material for the creation of the King James), reads "therefore I can lacke nothyng." (sic)

In conclusion for this section, I want to quote Dr. J. Vernon McGee, who said of this verse:

"The emphasis is upon the fact that there is nothing between the man's soul and God. ...notice that David does not say, I have not wanted, but 'I shall not want.' ...[this] looks into the future and gives assurance to the child of God. The security of the believer rests upon the Shepherd."

The Creator of heaven and earth is not afar off; He stands with us, providing for us completely and totally.  No other shepherd could do the job which Adonai does for us.  Only YHVH is capable of such absolute provision.

This, the  twenty-third Psalm, opens with an absolute assertion: That the all powerful and omnipresent God that created all we see and do not see takes a close and personal interest in us, our lives and the quality of the same.
Next time, we examine verse two.  Until then, may Adonai continue to be YOUR Shepherd!

The 23rd Psalm: A Psalm For The Living

How many funerals have we been to where they read Psalm 23 with all the joy of a caught fish?  Ever notice it's the favorite scripture for movie funerals?  It also seems to have made its way into "condolence" greeting cards; stories of losing loved ones; songs about the deaths of others- Even rap songs have been crafted around it as being the Psalm of choice for those within the violence of the street.

Why all the focus on death for this Psalm- Has anyone ever actually read it?!


I'm sure the majority of us have either read or heard Psalms 23 from the King James, but here's a different look at it from the Complete Jewish Bible:

A psalm of David: ADONAI is my shepherd; I lack nothing.
He has me lie down in grassy pastures, he leads me by quiet water, he restores my inner person. He guides me in right paths for the sake of his own name.
Even if I pass through death-dark ravines, I will fear no disaster; for you are with me; your rod and staff reassure me.
You prepare a table for me, even as my enemies watch; you anoint my head with oil from an overflowing cup.
Goodness and grace will pursue me every day of my life; and I will live in the house of ADONAI for years and years to come.

I bring this up because I believe the time has come for Christians to have a fundamental shift of mindset when it comes to certain Scripture.  We do not serve Kali, Mara, Mors, Thanatos, Micthantecuhtli, or Ereshkigal.  YHWH is life, not death.  Yeshua took death upon Himself, not because He needed to prove anything about His power over death, but to remove any claim death had to those of us who choose to return to our origin- To Him.
With this in mind, I want to examine this misconceived Psalm of David and show just why this is not a Funeral Psalm, but a Life Psalm.

For this study, we will be using the Complete Jewish Bible, the Amplified Bible, the New Living Translation, the Julia E Smith Translation, and I will link to the KJV for those who desire it.  I will also reference other versions when their wording can be used for clarity and emphasis, but these others will not be directly quoted from.

Get ready, my friends.  This will be an eye-opening event.



NOTE: Second installment is finished and POSTED- Click here.  Third installment is finished and POSTED- Click here.  Fourth installment is finished and scheduled to post August 30.

Jihad Within

I find that one can read to the heart's content on subjects such as investigation, politics, law, medicine, and so on, but it is never anywhere near as fulfilling as speaking with an experienced person within that particular field.  Likewise, one can read all there is to know about Mormonism, Witchcraft, Atheism and Islam- But it does not beat the understanding one can develop after speaking about it with someone who actually practices.  It is, of course, vital to remain distanced to some degree, as well as to be well versed in one's own faith and prayed up; but if one is led to do so, a conversation on other beliefs with one who holds those beliefs is invaluable.
For instance: I have regular discussions with an older gent whom I'll call Ali.  This man is an Imam that lives here in the States in virtual exile.  Our discussions range from the day-to-day conversation of two friends, ("We can't get this rain to go away!" "Send it our way, all we've had is sun!"), to more focused political or theological discussion.  Some of our most interesting conversations have been about the finer points of Islamic theology, and perhaps most interestingly, the subject of Jihad.

In the event that some of our readers do not know much about Islam, allow me to backtrack and state that there are several pillars of the faith, and by pillars I am also referencing their "articles of faith."  There is the Shahada, or proclamation of faith- "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger."  There are the prayers, for which every true Muslim must kneel on their prayer mats facing Mecca, repeating them a prescribed number of times.  There is the Hajj, which is a journey to Mecca that must be taken at least once in the life of a true believer.  There is the observance of holy days, such as Ramadan, during which a devotee may eat nothing during the daylight hours.  Finally, there is the Jihad.  (NOTE: I've only touched on some of the pillars of Islam; depending upon the sect, there can be many more.)

Jihad, according to Ali, can take three distinct meanings.  The first and most widely publicized is the holy war against Infidels- Anyone who is not a follower of their prophet.  (Some Muslim scholars now say that this form of jihad can take on the form of either words or weapons.)  The second, and less well known, is a holy cleansing war, in which those Muslims who are not unwaveringly devout are slain.  (Many Muslim scholars deny this, yet the teaching is found within the highest religious teachings reserved for prospective Imams.)  Third and lastly, the least reported is that of the internal jihad; the war all devout Muslims must wage against the sinfulness within.  Ali is now a political refugee for suggesting that this last type of jihad is all that is truly left to the Muslim.

While discussing this point, Ali said something that was very interesting in the "double take at the train wreck" kind of way.  He said:

"This is not so different from Christianity, you know."

The religious side of me immediately started shouting "Oh, he did NOT just say that!"  The analytical side of me was attempting to calmly say "Now wait- Let's hear him out."  In the chaos, my mouth got confused, and working completely independent of my brain, pulled off my best Porky Pig impression ever:

"Uh, b-dee, b-dee, b-dee, uh, uh... How so?"

He began to quote verses from the New Testament rapid fire, like some sort of spiritual AK.  "Take up your cross and follow Me"; "if any man wishes to be My disciple, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me"; "we are dead to sin and alive in Christ"; "for this reason, I crucify my flesh," and so on.  When all was said and done, I was left with two thoughts above all else.
The first thing that hit me was that this man knew the Bible better than I did, and that brought some major conviction.  There are people in other parts of the world that memorize every scripture from cover to cover so that it can then be passed on to the next eager believer.  I've got four or five Bibles within reach at any given time, and I can barely quote five or six verses with their references.
The second thing was that Ali; Islamic Imam, trained and brought up in the Qur'an and the complete Hadith collection at Mecca itself; was absolutely right.  How I'd missed it before, I do not know, but there it is.  Jihad means "holy war," and we do fight against our flesh daily.  The difference is that we as Christians rely upon the strength of the Holy Spirit to be successful; Muslims must attempt this in their own human strength.  No wonder so many prefer to focus upon the jihad against infidels- Dying in holy battle absolves all of their sins, as opposed to having to fight their own sin nature.

So, dear reader, there is a major open door for ministry to the Muslim world- The simularity between Islamic and Christian jihad against the human sin nature, and the differences therein.  Until that opportunity arises, though, let us continue our daily jihad against our own flesh.

God truly is great!

Waffles, Bacon and a Side of Prayer

I am a breakfast kind of guy.  I love breakfast food, and at any given time of day I'm as likely to be eating oatmeal, pancakes or cold cereal as I am a "normal" lunch or dinner.  Don't get me wrong, though- I'll plow through steak, pork chops, or a good bowl of pasta in a heartbeat!  I just like breakfasts because of the great memories that come with them.

On Saturday mornings, Mom and Dad would work together to make breakfast for us kids.  Sometimes, it was a simple pot of oatmeal.  Other times, it was pancakes or french toast with bacon and eggs.  No matter what it was, one thing remained the same on a regular basis: We'd eat breakfast as a family.  It was the best day of the week, and the best time of day, as the morning sun shone brightly and we gathered around the table together with a promise filled day ahead of us.

As life dragged on, the family breakfasts grew more and more infrequent, until it was nearly a miracle to get us together at the table for any meal.  Communication began to crumble, and the family followed closely behind.  Without the support of one another, we began to make bad choices all around: I fell headlong into a pornographic addiction; my sisters began dating and befriending people of dubious influence; and my parents' marriage dissolved into resentment, hurt feelings and heartache.
Soon, the only communication we had took the form of either written notes or face to face arguments.  There was a day, shortly before my parents separated, that my Dad called the house and I didn't recognize his voice.  That moment sticks with me because, all fault to the side, no child should ever forget the voice of a parent who took an active part in their lives.  In fact, the memory haunts me to this day- In that until recently, I never knew what had gone wrong.  My family had survived car accidents, a catastrophic fire (read more here), economic hardship and several church splits...  So what went wrong?

Over a Men's Breakfast of Belgian waffles, sausage, hashbrowns, eggs, and a side of bacon, I mulled over this question once again.  As I stared idly at the smaller plate of bacon, my pastor began talking about prayer and the importance of it.  I had learned a while before that prayer was a means of communion with God.  Then, suddenly, everything seemed to fall into place.

You see, I've never ordered a plate of bacon and a side of waffles.  Waffles are a main course; bacon is a side.  (Though it is an excellent garnish for salads!)  Sometimes, though, we order a side of prayer, instead of making it our main course.  When we do this, our communication with God begins to falter, and soon our relationship with Him begins to suffer.
Likewise, it was the communication between my family that was the lifeblood of our relationship.  When that began to fail, the family began to suffer.  It was no one person's fault, though we all had a hand in its demise. When we stopped communicating, the family began to fall apart.

When we do not communicate with God, our lives suffer for it.  So remember- When it comes to prayer, order it as the main course...  And get the waffles on the side.

Quotes: Jefferson

"Building a wall of separation beween Church and State." ~ Thomas Jefferson

If there is a more well known, more misunderstood, more misquoted, and more hotly disputed quote from our founding fathers, I have not been made aware of its existence.  Since the early nineteen hundreds, the phrasing of this solitary statement has been taken into account for nearly every religious freedom case presented to the Supreme Court.  I marvel, personally, at how quickly everything else he wrote in that letter has been forgotten- Indeed, even the proper phrasing has been replaced with the oft quoted "separation of church and state."
You may be asking yourselves why I would bring a quote with such unique political meaning to the pages of a ministry blog.  Perhaps you found yourself repeating the same quote I opened with, or some variation of it.  Maybe you would prefer that the increasingly sickening world of politics be left out of Christian ministry completely.  Know that I sympathize with these and similar sentiments, but alas- There is a season for all things.
We here at WarriorSoul believe firmly in the Christian's duty to arm oneself with the weapons of spiritual warfare, and to equip the full armor of God.  As you may recall, we have been encouraged to take up the sword of truth, but ironically, truth is the belt of the armor of God- It is what holds on the rest of the armor.  In the Bible, we are told that knowing the truth sets us free.  Hard truth is truth nonetheless, and we must be prepared to know it no matter where it comes from.
Having laid this foundation, it is time to reveal the truth of religious freedom in the United States, from the standpoint of Thomas Jefferson.


In October of 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to President Jefferson congratulating him on his first year in office.  In the letter, they also outline a growing concern of theirs- A concern mirrored in our modern society, though not as eloquently. (The hysteria over the Chick-Fil-A veep's comments are just a small example.)  They wrote:

"...That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man that works ill of his neighbor.  But sir, our Constitution of our government is not specific.  ...Religion is considered as the first object of legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inaliable rights.  And these favors we receive at expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistant with the rights of freemen.  ...If those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and religion, should reproach their fellow men ...as an enemy of religion, law, and good order ...he will not, dares not, assume the perrogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

In other words, the men and women of the Danbury Baptist Association were concerned that the government may look upon religion's free exercise as a favor granted by the ruling body, and in the excuse of it being for the good of both government and religion, create laws restricting the free practice of it.  They were foreseeing the events of our modern age, where public prayer now requires a permit; where ministers cannot preach on the street without express permission; and where every day Christians many times cannot witness because it is "disruptive."  Today, there are even calls to remove any sort of Christian belief from the governing body, meaning that Christians would no longer be allowed to serve in public office.

The draft of Jefferson's letter
to the DBA. Click for full size.

Friends, Jefferson is quoted regularly now as having said that there is a separation of church and state, as if to affirm the encroachments upon religious freedom that are seen today.  This is not so, and could not be further from the case.  He writes back in January of 1802:

"...that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American People which declared that their legislature would 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state.  Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Jefferson believed that religion and its free exercise was beyond the reach of the federal government, and from other letters we see that he believed any attempt to control that practice was akin to treason.  For folks to use an erroneous quote in defense of the erosion of religious liberty; or to suggest men and women of faith cannot serve as public servants; these are an affront to everything Jefferson stood for.  Where we read "respecting an establishment of religion," Jefferson clearly saw that no law could be formed with respect to religion, because religious practice was not beneath the rule of government.  This is a far cry from today's twisted and perverted understanding, which would seek to destroy businesses, schools, churches and lives over speech covered by the First Amendment, but which is deemed "offensive" or "inconvenient" by the whiners and criers of society.

Now you know the truth.  Defend it.




(Author's Note: There is an excellent article written about the letter to the DBA that can be found here.)


(Note To The Reader:  Andrew is currently working on a project regarding the proper understanding of the religion clause of the First Amendment.  Upon completion, it will be offered on Amazon for Kindle, and possibly also in hard copy form as well.  We will keep you updated on the progress of this work.  In the meantime, we hope you got something from this foretaste.  God bless you all!)

Quotes: Voltaire

"A good book corrupts bad taste." ~Voltaire 

I have personally been very surprised at how many people of formerly questionable character seem to turn around after an encounter with a really good book.  Whether it be a classic, such as Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer or Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea; or more contemporary fare, such as Ted Dekker's Blink, Frank Peretti's Prophet, or Joel C Rosenberg's The Twelfth Imam, a good book works wonders in the reader.

Some books transport us to places of fantastic adventure.  For instance, J.R.R. Tolkien's immortal Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Some take us to the high seas, such as in Treasure Island; or pit our wits against nature itself, such as in Robinson Crusoe.  Some are filled with very obvious moral lessons, such as John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, while others trim theirs with magic, sword fights and fantasy, as seen in C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series.

What is amazing is that some books which garner controversy today would have been commonplace in years past; likewise, classics from yesteryear are met with heavy criticism today- Declared as being insensitive and intolerant unless heavy revision is made.  Prime examples of this include the Harry Potter series- Which garnered a great deal of harsh words from many sources, not just Christians- As well as the Series of Unfortunate Events books; both of which would have been well received if written fifty or so years ago.  Many of the classics which people today deem worthy of massive revision include The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Conversely, certain things which are now well received would have, and did, cause controversy a mere thirty years back.  The book Lolita, for instance, was roundly denounced in many circles when it was written- Even being banned in two countries the same year it was published!  Yet today, somehow, it is finding its way into mainstream society's acquiescence. More recently, the book Fifty Shades of Grey was published to critical acclaim- But society in general would have rejected it for its subject matter thirty years ago.

In light of his quote, I believe Voltaire would be suffering from massive heart palpitations, (and possibly stroke), were he alive today.  Rather than good books corrupting bad taste, bad taste has corrupted good books.  Perhaps it began with the sanitation of classics, as I've heard one professor suggest, but it has certainly culminated with a mass loss of good taste and decency.

The "Slippery Slope Argument," which some will no doubt accuse me of making here, is only a fallacy when one ignores the fact that history proves it to be accurate, albeit simplistic, in many cases.  The decline and ultimate dissolution of of common society can routinely be traced to an at large societal decision of now questionable nature.  While I cannot say for certain if that decision was the revision of classic literature, it is clear that the over-sensitivity of society to foolish things, while remaining apathetic to things which demanded their concern, began somewhere.

An example of the vehemence directed
at the Bible

The number one book on the revisionist's hit list; the greatest transgressor of offense and political incorrect subject matter; is the Bible.  What is the reason?  Slaves in the Bible were not solely of darker skin- They were of all different nationalities.  The youth of married women, perhaps?  This was a custom that held even one hundred years ago; however, with all fringe movements aside, the majority of modern Bible followers agree such a marriage to be damaging today.  Perhaps it is the warfare, adultery and bloodthirsty actions of the kings within the pages of the Bible?  How so, when one look at the reception that modern entertainment receives shows not a one victim of the same vehement vitriol as is directed at the Bible.  Not a one is demanded to undergo revision for "insensitivity."

So, what could be the cause of the spite and anger revisionists direct at this single text?  Why is the demand for revision not extended to books such as the Qur'an, or the Mack Bolan series?  Why are shows such as The Shield not dealing with the same call?  Why are movies such as 300, Pathfinder, or Sin City met with demand for more, rather than a wall of silence?  What about music by such bands as Slipknot or Cannibal Corpse?  What makes the Bible such an offensive book?

The only conclusion I've been able to reach, my friends, is that which rests in a common nickname for the Bible itself: "The Good Book."  It is the best sort of book, where every evil is punished; where every wicked deed is answered for; and wherein is found a solid, concrete code of moral conduct.  The Bible is the ultimate enemy of a society consumed by bad taste, because it is the ultimate good book.  Because it stands as the last unflinching standard of unwavering morality.  Because it reminds all who read it that there is a final judgment; that they are responsible for the actions carried out in bad taste, or against anything else contained in that moral code.

Because, as Voltaire so accurately observed, "a good book corrupts bad taste."

Not In The Bible? - New Covenant in Christ's Blood

The tradition of Communion among believers is something of great importance to many.  Whether simple or elaborate, the Lord’s Supper is a time of introspection, prayer, and an opportunity for one on one time with our Savior. 

So what would happen, then, if the words of Christ in Luke 22:20 were never actually found in that chapter originally?  The lack of Christ stating that His blood was the New Covenant would place the whole of Christianity in question, as that New Covenant IS the basis of Christianity.  Yet, that is the accusation of some, and the subject of today’s entry.

In case you need a refresher, the verses reads:
And in the same way after supper Jesus took the cup and said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

It should be noted that far too often, opponents of Christianity tend to focus too highly on a single verse when attempting to disprove a statement or belief.  This is one of those cases, because the accusation actually states that this verse is at once something Christ never spoke; as well as saying that it isn’t found in any of the original texts.

This sort of myopic approach will often lead to frustration on the part of the accuser, if they have any real sense of self-respect; or the presentation of that which typifies so many enemies of God, willful ignorance.  As I will show you, this particular accusation is nothing if not narrow-sighted.  After seeing the aspects of this particular accusation, it will be easy to see why some may simply show frustration, or become angry, stubborn and behave like scolded children.

First, let us address the actual verse, focusing on Christ’s quotation specifically.  The charge states that Christ never said that “this cup… poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”  Yet in Matthew, we see Him stating “this is my blood of the new covenant which poured out for many for the remission of sins.”  In Mark, He is quoted as saying “this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.” 

In John, though the last supper is not spoken of in terms of what was actually done, instead focusing upon what Christ taught them at that time; Christ still referenced the “new covenant” and His blood.  Specifically, He stated that whoever ate of His flesh and drank of His blood would have life.  Most opponents of Christianity will not understand this point, but the “new covenant” spoken of in Luke, Matthew and Mark is new life in Christ.  It is eternal life, free from the curse of the law and sin, and available only through Him.

Thus, we have all four Gospels saying the same thing.  Though the exact quote differs slightly in three, and is missing from one, all four have Christ relating the same thing: That His blood is the New Covenant, and that it will be shed for all.

Moreover, this statement about the New Covenant is also echoed throughout the epistles.  Romans 11:27, speaking of Christ, states “for this is My [Jesus] covenant with them, When I take away their sins.”  1 Corinthians 11:25 quotes Christ directly, saying “This cup is the New Covenant in My blood.”  2 Corinthians says  that God “made us ministers of the New Covenant.”  Galatians 3:17 reads that God confirmed the New Covenant in Christ. 

Hebrews 7:22 says that “Jesus has become the surety of a better covenant,” then in 8:13, quotes directly again Christ’s use of the phrase “New Covenant.”  Hebrews mentions the New Covenant again in 9:15, 10:16, 12:24 and 13:20.  Most notable to our discussion is 9:15, which states “He [Jesus] is the Mediator of the New Covenant.”

Given all of these references to this same statement, it certainly looks as though the first half of the accusation has been met, and soundly defeated.  Now let us move on to the second half of that accusation, which states that the verse and quote cannot be found in any of the original texts.

In the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, (c.450), Luke 22:19 through 23:25 is missing or damaged.  It is important to understand that when I say “missing,” I mean that it is literally missing; in other words, there is a gap, tear or section of parchment that is not there.  Because of this, this particular codex cannot be used to back up the accusation’s claim.

The Codex Alexandrinus, (c.400-440), includes the last half of Luke, yet 22:20 is not part of the missing section of Luke.  Though damaged, it appears in this particular codex.

The Codex Vaticanus, (c.325-350), includes this verse, and the quote.  Moreover, it is hardly damaged and shows no sign of addition or editing.

As for the Codex Sinaiticus, (c.330-360), Luke 22:20 is absolutely included.  For anyone wishing proof, I offer the following: A shot of the verse in question, on folio 244.

Papyrus Bodmer, (c.175-225), also includes Luke 22:20.  This is one of the earliest surviving texts, by the way.

Aside from these original texts, Justin Martyr and Barnabas also spoke of the New Covenant received through the blood of Christ. Additionally, Iranaeus says this in his Against Heresies, (c.180):

“…the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He [Jesus] confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant…”

Coming to the end of this entry, it is clear now that the charge of Christ never uttering the statement found in Luke 22:20 is not only false; it is blindly, perhaps willfully, ignorant.  Moreover, the statement that said verse is not found within the original texts has also been shown to be a statement of idiocy.  Only those with the absolute will to be obstinate will continue to cling to such an accusation.

Class dismissed. 

Not In The Bible? - bleeding in Gethsemane

When Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, did He really sweat blood?  Or is that just a fable?  Did the disciples suffer a mass hallucination?  Or did He even pray at all?  These are some of the questions which are raised by the next accusation under the microscope: The accusation that Luke 22:44 is a “scribal edit.”

To one of these questions, we can answer immediately in the affirmative.  Yes, He did pray in Gethsemane.  This scene is repeated in Matthew, Mark and Luke, as well as other extra-canonical accounts.  Moreover, while John’s Gospel does not show Christ praying, it does have Him arrested within Gethsemane; and describes the mob which came to arrest Jesus in nearly identical fashion as the other three Gospels.  Furthermore, given the distance of the home they had Passover in to the garden; given the distance from the Temple to the garden; and given their dinner had been nearly ended when Judas left, there is a certain amount of time which elapses between John 18:1 and 18:3. 

Another reason John would not have included the prayer of Jesus, some say, is that he was fast asleep during the time it happened.  Still others state that while he was not the John who slept, he also was not close enough to see what happened.  I personally believe he had another reason for not writing about the prayer, and that is simply this: John wrote his Gospel to accent the divinity of Christ, as well as His humanity, through His ministry.

Finally, there is one other reason for this absence in John.  I agree with Augustine, who stated: 

“In the four Gospels, or rather in the four books of the one Gospel, the Apostle St. John not undeservedly with reference to his spiritual understanding compared to an eagle, has lifted higher, and far more sublimely than the other three, his proclamation, and in lifting it up he has wished our hearts also to be lifted…”  

In other words, John wrote this Gospel for the express purpose of deeper spirituality, faith, and ultimately, relationship with God.  Moreover, he wrote it to demonstrate, beyond shadow of doubt, that Christ was Divine- And for the Jews, that Christ was not introduced as a second god, but that He was the Word of God made flesh.

Going back to Luke, the first three questions can all be answered at roughly the same time.  No, the disciples did not suffer a mass hallucination; and though three may have been dreaming, it was only because they fell asleep while He was praying.  Yes, Christ did sweat blood while in prayer, which we’ll get into in a moment.  Finally, no, the account is not a fable.

To start, it is of great importance to note and keep in mind that Luke was a physician, and thus focused on more of the medical/physical aspects than any other writer of the Gospel.  To that end, Luke’s account of Christ’s suffering is a great deal more detailed and scientific, as it were.  Yet, this foolish accusation states that such a thing never happened.  Indeed, many times this accusation is accompanied with the statement that such a thing is not even possible.

First, let me just address the sweating of blood as a reality.  There is a medical condition, going by two names, which explain this.  Called hematidrosis or hemidrosis, it is when blood shows so close to the skin that it begins to pigment.  In more extreme cases, the capillaries hemorrhage into the pores of the skin where it mixes with sweat, thus thinning, and allowing one to “sweat blood.”  (By definition, it literally is sweating blood.)  This is caused by extreme stress, combined with high-blood pressure.  Stress causes capillaries to constrict, but high levels of stress also cause blood-pressure to rise to unbelievable intensities.

In case you are not familiar with what Christ could possibly have been so stressed out about…  Well, how much stress and physical anxiety would you be under if you knew every single aspect of your future death?

Now, on to the question of whether it is a fable or, as this particular accusation worded it, a “scribal edit.”  Were this to be a scribal edit, and given that the accusation also states that this description cannot be found in the original texts, it would not be found from codex to codex.  It would also not be known by the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  With this as the basis, let us immediately turn to the codices.

In the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, the “youngest” of the four uncials, Luke 22:44 is included on what are known as the “lost leaves.”  With an understanding of events of the fifth century, (specifically, around 450 A.D.); as well as the process which was involved to create these codices and the circumstances which would have necessitated them; it is a simple answer as to why these verse were included on these “lost leaves”: They were absolutely meant to be included, because they were translated; either a scribe was working while exhausted, or they were missing the section as likely happened with a portion of John, this verse was sent along with the codex for a very good reason; namely, that it belonged with it.  Thus, the accusation has already suffered defeat; still we will continue.

In the Codex Alexandrinus, these verses are missing completely.  This codex is the second youngest of the uncials, having been written around 400-450 A.D.  However, there is good reason this particular codex does not have the accused verse: It has been torn, or burned out.  This codex is heavily damaged, resulting in missing or “corrupted” text.  Because of this, the Codex Alexandrinus cannot be properly used as a basis for this accusation.

The Codex Vaticanus does not include this passage either; yet as I’ve mentioned in earlier entries, this codex and two papyri which have been used to support it were written during a period in which a full collection of Scripture was being attempted.  Vaticanus was written around 325-350 A.D., and this is an important date to note.  There will be more on this momentarily.

The Codex Sinaiticus included it originally, but the passage was removed at a later time by a “corrector.”  This took place at a time much later, and, according to scholar Dean Burgon, due to an overly pious belief that the passage impugned the deity of Christ.  It is important to note that it was originally included, and it is also once more present within this codex.

Papyri 69 and 75 both omit this passage.  However, though Papyri 75 was written within a range of 175-250 A.D., it is missing a large portion.  Thus, any so called support it lends any argument regarding the lack of Scripture must be withdrawn, for one cannot know if it was included upon a later leaf.  Moreover, Papyri 69 is but a fragment itself, and thus the same argument applies.

With this said, if a contemporary document was found in completion, and it did not include the Scripture in question, then further, deliberate investigation would absolutely be needed.  As it stands, Uncial 171, (which dates to no later than 300 A.D.), includes this passage.

Now, with all of that said, the early Church Fathers would not have heard of this were it a later addition or a “scribal edit.”  Yet, we have evidence that Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, and others, (disciples of the Apostles), have all referenced the passage.  Though some of these references were less than gracious, they prove its existence.

When the evidence which has been presented is taken into account, it cannot truly be said that this verse was never included in Luke.  One may make the accusation, but it does not hold up to scrutiny.  Only the most ignorant would continue to make such a claim after a careful review of the evidence at hand.  Thus, this accusatory “myth” is busted.

Not In The Bible? - Cast the First Stone

John 8:7 and 8:11- Two very important verses within the Christian world.  These take place within the very well known story of Christ’s encounter with the prostitute taken to Him for judgment.  8:7 states that he who is without sin casts the first stone; and 8:11 says go and sin no more.  Many Christians have based a great deal of their life around verses such as these.  So what would happen if this section, specifically, these two verses, did not exist?

Quite honestly, nothing.  Or more correctly, nothing should be different.  However, in this day and age, many believers find themselves feeling as though they are on thin ground where their faith is concerned.  Suggestions such as those we’ve discussed thus far only help to shake that footing.  In reality, our faith and its basis is the firmest and surest place upon which to stand, and base our lives upon.  However, in this day and age, as the roaring lion continues to grow ever stronger in this world, accusations such as thing not only come more frequently, but serve to bring hurricane force winds to the uncertain believer.

It is for this reason that we must always remain on our guard and aware of the machinations of our enemy, the Devil.  Moreover, we should be ever conscious of his methods, because as has been said before: “Darkness never learns.”  The forces of Hell constantly bring the same attacks as they have always brought, and these include the attempted shaking of Christians in their most closely held beliefs.

With the two verses mentioned above, most of these accusations begin by stating that they were added in, and most point to the King James Bible as the first perpetrator.  However, I would point out here that these verses are found in many earlier translations, including Martin Luther’s of 1545; the 1535 Miles Coverdale; and Wycliff’s of 1385.  These are not the only versions to have this section: The Latin Vulgate also carries these verses.

However, arguments could potentially be made against even these earliest of translations, because some of the original codices do not include these verses.  What is to be said, then, of the amazing words said by Jesus, which have made their way even into our pop culture?  Are the accusations of editorial liberties to be taken seriously; and if so, could the Bible be wrong?

First, let me address the claim’s historical accuracy: Of the four uncials, (four earliest known copies of the Bible), not one surviving copy has the account, let alone these two verses, written within it.  Thus, it would seem, at least on the surface, that the accusations have actual basis.  The lack of the verses within the earliest known versions of the Bible does indeed seem to close the case.

However, what this particular accusation fails to take into account, and conveniently forgets to mention, is that in every one of these versions, there are marks indicating that something is missing between John 7:52 and 8:12.  What could possibly be missing, if these are complete copies?

For that, let us begin with the Codex Vaticanus, which dates to about 325 B.C., as it includes a symbol known to indicate other alternate versions.  What this means is that the writers and translators of the Vaticanus knew of the account’s existence in prior copies, but were forced simply to mark it as known, rather than including it.  There are any number of reasons which could be given for this, but the most plausible, and quite common in that day and age, was their inability to actually see the original version.

This suggestion is absolutely plausible when one looks back to history.  The codex was written around the same time as the Council of Nicaea- And just after a civil war which left a great deal of chaos in its wake.  Though the codex is given a span of twenty-five years inception, within that period of time there were many wars of note, and all of which would have severely hampered the safe transport of this known but untranslated portion of Scripture.  Of particular note is the ruler Licinius, who from 320 to late 324, confiscated many Christian items.  Regardless of where it was written (Asia Minor, Rome or Egypt), however, the fact remains that war, persecution and political upheaval would have prevented the translation, and thus the full inclusion, of this section.

Further dismissals have come with the facetious statement that, if they were not included within the papyri, they must not have been in the original Gospel.  This is a foolish statement that stands, at best, upon assumption rather than fact.  The truth is that, even at the time the codices were written, the Bible did not exist in a collected form.  Thus, people either memorized it through study, or copied it down for others.  If one had a section, and not the other, the missing portion would be copied and sent them.  Such events are documented throughout this time period, and even within the Bible itself.  (Copies of Paul’s letters being sent to area churches, for instance.)

Further evidence of this can be seen in the writings of Papias, who pointed out that this same account was also recorded within the Gospel of the Hebrews, an apocryphal book known among scholars of Church History as one of the “Lost Gospels.”  Some may wonder why I would choose to include statements on non-canonical books: I do so for the fact that Papias’ statements were written before the earliest of the four uncials was composed.  This not only makes a strong case for its inclusion within the Gospel of John, as Papias mentions it specifically as being found in John, but also its being an actual occurrence.

Now, finally, the question must be asked: Is John the only place we see these two standards, (“he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”), or is it echoed in other areas of Scripture?

In Luke 12:13-14, we see a similar display in regards to the lack of judgment.  In this case, however, it is directed at a man who wanted Christ to order his brother to divide his inheritance with him.  The response was, “who appointed me judge over you?”  This is just one instance of the non-judgmental aspects portrayed in John, yet the fact that it is mentioned even one other provides a firm stance for the underlying principle.

Also in Luke (6:42) we read “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.”  This clearly echoes the “he who is without sin” statement within John.  This same statement is found in Matthew 7:5.

As for the “go and sin no more” statement we see in John 8, this statement is seen coming from Christ elsewhere: John 5:14.  However, in that instance, His blessing came with a warning; He told the man “Go and sin no more, lest greater trouble befall you.”  Similar statements are seen in Matthew, Luke and Mark.

We come now to the end of this entry.  We have seen that the lessons found in John 8 are found elsewhere in the Bible, and are thusly true.  We have discovered that there is evidence of these two verse being included in the original Gospel of John; both through witness of Papias, who predated the earliest surviving codex; as well as through the translators of the codices themselves.  We have seen the accusations of editorial liberties on this passage beginning with the KJV put to rest through the presentation of far earlier versions.

In closing, I wish to leave two final tidbits with you.  First is that three of four uncials have what are known as “lost pages.”  These were separate pages upon which were written additional translations, apparently completed after the document was crafted.  They were meant to be included with each codex; something which is, again, a well documented event of the time period, affecting far more than just copies and translations of Scripture.

Secondly, the question of “why would this section be left out?” may, perhaps, be answered best through the statements of Augustine, who wrote that he wondered if perhaps that account may prompt immoral activity; or the false belief that Christ was closing a blind eye to adultery.

We will continue to study similar accusations against Scripture at a later date.  Until then, God bless.

Not In The Bible? - Three Witnesses In Heaven

Recently, it was brought to my attention once more that certain verses which we hold as Scripture today are not found in the earliest manuscripts.  This is, for some, a troubling thought because it causes one to question the Word of God.  For myself, however, it is no more of an issue than most paraphrased translations.  Scripture remains true, regardless of what was taken from the margins and inserted.  I am hoping to show what I mean today, with the verse of 1 John 5:7.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.                                                           ~KJV

Now, there are going to be some outraged individuals when I say this, but you must hear me out: The statement that 1 John 5:7 is not in "the Bible," is true.  It is also false.  This is the paradox I am hoping to shed some light on.


We all know that nearly every version one reads, they will find some manner of the above quotation.  In this way, it is, in fact, in the Bible in a very literal sense.  Thus, the statement that it is not is false.  I want to emphasize this point, though: If one can get a copy of the Greek/Hebrew Interlinear, do so.  It will enhance your understanding of the Word tremendously, as well as help you prepare for answering charges such as this one.


Where the statement is true, however, is in the very earliest of manuscripts.  The Codex Sinaiticus, for instance, is one of the earliest copies known to us.  Within its tomes, we discover the verse in question, in its entirety, reads thusly:

For they that testify are three,

So what does this mean for the believer?  Does this indeed prove that there is no such thing as the Trinity?  If it does, it surely proves that God does not exist, correct?


In actuality, this very question was what sparked heresies that began stirring even during Paul's time.  Arianism taught, for instance, that Christ was the created Son of God, and that He did not actually exist within the Godhead from the beginning, thus rendering the Trinity teaching suspect.  Monarchianism, Patripassinism, Modalism and Manichaeanism all taught that there was no Trinity- The first three stated that all three were one God, in a literal sense, meaning that God the Father died on the cross; while the last taught that Christ was not Divine and thus there could be no divinity.  Meanwhile, Polytheism went the opposite direction, teaching that the Trinity was a corporation, if you will, of three individual gods.  None of these based their points solely on 1 John 5:7, of course; however, we can see the same sort of thoughts which led to these false teachings arising today, watered by such accusations as the one currently being addressed.




The entire accusation, (1 John 5:7 is not in the Bible), hinges on there being nothing else to support what that verse is ultimately stating: Namely, that there is a Trinity.  However, we already know that Christ stated for a fact that anyone who had seen Him had also seen the Father. (John 14:9)  This suggests, of course, that though separate, He and the Father were also one, which is an integral aspect of the Trinity.  Moreover, we see that, when asked point blank if He was the Son of God, Christ answered in the affirmative.  (Matthew 26:63&64)  There are a few arguments about these verses as well, but I'll come back to it.  
Still more affirmation of Christ's own Divinity and individual identity can be found.  For instance, when asked by Christ who people said He was, Peter immediately responded with "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!"  (Matthew 16:16)  Other examples are the plentiful accounts of demons crying out that He was, in fact, the Son of God.  One in particular which sticks in my mind included the question "...have you come to torment us before the appointed time?" (Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11, 5:9; Luke 4:41, 8:30)


As pertains to the Holy Spirit- There is Christ's own baptism (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32); His assurance that His Spirit would come to lead us (John 14:17; 15:26; 20:22; Luke 24:29; Matthew 28:19-20); Christ's response to Peter's revelation (Matthew 10:20)...  Not to mention Genesis 1:2.  References to the Spirit of God and His individuality are found literally throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.


Finally, the charge against 1 John 5:7 fails to take into account the fact that 1 John 5:6 references Christ and the Holy Spirit- Some translations have substituted "Christ" for "Word," but regardless, it means the same.  John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."  It goes on to say, in verse 14 "...and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us..."




So what is the story of 1 John 5:7?  In the beginning of the story of the Bible, everything was handwritten.  It is very likely that one of the only known manuscripts of 1 John at the time it was being translated had a side notation, much like we do today, referencing the fact that the Trinity was being spoken of here by inference.  The translators assumed it was an addendum, and included it as such.  
Mind you, this is only conjecture based upon my study of Bible and Church history.  However, based upon my knowledge of the subject, it is extremely likely.  Moreover, though 5:7 was added to, you'll notice that it is not contradictory to the whole of Scripture in any way.  If anything, it, like many paraphrases, allows for a better comprehension of Biblical truth.




With all of this said, the accusation that 1 John 5:7 does not exist in the Bible is false on three grounds and only partially true on two grounds.  It is partially true, in that the verse as it currently reads is not found in whole within the oldest manuscripts.  It is also partially true as pertains to the latter half of the verse being an addendum.  
However...  It is false in that the verse exists in most translations today, this taken from a very literal standpoint.  It is false in that the verse does exist, but not as worded in most translations today.  It is false in that it does not strike against Biblical truth, and this is the heart of this "argument."  


This argument, and all of its various forms, is meant to sway a believer from the faith.  However, as I've just shown, there is nothing to the argument but hot air and the lies of the enemy.  The heart of the argument is against the Trinity, and thus, the validity of Scripture as a whole.  


The heart of the argument, however, has just been declared DOA.  






There are nine more verses which I will also look at, so stay tuned!






PS: Some folks believe Matthew 26:64 does not prove Christ claimed He was the Son of God, because His statement is "You have said it."  This only seems innocuous and noncommittal in our day and age.  In that time, and among those people, to not deny such a question was absolutely as great as a direct "yes."  It stated that not only was the question true, but that the questioner had just attested to the truth of it with his own mouth.  This is one of the reasons the Chief Priest tore his robes.  This is to say nothing of His going on to say "and you shall see the Son of Man [addressing Himself] seated at the right hand of the Almighty and coming in the clouds of glory."  This whole statement says, in a definite manner, that He WAS the Son of God, and also God.