Gender-Neutral Language in Bible Translation is Unscriptural

 Many modern Bible versions employ what they call "gender neutral" language.  So, for example, the Authorized, King James Version of John 1:9 reads:

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

by way of contrast, the New International Version reads:

John 1:9  The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.

There is no textual variant here.  The Greek text reads:

ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.

ēn to phōs to alēthinon, ho phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon.

The KJV translates the Greek word anthropos as "man"--which is what the word means, recognizing that "man" is the generic term for the entire human race, even as Adam, not Eve, represented mankind (Romans 5:12-19).

For another example, consider John 12:32.  The King James Version reads:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

In contrast, the NKJV, New King James Version, reads:

And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”

There is no textual variant here either.  The Greek text reads:

κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.

kagō ean hypsōthō ek tēs gēs, pantas helkysō pros emauton.

The masculine form of pantas is properly rendered "all men."  The NKJV alters the text to the more feminist "all peoples" to prevent "man/men" from being the generic word for mankind (oops, excuse me, "humankind"; using "mankind" might have been a microaggression and evidence of systemic racism and sexism).  Note also that here, as in vast numbers of other places, the NKJV is not simply updating archaic and hard-to-understand language in the KJV; "all men" is not hard to understand in the least.

For another example, note Matthew 25:40 in the King James Bible:

Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Compare the same verse in the New International Version:

Matt. 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Here again there is no textual variant.  The Greek reads:

αὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.

ai apokritheis ho basileus erei autois, Amēn legō hymin, eph’ hoson epoiēsate heni toutōn tōn adelphōn mou tōn elachistōn, emoi epoiēsate.

The plural adelphon, "brethren," is from the Greek word  adelphos, "brother." The "and sisters" is simply not contained in the text, but has been added in by the NIV translators to make their version more feminist.

When the New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, translated the Old Testament, did they follow the practice of modern feminism and transform the inspired Hebrew Old Testament into something more "gender neutral"?  Or did the New Testament specifically use "man" as the generic term for all people--does it specifically make the male the representative of generic humanity?

Consider Romans 11:4:

Rom. 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ.

 alla ti legei autō ho chrēmatismos? Katelipon emautō heptakischilious andras, hoitines ouk ekampsan gony tē Baal.

Romans 11:4 is referencing 1 Kings 19:18:

1Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Notice that the word "men" is not specifically contained in 1 Kings 19:18, but it is in Romans 11:4.  Furthermore, Romans 11:4 does not use the Greek word anthropos, which is commonly a generic word for "mankind" or the entire human race, but the word andros (lexical form aner)--"men" as "males."  So when the New Testament, under inspiration, makes reference to the Old Testament, it is so far from removing masculine terms and making the Scripture more gender neutral that it specifically states "all men" in translating a less-specific original language reference.  

The Lord Jesus Christ does the same thing as the Apostle Paul.  Consider Matthew 12:41:

Matt. 12:41 The men [andros, "males," from aner] of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The Lord Jesus is referring to Jonah 3:7-8:

And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man [Hebrew 'adam, properly rendered "man" but frequently a generic word for the entire human race, not for "males" in particular] nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man [Hebrew 'adam again, frequently a generic term] and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

When Christ refers to the Old Testament, He takes a more generic Hebrew word for "mankind" or "humankind" and employs the word aner, the word specifically for a "male ... in contrast to woman" (BDAG).  Christ, speaking in Greek, does not make the Hebrew Old Testament "gender neutral."  He does exactly the opposite.  Luke 11:32 indicates this fact as well.

So, what does the Bible teach? When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it translates and paraphrases the Hebrew in such a way that the text is less  gender neutral, not more gender neutral.

In light of the inspired and infallible practice of translation modeled by the sovereign, all-wise God, we should:

1.) Reject modern Bible versions influenced by feminism and gender-neutral language, from the New International Version to the New King James Version, and cleave to the Authorized, King James Bible.

2.) Reject gender-neutral replacements for classical terms for humanity. We should retain expressions such as "all men" and "mankind" if we are engaged in the holy practice of Bible translation ourselves.

3.) We should continue to use "man," "mankind," and such like terms in our own speech when reference is made to the entire human race.  We should follow the practice of Christ and His Apostles instead of bowing to anti-Scriptural feminism in our language.

4.) Recognize that feminists know exactly what they are doing when they seek to make the English language, and even more importantly, God's infallible Word, less patriarchal.  They oppose patriarchy, while the resurrected Lord and Son of Man, Jesus Christ, their Creator, taught patriarchy Himself and led His prophets and Apostles to support it through what He dictated to them through the Holy Spirit from God the Father.  Let us consciously agree with the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, and the infallible Word of God, and support male headship in our common language and in our English Bible version.

Learn more about Bible texts and versions by clicking here.

-TDR

God's Name Jehovah: What Does It Mean?

I thought that the classical statement below on the significance of the name Jehovah in the very helpful 17^th century systematic theology The Christian’s Reasonable Service by Wilhemus á Brakel, theologian of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie or Further/Second Reformation, which was comparable to English Puritanism,  was worth reprinting and thinking about.  I have reproduced it from one of the appendixes of my essay on the inspiration of the Hebrew vowel points:

[I]t has pleased the Lord to give Himself a name by which He wishes to be called—a name which would indicate His essence, the manner of His existence, and the plurality of divine Persons. The name which is indicative of His essence is יְהוָֹה or Jehovah, it being abbreviated as יָהּ or Jah. The name which is indicative of the trinity of Persons is אֱלֹהִים or Elohim. Often there is a coalescence of these two words resulting in יֱהוִה or Jehovi. The consonants of this word constitute the name Jehovah, whereas the vowel marks produce the name Elohim. Very frequently these two names are placed side by side in the following manner: Jehovah Elohim, to reveal that God is one in essence and three in His Persons. 

The Jews do not pronounce the name Jehovah. This practice of not using the name Jehovah initially was perhaps an expression of reverence, but later became superstitious in nature. In its place they use the name אֲדֹנָי or Adonai, a name by which the Lord is frequently called in His Word. Its meaning is “Lord.” When this word is used in reference to men, it is written with the letter patach, which is the short “a” vowel. When it is used in reference to the Lord, however, the letter kametz is used, which is the long “a” vowel. As a result all the vowels of the name Jehovah are present. To accomplish this the vowel “e” is changed into a chatef-patach which is the shortest “a” vowel, referred to as the guttural letter aleph. Our translators, to give expression to the name Jehovah, use the name Lord, which is similar to the Greek word kurios, the latter being a translation of Adonai rather than Jehovah. In Rev 1:4 and 16:5 the apostle John translates the name Jehovah as follows: “Him which is, and which was, and which is to come.” This one word has reference primarily to being or essence, while having the chronological connotation of past, present, and future. In this way this name refers to an eternal being, and therefore the translation of the name Jehovah in the French Bible is l’Eternel, that is, the Eternal One.

 

The name Jehovah is not to be found at all in the New Testament, which certainly would have been the case if it had been a prerequisite to preserve the name Jehovah in all languages. . . . Even though the transliteration of Hebrew words would conflict with the common elegance of the Greek language, it is nevertheless not impossible. Since they can pronounce the names Jesus, Hosanna, Levi, Abraham, and Hallelujah, they are obviously capable of pronouncing the name Jehovah. . . . Jehovah is not a common name, such as “angel” or “man”—names which can be assigned to many by virtue of being of equal status. On the contrary, it is a proper Name which uniquely belongs to God and thus to no one else, as is true of the name of every creature, each of which has his own name. (Wilhemus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 1, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout [Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992] 84-85)

May you be edified as you meditate upon Jehovah and His wonderful Name.

-TDR 

The King James Bible: Too Hard to Understand?

"The King James Version is too hard for people to understand!  It is written in Old English.  Therefore, we need to use a modern Bible version that is easier to understand."

Is this true?

Before dealing with the most important question--what Scripture says on the subject--a few brief words on a secondary but related question.

The King James Version: Is it Old English?

First, the King James Version is not in Old English.  Old English is the language of Beowulf.  If you want to hear Old English, watch this:

Is the King James Bible easier to understand than that?

Maybe the King James is Middle English if it isn't Old English.  Here is someone reading from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, which was written in Middle English:

Here you can probably make out something here and there, but it is clear that the King James Version is not in Old English, nor is it in Middle English.  It is much easier to read than the Canterbury Tales.  (Side note: I enjoyed my college class on Chaucer's classic at U. C. Berkeley.)  The King James Bible is in early modern English.  English has changed less between 1611 and today than it did from the days of Chaucer in the 1400s to the KJV.

So the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in modern English--early modern English.  That does not mean, however, that it is necessarily easy to understand.  Perhaps it really is "too hard," and we should overlook the fact that the New King James Version is soft on sodomy, removes "hell" from 22 verses in the Bible, replacing it with easier words to understand, and ones that are in common use, like "Sheol" and "Hades" (2 Samuel 22:6; Psalm 18:5; Matthew 11:23, etc.), is not actually translated from the same underlying language text, and contains other problems.  Maybe since the King James Bible is "too hard" to understand we need to just deal with these sorts of problems in the NKJV.

"Too hard": What is it?

Biblically, what does it mean that language is "too hard" to understand?  In the New Testament, the Greek of the book of Hebrews is much harder to read than the Greek of the Gospel of John.  The Gospel of Luke and Acts are harder to read than 1 John.  Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek.  Why did the Holy Ghost dictate such long sentences?  Wouldn't they be too hard to understand?

The vast majority of people in the first century were simple rural people; farmers, shepherds, and the like, not highly educated urbanites. Literacy was sketchy in many places.  What was Paul doing when he wrote Hebrews under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  What was Luke thinking?  Didn't they know that their Greek would be too hard to understand?

What about the Old Testament?  Significant portions of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible.  Why did the Holy Spirit write hard Hebrew and hard Greek in some parts of the Bible?  Shouldn't it all have been easy to understand?

Is there more literacy in the English speaking world now than there was in the first century world of the New Testament, or in the world where God gave the Hebrew Old Testament?  When was learning to read--or improving one's reading level--easier?  Surely now.

The question, then, should be:  "Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel"?  The King James seeks to replicate the syntax of the original language texts as much as possible.  That is why every verse from Genesis 1:3 to Genesis 1:26 begins with the word "And"--we may not write that way in non-translation English, but the KJV accurately represents what the Hebrew given by the Holy Spirit says here.  We can't simplify the syntax of the King James Bible without moving it further away from the original language text.  If we have to leave the syntax alone, does the King James Version have more archaic words than the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament? There are over 680 hapax legomena or words that occur only one time in the Greek New Testament and close to 1,500 hapax legomena in the Hebrew Old Testament. While not all of those hapaxes would have been rare or archaic words to first century readers, many of them would have been.  By way of contrast, there are nowhere near that many archaic words in the King James Version.

Evaluated by the standard of Scripture itself--by the standard of the Greek and Hebrew text God gave to His people--the English of the Authorized, King James Version is indubitably not "too hard."  People who claim that it is too difficult to read should be enthusiastically promoting the Defined King James Bible, which leaves the actual King James Version text unchanged but defines the few archaic words at the bottom of its pages for readers, or works such as David Cloud's Way of Life Encylopedia of the Bible and Christianity, where all the rare KJV words are defined, instead of encouraging readers to reject the  KJB's fantastic translation of the perfectly preserved Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus for corrupt modern Bible versions.

So is the King James Bible too hard to understand?  If we employ the only objective standard--Scripture itself--the answer is "no." 

Learn more about Bibliology here.

                                                                                                                  -TDR

"The Anabaptists Church Worldwide" & "Street Preacher Fellowship" cult

There is an organization called "The Anabaptists [sic] Church Worldwide" that supports a "Street Preacher Fellowship."   It is a cult, a false religion.

This blog post will not focus upon peripheral problems, such as the poor English grammar evident in the fact that the organization's name does not appear to understand the role of the apostrophe and the many grammatical errors in its statement of faith and other documents.  

Nor will it focus upon the fact that the cult rejects the congregational church polity of Anabaptism for a form of hierarchicalism with a "Biblical presbytery rule [sic]" and "national bishops" and so is not Anabaptist, but would be better called Episcopalian than Anabaptist, although it may not even understand what episcopalian, presbyterian, and congregational church polity are.

Nor will it focus upon the fact that the cult does not understand that the church of the New Testament is not universal or invisible.  Nor will it focus upon affirmations in its doctrinal statement such as that Christians are “at point [sic] of salvation baptized by the Holy Spirit of God into one body . . . and that body being not all [sic] figurative, but altogether real, physically . . . that body is Christ’s . . . each born again child of God is literally made to be . . . members of Jesus Christ’s body, of His flesh and of His bones."  The members of the organization do not, however, literally disappear into the ascended human body of Christ to become part of His literal bone marrow, and, remember, the statement is allegedly literal,  "not at all figurative."

Nor will it focus upon the cult's extreme Ruckmanism, through which it denies Christ's promises to preserve the Greek and Hebrew words which were dictated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 5:18) and denigrates study of the preserved words of God in the original languages. Nor will it focus upon how the cult undermines confidence in the King James Bible through its extremism.  Nor will it focus upon the bizarre idea in its doctrinal statement that the Bible actually is God in written form, an idea which the pseudo-Baptist cultist Steven Anderson has also adopted.

Nor will it focus upon the cult's tendency to name-calling and careless study of Scripture, nor upon the fact that the section in its doctrinal statement on (the wicked sin of) sodomy adds ideas not present in the Bible; nor on the fact that the cult also follows Steven Anderson and rejects Scripture by teaching that sodomites cannot be saved (with the "Anabaptists Church" cult making certain qualifications to this), nor on the fact that it spends more time on sodomy than it does on the nature of God, and that only its statement on sodomy, but nothing else in its doctrinal statement, ends with the affirmation: "This section of the Articles of Faith of the Anabaptists Church [sic] Worldwide is not subject to revision, and shall never be changed by any presbytery without the dissolvement [sic] of the Church Worldwide."  Apparently even the bad grammar in this section of the cult's articles of faith cannot be changed; but that is not the focus of this blog post.

What is the worst false doctrine of this cult? The worst false teaching is its rejection of the Trinity and of the incarnation of Christ in favor of a bizarre, blasphemous, and ignorant form of modalism.  Its article of faith on the Trinity includes the following:

2. 2.3  We believe that God is a spirit (John 4:24), and that the Holy Spirit is that very Spirit of the Lord God (Isaiah 61:1, 10.11, 14), and was the very breath of Life in Jesus Christ (Isaiah 11:4/ Job 33:4/ John 20:22).

3. 2.4  We believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father (John 10:30) manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and that Jesus Christ was and is the bodily manifestation of God Almighty.

4. 2.5  As a ghost is the spirit of a dead man (Luke 24:37/ Matthew 14:26), we believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus Christ which He gave up on Calvary when He died for our sins (John 19:30/ Matthew 27:50/ Mark 15:37/ Luke 23:46), and as the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:2-8) is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9/ Philippians 1:19). These Three being One God, each exists eternally as God, and as the manifestations of themselves in One as distinguished from the Other. God is a spirit, and that spirit is the Holy Spirit, who was the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) of Jesus Christ, who Himself was the bodily manifestation of God the Father with the Holy Spirit breathing within Him as the very Life of God. Though the Eternal God cannot die, God the Father sent His Son into the world to do just that, yielding up the ghost when He had finished His Father’s work; upon which the Holy Ghost of God became the working manifestation of God the Father in baptizing believers into the very body of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous (1 Corinthians 12:11-14/ Acts 1:5). 

The statement that "Jesus Christ is God the Father" is modalist heresy and idolatry. It is a damnable false doctrine.  It proclaims a false God, a denial and rejection of the true God.  Jesus Christ is the Son, not the Father.  By teaching that Jesus Christ is God the Father, this cult shows that they are antichrist, denying the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22).

The affirmations in 2.5 make a crazy confusion of Christ's human spirit with the Holy Spirit. By denying that Christ's human soul and spirit were separated from His body at His death, instead claiming that the Holy Spirit was present instead of Christ's human spirit, the "Anabaptists Church Worldwide" cult denies the true humanity of Christ.  Only if Christ had a true and complete humanity, body, soul, and spirit, could He represent and save sinful mankind.  Section 2.5 denies Christ's true humanity by claiming that the Holy Spirit replaced the Lord Jesus' human spirit, something similar to the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism (although if the cult's members cannot even write in English properly, and think Anabaptists held to presbyterian church polity, it is not likely that they have much understanding of early Trinitarian controversies).  By denying the true and complete humanity of Jesus Christ, the "Anabaptists Church Worldwide" cult shows itself to be of the "spirit of antichrist," and its members to be deceivers and antichrists (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7).

Various parts of their doctrinal statement also teach the idolatrous idea that God is body, soul, and spirit like people are--the Holy Spirit is allegedly God's eternal spirit part, based on a confusion of the use of the word Spirit for the third Person and also for the human spirit. The words for spirit, ruach and pneuma, are also used for the wind in the Bible, but the Holy Spirit is not God's eternal wind.  God's eternal body part is allegedly the Son, denying His true incarnation in time (1 John 4:1-3) and thus evidencing itself as antichrist. God's eternal soul part is allegedly the Father, something for which Scripture gives not a scintilla of evidence. The cult claims Biblical support for its idolatry by assuming that since man is in the image of God, God must be body, soul, and spirit, ignoring the fact that the image of God in man is "righteousness and true holiness" (Ephesians 4:24) and that the image is being progressively renewed in believers through progressive sanctification (Colossians 3:10), so the image of God in man has absolutely nothing to do with the wicked blasphemy that God is an eternal Son-body, spirit-Holy Ghost, and soul-Father.

There are a number of things that a born-again child of God, and a member of one of Christ's true Baptist churches, could find attractive about the "Anabaptists Church Worldwide" cult.  It claims to stand for the KJV; it believes in modesty and gender distinction; it (pretends) to be part of the Anabaptist/Baptist line of true churches; it takes a strong stand against sins the world is promoting, such as homosexuality; it claims to be fearless and bold in its preaching; it practices street preaching, which is very good, and so on.  One can hope that perhaps some of the members of this cult are too ignorant to realize that their articles of faith deny the Trinity and the true humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ in favor of modalism and a form of Apollinarianism. Regrettably, none of the above nice things justify its wicked rejection of the true God and of the incarnate Christ.  Who cares if you are modestly dressed if you are a blasphemer and idolator?  Those that actually believe its doctrinal statement will find themselves in hell with the Antichrist.  Those that are too ignorant to understand its heresies have no business preaching to anybody (1 Timothy 3:1) until they learn the rudiments of Christianity on the nature of God.

If you are a member of the "Anabaptist Church Worldwide" and "Street Preacher Fellowship" cult, I call on you to repent of your idolatry and other sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved (Mark 1:15), and then separate yourself from this cult and join one of Christ's true churches.  Learn more about Christ's true gospel and His true church here.

-TDR