The Patriarchal Bible Problem

The Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible often use generic masculine nouns (adam and anthropos, both meaning "man") and generic masculine pronouns in a gender-inclusive sense, in reference to persons of unspecified gender. In the Epistles, believers in general are addressed as adelphoi, "brothers," or traditionally "brethren." Such usages are not merely figments of "sexist" English translations; they are a normal feature of the original languages, just as they are normal in English and many other languages. In most cases the inclusive intent of the writer is obvious from the context, and when the intent is not inclusive, this is also obvious enough from the context. The interpreter must not proceed mechanically with the idea that every occurance of adam and anthropos is to be understood in a gender-inclusive sense, because the Bible for the most part records the names and actions of men, uses male examples, assumes a male audience, and in general focuses on men and their concerns while leaving women in the background. Here are a few examples of how these tendencies manifest themselves in the biblical text.

* In Genesis 2:24, after Adam declares that Eve is "flesh of my flesh," it is said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." It has been observed by commentators that among the Israelites for whom this text was written, it was really the woman who left her father and mother. She was brought into the extended family of her husband, and the new household was established on the property of the man's family. The reason why "a man shall leave his father and his mother," is read instead of "a woman shall leave her father and her mother" is because this saying is describing the action from the man's perspective.

* In Genesis 3:23-24, God sent Adam out of the garden of Eden, but the text says nothing about Eve being driven out. Obviously both were exiled, but the writer sees fit to describe this event in terms of Adam's exile.

* In Genesis 32:22, Jacob "took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven children, and passed over the ford of the Jabbok." The word translated "children" here is yeladim, which might be expected to include both sons and daughters (cf. the usage in Exodus 21:4); but Jacob at this point in the narrative has twelve children: eleven sons and one daughter. Dinah's birth was mentioned in 30:21, and in chapter 34 is the story of how her brothers killed all the men of Shechem to avenge the loss of her maidenhood, but here in 32:22 she is omitted from the number of Jacob's children.

* The genealogies of the Old Testament rarely mention wives or mothers. Often when a woman does appear in a narrative she is not named, but is referred to only as the wife of a certain man (e.g. Noah's wife).

* God is often described as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (e.g. Exodus 3:16) but he is never described as the God of Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel.

* The tendency of the writers to address males in particular is seen in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). There read, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife." In Deuteronomy 29, "Moses summoned all Israel and said to them ... you are standing today all of you before the Lord your God ... your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp ... so that you may enter into the sworn covenant." See also Exodus 22:24, 32:2; Deuteronomy 3:19, Joshua 1:14, Nehemiah 4:14; Jeremiah 44:9, 44:25. This male-oriented language cannot be explained by saying that the text presupposes a setting in which only men were present, because in several places it explicitly says that women were present in the assemblies (Deuteronomy 29:11, Joshua 8:35, 2 Chronicles 20:13, Joel 2:16). Clearly, an audience of both men and women is in view here, but the words are addressed to the men.

* Much of the book of Proverbs is addressed to young men, with warnings against getting involved with prostitutes and adulteresses (e.g. 7:5), but there is no similar advice given directly to women. The famous description of the "excellent wife" in Proverbs 31 is cast in the third person.

* In Deuteronomy 7 there is a good example of how the Hebrew text tends to encode patriarchal ideas: the chapter begins speaking of the need for the Israelites to drive out the Canaanites, and in verse 3 it says, "you shall not give your daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for your son, for he will turn your son away from following me, that they may serve other gods." The masculine singular forms are used here because the focus is on the duty of the Hebrew father, the religious practices of his son, and the bad influence of a pagan father-in-law. The girl (usually at about the age of sixteen) is "taken" from her father by her new husband's father, on behalf of his son, and she is "given" to her new husband. Nothing is said regarding the daughter who is given to a Canaanite's son, because it is taken for granted that she must worship her husband's gods. The text focuses on what may happen to the son who takes a daughter of Canaan to be his wife, because this association with paganism will weaken the son's resolve to worship the one true God. Regarding this, it is especially notable that the text does not say that she (i.e. the Canaanite's daughter) will turn the Hebrew son away, but instead skips over the woman to focus on a man—"he will turn your son away." (The pagan patriarch is meant. See the American Standard Version for the literal translation.) The pagan mother-in-law is not mentioned. The linguistic features of these sentences are not meaningless accidents of the Hebrew language, nor are they constrained by any grammatical requirements of the language; they are reflections of the patriarchal assumptions of the author, which are in several ways controlling the choice of words in this text.

None of this changes in the New Testament.

* In Luke 18:29, Jesus said, "there is no one who has left house or wife ... for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more." He says "wife," not "husband or wife."

* In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul addresses the whole congregation with second-person plural forms which cannot be inclusive of women: "if you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you" (5:2). In 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 he writes, "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman [lit. virgin] marries, she has not sinned." In 1 Corinthians 14:31 he says, "[Y]ou can all prophesy one by one," but in verse 34 he says "the women should keep silent." In such places it becomes obvious that the authors of the New Testament are addressing their words primarily to men.

* Typically men are addressed in the second person while women are referred to in the third person. In Luke 15, Jesus introduces one parable in verse 4 with the words, "What man of you, having a hundred sheep" (second person plural), and the next parable in verse 8, "what woman, having ten silver coins [lit. ten drachmas]" (third person).

* Sometimes a serious misunderstanding will come from a failure to recognize that the text presupposes a male audience. For instance, in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus' warning against frivolous divorce is framed entirely from the standpoint of the man — "anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery." Here the hapless wife, who is innocent of any wrongdoing, is said to be adulterated by any remarriage, after having been wrongly divorced. In ancient times a woman had to remarry if she was to have any security, and so it might seem that a woman who had been divorced is put in an impossible moral position by the saying. But this hyberbolic saying is aimed entirely against the man who unjustly divorces his wife, and there is no intention of stigmatizing innocent women here. The idea that the husband "makes her commit adultery" is merely an ironic way of saying that God looks upon the divorce as illegitimate. Jesus did not intend for anyone to draw from this saying any rule for the divorced woman, because the saying was not meant to be read from the standpoint of the woman. She is not even considered to be a morally responsible agent.

* When people are numbered in the Bible, it is the men who are numbered. In Numbers 1:2 the "sum of all the congregation" is found by counting "every male." In Matthew 14:21, it mentions "those who had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children," and likewise Matthew 15:38 mentions "four thousand men, beside women and children." In Acts 4:4 it says "many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men (arithmos ton andron) came to about five thousand." In Revelation 14:4, the 144,000 redeemed from tribulation "have not defiled themselves with women."

* In various places the Bible contains expressions which are quite unacceptable in the modern climate of political correctness. In Isaiah 19:16 the prophet Isaiah says "the Egyptians will become like women and tremble with fear" (similarly Jeremiah 50:37, 51:30, and Nahum 3:13). In 1 Corinthians 16:13 Paul urges the Corinthians to stand firm and "act like men." This is how a man speaks to men.

In short, the Bible is by no means gender-neutral. It presents from beginning to end a thoroughly "androcentric" perspective, and it often leaves it to the reader to decide what application to women or what inclusion of women is implied.

When looking for places where women are directly addressed in the Bible, in such cases the message is even more offensive to the modern egalitarian mindset than anything which has been noted above. The women are addressed only to remind them that they are not equal:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." (Ephesians 5:22-24. See also 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Colossians 3:18, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Peter 3:1-6, etc.)

Obviously such passages present serious problems for those who wish to tone down the patriarchalism of the Bible, and many feminists have concluded that there is not much to be gained by making the language of such a pervasively patriarchal book "inclusive."

Dispensationalist and Galatians 6:16

14 ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι᾽ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ. 15 οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. 16 καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ.

14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

The proper interpretation and translation of the last phrase in Galatians 6:16 has become a matter of controversy in the past century or so. Formerly it was not a matter of controversy. With few exceptions, "The Israel of God" was understood as a name for the church here. The καὶ ("and") which precedes the phrase ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ ("upon the Israel of God") was understood as an explicative καὶ. This understanding of the grammar is reflected in the Revised Standard Version's "Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God," and in the New International Version's "even to the Israel of God." It is not necessary, however, to understand the καὶ as an explicative in order to get substantially the same sense. If it be regarded as an ordinary connective καὶ, as Marvin Vicent says, "The ὅσοι ['as for all'] will refer to the individual Christians, Jewish and Gentile, and Israel of God to the same Christians, regarded collectively, and forming the true messianic community." (Word Studies in the New Testament vol. 4, p. 180). So the rendering "and upon the Israel of God" (King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and others) is acceptable enough, if it is not misunderstood. In any case, it seems clear that in this verse Paul cannot be pronouncing a benediction upon persons who are not included in the phrase "as for all who walk by this rule" (the rule of boasting only in the cross). The entire argument of Galatians prevents any idea that here in 6:16 he would give a blessing to those who are not included in this group.

The phrase has become controversial because the traditional interpretation conflicts with principles of interpretation associated with dispensationalism. Dispensationalists are interested in maintaining a sharp distinction between "Israel" and "the church" across a whole range of theological matters pertaining to prophecy, ecclesiology, and soteriology. They are not comfortable with the idea that here Paul is using the phrase "Israel of God" in a sense that includes Gentiles, because this undermines their contention that "the church" is always carefully distinguished from "Israel" in the Bible. This is a major tenet of dispensationalist hermeneutics. Dispensationalist C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) in his tract, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth (New York, Loizeaux Brothers, 1888) wrote, "Comparing, then, what is said in Scripture concerning Israel and the Church, [a careful Bible student ] finds that in origin, calling, promise, worship, principles of conduct, and future destiny--all is contrast." Likewise another dispensationalist, Charles Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, 1965) explained that the "basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity." (pp. 44-45).

The traditional Protestant and Catholic approach to this matter is quite different, however, because in these traditions "Israel" is often interpreted typologically. The church is understood to be a "Spiritual Israel," so that many things said in connection with Israel in the Bible are applied to the church. For instance, the words of Psalm 122:6, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! 'May they be secure who love you!...'," are understood as in Matthew Henry's commentary: "The peace and welfare of the gospel church ... is to be earnestly desired and prayed for." This is in keeping with the method of the apostles, as for instance in Galatians 4:26, where the apostle Paul speaks of "the Jerusalem that is above." Therefore when Paul speaks of "the Israel of God" in 6:16, the meaning of this expression is readily grasped. Rather than seeing a contrast, a deeply meaningful typological relationship is perceived.

The dispensationalist approach was taught and frequently supported by the statement that "the church is never called Israel." Galatians 6:16 was explained as if the phrase "and upon the Israel of God" referred to a Jewish subset of those people who "walk by this rule," that is, the Christians of Jewish ethnic background as distinguished from those who are of non-Jewish background. There does not seem to be any reason for this interpretation aside from the desire of dispensationalists to exclude all typological interpretations and to defend their contention that "the church is never called Israel."

Aside from typological considerations, this dispensationalist explanation of the meaning of "The Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16 seems contrary to the tenor of the epistle, in which it is said that "in Christ Jesus ... there is neither Jew nor Greek." This is the central idea of Galatians, as expressed in the third chapter: "you are all one in Christ Jesus ... if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring" (3:26-29). Scofield himself acknowledged this when he wrote, "In the Church the distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears." This raises several questions. If "in the Church the distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears," as Scofield says, then why would Paul make such a distinction in 6:16? And if it is true that the church is never called Israel in the Bible, and "all is contrast" between the two, then in what sense can Christians of Jewish background be called "Israel" any longer, if they are in the church? If someone in the church is being called "Israel," then the all-important distinction between Israel and the church has been breached. If it is said that people of Jewish background may still be called "Israel" after they have become Christians, then it must be admitted that the strict terminological distinction between "Israel" and "the church" has broken down at this point. Further, if it is said that only persons of Jewish backgound can be so called, then what has become of the teaching that "In the Church the distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears"? Is there a separate class of "Jewish Christians" who alone are entitled to the name "Israel of God"? If so, what is the significance of this? Are there two types of Christianity, two churches? Dispensationalist teaching suggests that in fact this is the view held by many dispensationalists today: the idea is that there is a "Jewish" Christianity and a "Gentile" Christianity, and in some sense the "Jewish" Christians are thought to be more important and especially favored by God.

The older dispensationalist writers, such as Scofield, avoided some of these embarrassing questions and implications because their distinction between Israel and the church was more consistent and more radical. Scofield believed that the Jews of the end times were to be saved according to the Law of Moses, with renewed animal sacrifices. His scheme of interpretation envisioned a time when the parenthetical "church age" has ended and the Law of Moses is reinstituted for salvific purposes. After this change of "dispensations" people will be saved according to a different gospel, the "Gospel of the Kingdom." Paul's doctrine (called the "Gospel of the Grace of God") was no longer in effect. Paul's teaching on the unity of the church did not apply because the church has been "raptured" and is no longer in the earth, and God is no longer dealing with the church. In this manner the distinction between "Israel" and "the church" was upheld without denying the unity of the body of Christ. But it is difficult to speak of Scofield's "Israel" of the end-times as consisting of "Jewish Christians," because they are not in the church, and they are not dealt with on the same terms as the Christians who are of the church. They are "God's earthly people," according to Scofield, as distinguished from the church, who are God's "heavenly people." They are the "wife of Jehovah" and not the "bride of Christ," and so forth. Such teachings of the classic dispensationalist theology rigorously maintained the distinction between "Israel" and "the church." If this distinction is to be upheld in Galatians 6:16 then presumably the "Israel of God" must be taken as a reference to the eschatological Israel who are to be saved by a different gospel, after Paul's own gospel dispensation has ended. But this kind of pure and radical dispensationalist teaching is now rarely heard. Today dispensationalists seem to be in a muddle, having moved away from consistency in distinguishing Israel and the church. Israel may now be spoken of as a part of the church, and so there is a special and privileged class of "Jewish Christians" within the body of Christ.

These features of dispensationalism raise many serious theological problems which beyond the scope of this article. The main purpose here has been to show what notions are being brought to the text when a dispensationalist says it is a "horrendous mistake" to interpret Paul's "Israel of God" as a way of referring to the church in Galatians 6:16. The dispensationalist complaint against the traditional understanding of Galatians 6:16 is an example of sectarian "end-times prophecy" baggage being brought to the text, and it does not represent a serious attempt to understand the phrase in its context.

It may be wondered whether some dispensationalists have also adopted the view that "the Israel of God" simply refers to Israel according to the flesh. As noted above, it would be entirely in keeping with the earlier dispensationalist writers to maintain that Paul is blessing Jews who are outside of the church, as the "earthly people of God." The fascination with the modern (but secular) state of Israel which is so characteristic of dispensationalists today has apparently led many of them to think that the restoration of the Jews as "God's people" has already occured, despite the fact that the church has not been "raptured" and most Jews continue to reject Christ. Dispensationalists insist that this unbelieving Israel according to the flesh must be blessed by everyone. If this is the case, Paul should be blessing them as the "Israel of God" in Galatians 6:16. But of course the premise is all wrong, because there is no blessing for anyone (Jew or Gentitle) who rejects Christ.

In conclusion, the attempt to limit the meaning of "Israel of God" to those of Jewish descent betrays a fundamentally wrong approach to biblical interpretation, and to New Testament theology in particular. "Peace be ... upon the Israel of God" is a positive blessing and affirmation of the church as the true spiritual Israel.

Christians live in non-creedal age. By and large, Christianity diminishes the importance of creedal symbols. As a matter of fact, many non-creedalists do not dismiss creeds simply as unimportant to the maintenance of biblical Christianity, they deem them to be positively antithetical to it. Such a position would better be termed "anti-creedal."

Probably many factors are at work forming this preponderance of anti-creedal sentiment today. Among these mentioned: an increasing permeation of society with a relativistic, existential concern for the moment; a loss of a sense of the significance of history; a democratic concern for non-coercion and individual freedom of belief; a pervasive tendency to simplification; as well as other considerations. At the forefront of the widespread disapprobation is the fear that the framing of creeds necessarily undermines the sufficiency of the Bible. The cry "no creed but the Bible" is felt to be a call to re-assert the primacy of the Bible in religious affairs in such a way as to totally discredit creedalism.

In one book leveling a critical assault on creedalism, the following statement is made: "To arrive at truth we must dismiss religious prejudices from heart and mind. We must let God speak for himself ... To let God be true means to let God have the say as to what is the truth that sets men free. It means to accept His Word, the Bible, as the truth. Our appeal is to the Bible for truth." In this context creeds are spurned as "man-made traditions," "the precepts of men," and "opinions."

These sentiments are well representative of many anti-creedalists, especially of those from within fundamentalism. The fundamentalist view of creedalism is important in that fundamentalism is a dominant force in modern American Christianity. Consequently, it is crucial that Christians have a proper understanding of the nature, status, and role of creeds in order to defend the biblical integrity of their faith. In the present study will be given introductory consideration to two particular aspects of creedalism: (1) the relation of creed to the Bible and (2) the function of creeds.

The Relation of Creed to the Bible

It is imperative to recognize at the outset that creedal standards are not independent assertions of truth. They are derivative from and subordinate to the only source and standard of Christian truth: the Bible, the God-breathed, infallible, and inerrant Word of the Living God.

Actually it is helpful in this regard to note the definition of the word "creed" in order to dispel much concern as expressed by anti-creedalists. The English word "creed" is derived from the Latin credo, which simply means, "I believe." A creed, then, is a statement of faith. And as such it no more diminishes the authority of the Bible than do statements such as, "I believe in God," or "I believe in the resurrection of Christ." As a matter of fact, such statements are creeds—albeit, brief ones.

Anyone who thinks of God in a particular way has "encreeded" a view of God, whether or not this "creed" is put in writing. Surely it cannot be averred that this in any way necessarily diminishes the primacy or the centrality of the Bible. Furthermore, if it be argued, as some do, that a creed reduces the authority of the Bible by implying its inadequacy, then it can be argued with equal force that for a minister to give an exposition of the words of Christ likewise carries with it the implication that Christ's words are inadequate as they stand. Such an observation quickly reveals the reductio ad absurdum of this argument.

Though it is true that there is no law in the Bible than explicitly commands, "You shall frame creeds," nevertheless, creedalism receives its impetus and mandate from good and necessary inferences deduced from the Bible. This can be demonstrated in three examples.

First, the biblical call for a public affirmation of faith serves as the prime impetus to creedalism. The essence of Christian duty is to be a witness (Acts 1:8; 10:42; Matt. 28:19,20). This requires a public definition of the exact identity of that to which a Christian is witness. Obviously it is not possible to recite the entire biblical record at a given opportunity of witness. Furthermore, only God can look into the heart of individuals to ascertain their innermost faith (1 Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:15). Thus, for others to know of an individual's personal faith, it is necessary to put it into words. "With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation" (Rom. 10:10). Hence, the necessity of a creed which defines the content of belief.

Second, there are mini-creeds actually preserved in the biblical record of apostolic Christianity itself. The very seeds of full-blown creedalism are sown in the fertile soil of the apostolic era via terse statements of faith which were widely employed. Undoubtedly the most familiar of these rudimentary creeds is that recurring one embedded in such texts as Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; and Philippians 2:11: "Jesus is Lord." This eminently important statement embodied a particular way of viewing Jesus Christ. It was fundamentally necessary to hold as one's credo: "I believe Jesus is Lord."

Third, within the biblical record is found evidence of early ecclesiastical assemblies re-casting already known truths so as to insure their accurate preservation and transmission. Acts 15 is the locus classicus in this regard. There the early church was called upon to restate "justification by faith" in response to a Christian-Pharisaic pressure to demand circumcision of Gentile converts (cf. Acts 15:1).

Thus it can be clearly demonstrated that the concept of creedalism is a biblical one. And being thus, creedalism is a biblical one. And being thus, creedalism cannot be construed as to be in any way implying or encouraging the diminution of the Bible in terms of its adequacy or authority.

The Function of Creeds

Contained within the above study are intimations of the variety of functions of creeds. The following enumeration and explication of six important functions of creeds will focus on their specifically ecclesiastical functions. There are also broader socio-cultural implications that flow forth from creedalism. But these are beyond the scope of this study.

1. Creeds serve as a basis for ecclesiastical fellowship and labor. It is important that when two walk together they be agreed (Amos 3:3), for a "house divided against itself cannot stand" (Matt. 12:25). Community labors are better performed and "body life" is more consistently maintained within that church which possesses a homogeneity of faith. And it is imperative that the particular content of that fundamental faith be known, as in a written creed.

Non-creedal fundamentalism is both internally inconsistent at the theoretical level and seriously endangered at the practical level. Its theoretical inconsistency is manifest in the internal contradiction of the very statement, "no creed but the Bible." This statement itself is a creed. It says in effect, "I believe (credo) in no creed." That is, "My creed is that there be no creed." Furthermore, this theoretical position is not amenable to practice. Even the notoriously anti-creedal Churches of Christ denomination requires some sort of implied statement of belief from persons seeking positions of authority in its fellowship. A paedobaptist (a person who believes in baptizing infants), or a Calvinist will simply never be found in its ministry.

That non-creedalism possesses inherent danger is evident in that in principle such a position allows almost any doctrine into a church. The quotation contained in the second paragraph of this study, despite its pious sound and its widely representative character, is a citation from Let God Be True, a publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The essence of the citation could well be reduced to: "No creed but the Bible." Yet despite their subscription to the same principle and the same authority (the Bible), Jehovah's Witnesses are deemed unacceptable to orthodox churches. Obviously there is more to orthodoxy than the claim "no creed but the Bible."

It is absolutely essential that churches provide a formal, public affirmation of their faith, so that their members and prospective members may know exactly where they stand. This is the function of a creed.

2. Creeds serve as tools of Christian education. It should be obvious that the sheer volume of the Bible (1,189 chapters of over 773,000 words) forbids its full comprehension in a moment and by every Christian—or even by one supremely-gifted believer in an entire lifetime. Nevertheless, Christians are commanded in the Old Testament Shema (Deut. 6:4-25) and the New Testament Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) to teach the Bible's truth to others. This teaching process will necessarily deal with fundamental, selected truths at first, truths such as are outlines and organized in a creed.

A growing understanding of the Bible comes only through reading it, systematizing it, studying it, hearing it expounded, and applying it.

In short, creeds are simply expository distillations of the Bible. They summarily state the most basic themes of the Bible in order to facilitate education in them. If it be agreed that a brief expository summation of the teachings of the Bible can be given, then creeds are legitimized in that they fulfill that precise function. In this respect, creeds differ from doctrinal sermons only in being more exact and being carefully compiled by several minds. Once a church encourages public teaching of the Bible or publishes literature explaining it, it has in fact made a creedal statement.

3. Creeds provide an objective, concrete standard of church discipline. As noted previously, any church having officers or teachers must require that they accept the standard of belief of that church. The position "No creed but the Bible" cannot and does not serve as a standard in any church. The fact that heretics are debarred from service in orthodox churches illustrates that a creed of sorts exists.

If a particular church has any interpretation at all of any part of the Bible which must be held by its officers then it has a creed—even if it is unwritten. But an unwritten creed which serves as a standard of discipline in such circumstances is both dishonest and dangerous. Surely it is far more open and honest to have a stable, clearly-worded, publicly recognizable standard of belief to which appeal can be made in situations where individuals are either debarred from entering the ministry or joining a church, or are forcibly relinquished of their duties or membership on a charge of heresy.

The voluntary subscription to a creedal standard is an effective tool of church discipline which enhances doctrinal purity by reducing equivocation on fundamental issues.

4. Creeds help to preserve the orthodox Christian faith for current or future generations of Christians. Jude 3 exhorts Christians: "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

The system of faith incorporated in the Bible, embodied in Jesus Christ, and revealed in finality by the apostles, is "once for all delivered." It is unchanging an unchangeable. It is that immutable faith which must be preserved from generation to generation. Creeds true to the Bible admirably serve to tie generations of Christians together by laying down a specific set of fundamental truths.

The Bible is careful to instruct Christians to preserve the faith. Hebrews 13:9 warns "Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings." Paul gives instruction to the early church leaders in this vein. To Timothy he wrote: "Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Jesus Christ." (2 Tim. 1:13). Titus was urged to be careful to see that an overseer "hold fast the faithful word which is in accord with the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." (Tit. 1:9).

Although the special, direct revelation of God ceased and the corpus of the Bible was finalized in the first century A.D., it was still necessary for the continuing church to interpret and apply the completed revelation. The interpretation and application of the Bible is a process, not an act. It has required the involvement of many devout Christians working through many centuries to systematize, compile, and disseminate the fundamental truths of the Bible. The fact that biblical truth is of no "private interpretation" is a foundational principle of creedal theology. No biblical interpreter works alone. All must build on the past labors of godly predecessors. It is not the interpreters or groups of exegetes who agree with the historic, orthodox interpretations of the past and who find themselves in the mainstream of Christian thought who are suspect. Rather it is those who present novel deviations from historic Christianity who deserve careful scrutiny. Creeds help to preserve the essential core of true Christian faith from generation to generation.

The apostle Paul expressed his fear that some within the Corinthian church were in danger of being led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ by "subtle craftiness" (2 Cor. 11:3). The some concern must provoke Christians today to guard the central elements of Christian truth from distortion.

5. Creeds offer a witness to the truth to non-Christians. There are many senses in which Christians are to be the "light of the world" (Matt. 5:14). There are just as many methods by which they are to carry the light of the truth into the world. The framing of a well-composed creed is one significant way. Basically the question which outsiders must put to Christians is: "What do you believe?" Non-creedal Christians reply, "We believe the Bible." The creedal Christians respond further, "We believe the Bible, and we have written out exactly what it is that we believe the Bible teaches, which is ..." The primary question, "What do you believe?" (to which the proper response is "the Bible") must be followed up by the searching question: "What do you believe the Bible teaches?"

Creeds witness to the truth to non-Christians by: clearly outlining and explicating the fundamental assertions of Christianity, seriously warning against misbelief, vigorously defending the truth from corruptions, witnessing to the unity and order of the Christian system, demonstrating the continuity and immutability of the historic Christian faith, showing the rational, objective content of Christian truth (as against misperceptions such as a belief that Christian faith is a mystic, blind leap), and so on.

6. Creeds provide a standard by which to judge new teachings arising among Christians. This function is obviously closely related to ideas embodied in several of the above-mentioned functions. But its usefulness in an age prone to heresy deserves separate and especial emphases. "Christian" sects are a particularly dangerous phenomenon in that they proselytize by appeal to the Bible. A creed is helpful in guarding against heretical aberrations in that it clearly provides a proper interpretation of essential truths. The more clearly, systematically, and concisely truth is stated, the less likely are people to be found straying from it in the fog of deception.

The maintenance of a standard of truth in the church is in keeping with apostolic example. 1 John 4:1 warns: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they be of God." Immediately following this is a specific test point or standard of judgment (creed): "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God." This credo was formulated in response to a particular heresy infecting the early church and which threatened to be a growing movement now known as docetism. Numerous references could be cited following the pattern of 1 John 4 (e.g., Gal. 1:8-9; 2 John 10; Rev. 2:2, etc).

Because of the relentless assaults on the church from without and also the internal buffetings, creeds are crucial defensive instruments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a strong biblical case can be made in defense of creedalism. Creeds are invaluable instruments of Christian education and discipline and in no way do they diminish the authority of the Bible. The decline in creedalism today in Christian circles is to be lamented. It is not only a literary and historical loss but a spiritual tragedy.

Christians need to be trained in creedal theology so as to bolster the historic Christian faith against the assaults of relativistic, existential, liberal, and heretical theologies current at this time.

THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION (RSV)

A Critical Analysis

STRENGTHS OF THE RSV

#1 --- There has been a major debate over the years as to which type of Greek text is the most reliable. Although most modern translations rely primarily upon the Critical Text, some still prefer the earlier Received Text (the Textus Receptus) used by the translators that produced the King James Version (KJV). The translators of the RSV chose to ignore both, and instead followed The Eclectic Principle, which states, "No one type of text is infallible; each reading must be examined on its own merits." For this reason these translators did not feel bound to abiding by the most popular translations of certain passages. Instead, they chose to translate the passages as accurately as they could based on the best textual evidence, even if it meant making changes to popular and traditional wording. It has departed from the Hebrew Masoretic Text more than any other translation (over 600 departures). Thirteen changes were made to the text of Isaiah alone based on material taken from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

#2 --- The English of the RSV is very readable. It is not "translation English," which can sound very artificial and stilted. "It is almost, for 20th century America, as good as the 1611 KJV was as far as its ease and flow of reading is concerned" (Warren Wilcox).

#3 --- Rather than arranging each verse in its own separate paragraph (as most translations do), the RSV chose to present the text in "thought units." That is, the text was arranged into paragraphs according to thought, as most common secular texts are today. It was believed that this would help facilitate ease of understanding. Other versions of the Bible have since followed suit (such as the New International Version, one version of the New American Standard Version, and the English Standard Version, a revision of the RSV).

WEAKNESSES OF THE RSV

Following are some weaknesses, both valid and perceived, of the RSV:

Valid Weakenesses:

#1 --- Genesis 9:20 in the RSV says that Noah was "the first tiller of the soil." This is not what the Hebrew really says. It says he "became" a tiller of the soil. If indeed Noah was the first, then it will be a case of the Book of Genesis contradicting itself, because Genesis 4:2 says, "Cain was a tiller of the ground."

#2 --- There are some renderings in the RSV which are inconsistent. For example: Jonah 1:17 reads, "a great fish" swallowed Jonah. But then, in Matthew 12:40 the RSV says Jonah was in "the belly of the whale." The Greek in Matthew 12:40 refers to a giant fish, not a whale. The ESV uses "great fish" (kètos).

#3 --- One problem most translations seem to have is their tendency to want to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:36-38, rather than translate it. The word "virgin" (parthenos) is what actually appears here (which is used in the KJV and New American Bible --- two of the very few major English versions which do not seek to impose an interpretation on this passage). The RSV (and ESV) has changed this to "betrothed."All of this just demonstrates again the necessity of translators translating, and leaving the interpreting to others.

#4 --- In Romans 11:20 the RSV reads, "You stand fast only through faith." The word "only" has been added to the text. There is only one place in the entire Greek New Testament where the phrase "faith only" occurs (James 2:24). The ESV did not include "only" in the text.

#5 --- In Habakkuk 1:1 the RSV reads, "The oracle of God which Habakkuk the prophet saw." The phrase "of God" has been added to the text. Although this oracle which Habakkuk received did come from God (known from the context), nevertheless the text does not state it specifically in that location. This is another case of an assumption of the translators (even though a correct one) being written into the text of the Bible. This is a dangerous practice, especially given the fact that the assumptions of translators are not always correct. The ESV did not include "of God" in the text.

#6 --- Some have accused the RSV of having premillennial leanings. For example: Matthew 19:28 reads in the RSV, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The phrase "new world" is not in the text. It is really the Greek word palingenesia which simply means "new birth; regeneration; renovation." The only other time this word appears in the New Testament is in Titus 3:5 where it refers to individual renewal by the Holy Spirit. This word may indeed be referring to the physical world, and to a new heavens and a new earth (as advocated by premillennialists), but it may also be referring to individual regeneration. Again, translators are assuming and interpreting, when that task should be left to others. The ESV followed the RSV phrase "new world."

Perceived weaknesses:

#1 --- Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV, one which was responsible for its rejection by conservative Christians. It reads, "Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is 'almah. It has been charged by critics that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Christ. However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is parthenos which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint [pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament] uses in Isaiah 7:14).

The controversy centers around how to translate 'almah. It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is bethulah. In the writings outside of the Bible, 'almah was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity). 'Almah appears only seven times in the Old Testament writings.

The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the Old Testament say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating 'almah as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) the translators have been severely attacked for their translation choice. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written. Scholar Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."

Some critics still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Christ because of the translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (e.g. Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31) that quickly put this fear to rest. It is not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it is the notion that the Hebrew word 'almah must be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine (i.e. the virgin birth of Christ). The second (i.e. translating 'almah as "virgin") can be denied without denying the first (i.e. the doctrine of the virgin birth).

CONCLUSION

"The publication of the RSV marked both the end of one era and the opening of another in the effort to communicate God's Word to the English reader. For many its publication marked the end of the age in which 'The Bible' meant the KJV. The RSV opened the era of the multiple translations flooding today's market, all competing with each other" (Jack P. Lewis).

The RSV has been both praised and faulted; it is loved by some, hated by others. Some feel it is too radical, others find it too conservative. The RSV symbolized for many people the first major challenge to the KJV domination of the English Bible field. As such, and as was to be expected, it was "torn limb from limb" by those who saw it as a threat to their cherished, virtually "inspired," versions.

Although the RSV is in many ways an excellent version of the Bible, most scholars agree with the assessment of Warren Wilcox, who writes, "the RSV still has a way to go before it gives us a totally accurate concept of all of God's Word."

The Problems of the King James Version (KJV): Part II

DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS IN THE KJV

In early 17th century England, there were many religious struggles going on: Catholics vs. Anglicans, the Prelate Party vs. the Puritans, Calvinists vs. the Non-Calvinistic theologians, and many other such conflicts. The translators brought with them to their work of translation and revision their various sectarian biases and backgrounds. In fact, no matter how careful a translator is, or how honest and sincere, or how objective and unbiased he tries to be, his biases and beliefs will still affect his work to some noticeable degree. For example, certain passages in the KJV clearly reflect a Calvinistic point of view:

#1 --- In Acts 2:47 the KJV reads, "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." The actual Greek verb form (sòzomenous, verb participle, present tense, passive voice, third-person plural) here is: "the ones who are being saved." The rewording of the KJV (from "are" to "should be") is felt by some scholars to reflect the Calvinist doctrines of election and predestination.

#2 --- In Galatians 5:17 the KJV reads: "...so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." This particular verb appears in the subjunctive mood in the Greek text; thus, it is a conditional statement, not an absolute statement. Its correct translation would be, "so that ye might not do..." By failing to correctly translate this verb form the KJV implies a lack of free will, which is another Calvinist doctrine.

#3 --- In Hebrews 6:6 the KJV reads, "If they shall fall away." The word "if" is not in the original Greek text; it has been added by the translators due to a Greek New Testament text edited by Calvinist leader Theodore Beza in the late 16th century. The text actually reads, "and having fallen away." This is a statement of absolute fact, yet the translators have changed it into a conditional statement. By making it hypothetical, the implication is left with the reader that the statement is unlikely at best, thus upholding the Calvinistic doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, commonly known by various names such as the "Eternal Security of the Believer," or "Once Saved, Always Saved".

#4 --- In Hebrews 10:38 the KJV reads, "Now the just man shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." The words "any man" have been added to the text. The actual subject of the verb "draw back" is "the just man." Calvinists, however, do not believe that the "just man" can draw back after having drawn near, so the wording of the verse was changed to better reflect their doctrine. The correct reading of the verse is: "...but if he draw back," with the antecedent of "he" being "the just man."

#5 --- There are seven passages where the KJV has the phrase "be converted" (passive voice), when these verbs are actually in the active voice. This changes the meaning of the verb. Instead of the person performing the action of the verb, the action of the verb is performed upon the person. Calvinists believed that conversion was passive on a person's part, and he was acted upon from an outside source: the Holy Spirit. Thus, if God choses to save a person, he was saved regardless of what his will in the matter might be. This Calvinist doctrine is called Irresistible Grace of God. Acts 3:19 is an example of this.

The KJV speaks of mythological animals as if they actually existed. In the early 17th century most people believed that these animals did exist, so that belief also found its way into the KJV. Note the following example:

* In Deuteronomy 33:17 the KJV speaks of "the horns of unicorns." There are two mistakes in this passage: (1) The animal mentioned here in the original text is the "wild ox" and not the mythical unicorn, and (2) in the original text the passage speaks of one animal (singular) with horns (plural). Since the unicorn has only one horn, the KJV changed the text so that the animal was plural ("unicorns") instead of singular, so it would fit better with "horns." This is manipulation of the text in order to accommodate one's theory.

Notice some other passages associated with the animal kingdom and various mythological beings, and how the translators failed to perceive the true meaning of the original text:

1. In Matthew 12:40 the KJV tells that Jonah spent three days and three nights in "the whale's belly." There is no mention of this creature being a whale. "Huge fish" or "large sea creature" is more correct. It may have been a whale, but it also may not have been.

2. In Song of Solomon 2:12 the KJV reads, "The voice of the turtle is heard in our land." However, turtles do not have voices. The passage literally reads: "The voice of the turtledove (a bird) is heard in our land."

3. Exodus 22:18, in the KJV, says, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." This passage led to much suffering and death in places like Salem, Massachusetts (the scene of the last witch hunt in the Western world). The original word actually means "sorceress," which meant something far different in biblical times than what is conveyed to modern minds by the word "witch."

There are also a great many other doctrinal problems connected with the KJV. The following list of ten is merely representative, and does not even scratch the surface of the flaws and failings of this version with regard to sound doctrine:

#1 --- In Exodus 20:13 the KJV reads, "Thou shalt not kill." This rendering has become quite familiar, and is used especially by opponents of capital punishment. However, it is incorrect (the Revised Standard Version makes the same mistake here). The actual word used here in the original Hebrew is "murder," not "kill." The command is against murdering someone, not against killing someone.

#2 --- For hundreds of years the KJV has confused people over the state of the dead through its poor handling of several key words. It translates the word Sheol as "grave" 31 times and as "hell" 31 times. Hades is always translated "hell" in the KJV, but so also is Gehenna and Tartarus. Thus, the KJV has all but effectively wiped out all distinctions between these various words (and the distinctions are extremely significant in the original languages). A great many false doctrines about the afterlife and the so-called "intermediate state" can be at least in part blamed on the confusion generated by this extremely poor handling of these key words and concepts. It would not be until almost 300 years later that these distinctions would again be brought to light by more correct renderings in more modern and scholarly English translations.

#3 --- In John 10:16 the KJV reads, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ..... there shall be one fold, and one shepherd" (the New International Version makes the same mistake here). There are actually two different Greek words used here in this passage: aulè ("fold") and poimnè ("flock"). There is only "one flock" (the church) and "one shepherd" (Christ), but the "folds" of which Jesus speaks are the Jews and Gentiles. Individuals from both folds shall be added to the one flock. This verse does not imply, as some contend from this incorrect translation, that there are many routes (folds) which lead to God. A modern translation (ESV) reads: "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold .... there will be one flock, one shepherd."

#4 --- In Luke 18:12 the KJV reads, "I give tithes of all that I possess." The Mosaic law did not require a person to tithe a tenth of all that he "possessed" (all his capital holdings), but rather a tenth of his increase (that which he acquired in addition to his possessions). This is clearly stated in the Greek verb (ktòmai) used in this passage which means "to get." The translators, by not translating this correctly, has left a false impression concerning the practice of tithing. A modern translation (ESV) reads: "I give tithes of all that I get."

#5 --- In Matthew 26:27 the KJV reads, "And he [i.e. Jesus] took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them [the apostles], saying, 'Drink ye all of it'." This is an example of a problem caused by poor sentence construction. Does this mean: (a) the apostles were all to drink from this cup, or (b) they were to drink all of the contents of the cup? Either meaning is possible from the grammatical construction.

In the original Greek of this passage, the word pantes ("all") agrees in both number (both are plural) and case (both are nominative) with the word "you." It differs in both number and case with the word autou ("it"). Thus, "all" refers to the people to whom Jesus was speaking, not to the contents of the cup. To reduce confusion, this passage should have been translated, "Drink ye of it, all of you."

#6 --- In Isaiah 14:12 of the KJV: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning." The teaching that Lucifer is a name for Satan comes from the KJV. The Hebrew word here actually means "bright one," or "bringer of light." The word "lucifer" is simply the Latin translation of this Hebrew word. The mistake of the translators was in not translating the Latin word into English. By leaving the Latin word in their version, the implication was left in the minds of a great many readers that it was a proper name. The text actually refers to the king of Babylon, although there may well be a secondary reference to Satan. The belief (mistakenly derived from the translators' failure to translate this Latin word into English) that Lucifer is a proper name of the "prince of darkness" is so widespread that many dictionaries defines it as being another name for the spiritual being also known as Satan.

#7 --- The KJV also fails to distinguish between the two different Greek words daimon and diabolos. The former is the origin of the English word "demon," the latter is the word for "slanderer." The KJV translates both of these words as "devil." The word "devil" actually comes from the Middle English word devel and the Anglo-Saxon word deofol, which mean "slanderer." Again, by not giving the meaning of the word is another proper name: "The Devil." Further, nowhere in the New Testament writings is anyone ever said to be possessed by "devils" rather, he is possessed by "demons." Many present day doctrines concerning exorcism arise from this confusion, but they have no basis in biblical fact. It is confusion generated by the KJV.

#8 --- In John 3:34 the KJV reads, "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." The words "unto him" have all been added to the text by the translators. They do not appear in the original Greek text. By adding these words, the translators make John 3:34 say something entirely different from the original text. This has led to the false doctrine that Jesus alone receives the Spirit without measure, whereas believers only receive very limited measures of God's Spirit. It clearly states, "[He] gives the Spirit without measure."

#9 --- In Isaiah 35:8 (speaking of the Highway of Holiness) the KJV says, "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." This has left two false conclusions in the minds of some who have read this: (a) fools will be found traveling the Highway of Holiness; actually, the text says they will not be found traveling upon it, and (b) these foolish travelers are unable to sin while traveling it. This is Calvinistic, and reflects the doctrine of the Eternal Security of the Believer. Actually, the text simply states that wicked fools will not be found walking in the Way that leads to life. The wording of the KJV leaves just the opposite impression.

#10 --- In Acts 12:4 the KJV reads, "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." The Greek word here is Pascha which means "Passover," and refers specifically to the day upon which the Passover lamb was slain. Easter is a Christian festival celebrating the resurrection of Christ --- a much different event than the Jewish Passover.

CONCLUSION

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of other examples that could be cited, but these few will have to suffice to illustrate some of the major areas of concern with the KJV. Even though there are some obvious problems with this translation, it should not be rejected --- after all, there are problems with every translation and version. These are simply the efforts of translators to render the Bible into the current language of their own people.

The most obvious positive quality of the KJV is the beauty of its language, and the dignity of its expression (at least to modern day ears; it probably did not have that same effect upon its original readers in early 17th century England). Some have even stated it sounds "holier" than more modern translations, and it is true that there is a definite "reverential ring" to the wording as perceived by modern-day Americans. Again, however, this was not the intention of the KJV translators. The rhythm of the KJV has also made it much easier to memorize than many of the more modern translations. Although many of the newer translations and versions are far more accurate, it must be admitted that they just do not compare to the literary beauty of the KJV's expression.

The Problems of the King James Version (KJV)

PARAPHRASE IN THE KJV

1. The Hebrew phrase "Let the king live" is used several times in the OT writings. It is correctly translated in many places in the KJV (such as I Kings 1:31), which shows that the translators were aware of how to correctly render this phrase. However, in several places they substitute the common English phrase "God save the king" (I Samuel 10:24; II Samuel 16:16, to give just a couple).

2. In Genesis 25:8 the KJV reads, "Then Abraham gave up the ghost..." This is a very liberal paraphrase of a Hebrew verb which simply means to "die, expire." It says nothing at all about a "ghost" being given up by a person's physical body at death. No such thing is taught in the Bible, and is a false teaching. This was a popular expression and belief in England in the early 17th century, however, and thus it was written into the text in place of the literal Hebrew "to die."

3. In Matthew 27:44 the KJV reads, "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." The Greek verb oneidizon actually means "reviled" or "reproached." This is another example of an obvious paraphrase; employing the 17th century English phrase "cast in teeth" for what was literally written in the text.

It should be pointed out that paraphrase in a version is not wrong. In fact, it cannot always be avoided. However, it becomes a problem if the paraphrase violates the meaning of the text, or promotes a concept inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible elsewhere. If the meaning conveyed by the paraphrase to present-day readers is the same as would have been conveyed by the literal reading to the original readers, then the paraphrase is acceptable.

TRANSLATION INACCURACIES IN THE KJV

#1 --- Psalm 8:5 reads: "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels." The Hebrew word here is actually Elohim which means "God," or "heavenly beings," depending on the context. While Elohim is plural in Hebrew and can refer to pagan gods, it is often used in the Old Testament to refer to the one, true God. The singular form of Elohim is Eloah or El. It seems that the translators based their translation on the Septuagint (pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament) which translates "Elohim" as "angels."

#2 --- Genesis 12:19 reads, "Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife." The Hebrew text actually says, "I took her." By changing the verb tense, the KJV has also changed the meaning.

#3 --- Psalm 77:2 reads, "My sore ran in the night, and ceased not." This is not even close to what the actual text says, which is: "At night I stretched out my untiring hands." The mistranslation would almost be humorous if it were not so seriously flawed.

#4 --- In John 20:17 the KJV has Jesus saying to Mary, "Touch me not." It seems he is here forbidding what he has elsewhere allowed (Matthew 28:9). However, the Greek verb haptou employed here actually means "to cling to." Jesus was not forbidding Mary to touch him, but rather forbidding her to cling on to him as if to prevent his departure.

#5 --- In Acts 5:30; 10:39 the KJV, in speaking of Jesus' death, reads, "Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [i.e. the cross]." The word kai ("and") is not in the Greek text, and by adding it to the text at this point in the verse it leads to some confusion on the part of the readers. The conjunction "and" indicates grammatically that one action followed another (i.e.: two separate actions independent of one another). The translation makes it that Jesus was killed first, and then his dead body was hung on a tree which is untrue. By inserting the word "and," numerous complications have arisen which could have been prevented by a correct translation of the original text.

#6 --- In Romans 3:25 the KJV speaks of "the remission [i.e. forgiveness] of sins." The Greek word paresis (a noun) actually refers to "passing over" sins, not the canceling or remitting of them. The KJV translators confused two similar Greek words here.

#7 --- 2 Corinthians 2:17 reads, "corrupt the Word of God" in the KJV. The Greek word kapèleuontes (a verb participal) actually means "those who peddle" (the ESV translated it as the plural noun "peddlers") the Word of God, not "corrupt" it. It refers to men who proclaim the gospel only for money.

#8 --- There are two errors in James 3:2 in the KJV: "For in many things we offend all." This should read, "For we all stumble in many ways." In the Greek, hapantes ("all") modifies ptaiomen ("we stumble"), it is not the object of the verb's action. Also, the Greek verb ptaiomen employed here means "to stumble," and does not mean "to offend" someone. The translators made two major blunders in just one short phrase. By means of these errors, they have presented a teaching other than the one intended by James.

#9 --- The Greek word agape (a self-sacrificial love) is used over 300 times in the New Testament writings. The KJV translates it "love" in most places. However, the KJV renders it "charity" in 26 different locations. Since "charity" conveys a different meaning today than it did in the early 17th century, this has led to some confusion among contemporary readers. Some have assumed that "charitable acts of benevolence" are being referred to, rather than "love." Such could easily have been avoided by consistent translation of the word in the KJV.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INACCURACIES IN THE KJV

The translators of the KJV lived and worked in the early 17th century, nearly four hundred years ago. This is a considerable length of time, especially considering the many important discoveries (archaeological, linguistic, ect.) which have been made since then. These discoveries have shed considerable light on areas of the text that the translators simply did not understand at the time they made their translation. They did the best they could with what they had to work with, but through their lack of knowledge they made many unintentional errors in the text. The following are just a few examples:

#1 --- In Joshua 11:13 the translators of the KJV rendered the text as follows: "....the cities that stood still in their strength." Actually, the Hebrew speaks of cities "standing on their mounds." These "mounds" are known as "tells" in archaeology (the accumulated rubble of past cities on that site; cities built upon rubble from cities). Not understanding this, the translators sought some meaning from this idea of a city on a mound. They arrived at the figure of strength. This is an interpretation of the original text, not a translation of it. It is more interpretation than translation, and not even a correct interpretation at that.

#2 --- In 1 Kings 10:28 the word Kue is translated "linen yarn" in the KJV. This is incorrect. Actually, Kue was a location in Cilicia where Solomon purchased his horses. This is a fact which has been verified by archaeologists, but of which the translators were painfully unaware.

#3 --- The translators also did not know what the Asherah was (a wooden idol representing a Canaanite goddess), so they translated the word repeatedly as meaning a "grove" of trees. In 1 Kings 16:33 they state, "And Ahab made a grove," which provoked God to anger. In point of fact, Ahab made an idol here (the Asherah); his sin was idolatry, not planting a grove of trees.

#4 --- In 1 Chronicles 5:26 the translators present Pul and Tilgath-pilneser as being two separate kings of Assyria. Actually, these were two names for the same man (Tilgath-pilnesar is Pul's throne name in Babylon), as archaeological discoveries have proven.

#5 --- In 2 Kings 23:29 the KJV reads, "In his days Pharaoh Nechoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria." This is not true. Pharaoh Neco (spelled "Nechoh" in the KJV) went to the aid of the Assyrian king; they were allies, not enemies, as ancient records from that time have now clearly proven. The translators did not have that information available to them, and thus they assumed their meeting to have been one of enmity. This was an historically-false assumption; a poor interpetation by the translators.

#6 --- In early 17th century England, it was normal practice to light a candle and place it on a candlestick. This was not the case in first-century A.D. Palestine, where oil lamps were then placed on lampstands. Throughout the New Testament, the translators changed "lamps" and "lampstands" to "candles" and "candlesticks" (Matthew 5:15; Luke 15:8; Revelation 1:12f), creating an anarchonism.

LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN THE KJV

A great deal of unnecessary confusion is created in a translation when a name or place is spelled in more than one way. This leaves the reader wondering who or what is meant when a name or place is rendered three or four different ways in a translation or version. Notice the following examples in the KJV:

* Sheth and Seth

* Agar and Hagar

* Jeremiah, Jeremias (Greek form of Jeremiah) & Jeremie

* Jonah, Jona & Jonas (Greek form of Jonah)

* Hosea and Osee

* Isaiah, Esaias (Greek form of Isaiah) & Esay

* Judas, Judah (Hebrew form of Judas), Juda & Jude

* Areopagus and Mars' Hill (loose translation of Areopagus, but replacing Areo, a reference to the Greek god of war Ares, with his Roman counterpart Mars)

Most modern versions simplify the matter by adopting one form of a name or place and using it consistently throughout the translation. This use of variety by the translators, however, was done intentionally (to reflect the literary spirit of the times). They felt it made the Bible more interesting for the reader. Although variety of expression can indeed be good at times, and even necessary on occasion (some Greek and Hebrew words have many different shades of meaning, which should be reflected in a translation), yet this variety can be carried too far. "Variety for variety's sake" can lead to unnecessary confusion.

OBSOLETE MEANINGS OF ENGLISH WORDS

In the Preface to the KJV the translators themselves pose the following question: "How shall men meditate on that which they do not understand?" Their goal was to give the Bible to the people in a form that could be readily understood by an ordinary person. That was almost 400 years ago. The English language has undergone tremendous changes since that time (as does any language). As a result, there are places in the text of the KJV that are simply impossible for the vast majority of English-speaking people today to understand.

There are some words that were in use in the early 17th century that are still in use today, but their meaning has changed drastically. Notice the following examples of KJV wording, and what they actually meant to early 17th century readers then:

Study (2 Timothy 2:15) meant "to be diligent"

Mean men (Proverbs 22:29) meant "common men"

Meat referred to food in general, and not just the flesh of animals. In fact, the word is never used in the KJV to refer to flesh (the word "flesh" is used instead). However, "flesh" is also used in the KJV to mean "human nature." In Leviticus 14:10 the meat offering was actually an offering of "grain," not of flesh.

Made a road (1 Samuel 27:10) meant to go on a "raid."

A target of brass (1 Samuel 17:6) was actually a "javelin."

Cherish (1 Kings 1:1-4) meant "to keep warm."

Prevent (Psalm 88:13; Matthew 17:25; I Thessalonians 4:15) meant "to come before; go before"

Let actually meant "prevent" in many places in the KJV (just the opposite of what it means today) --- Romans 1:13 is a good example: "...oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you."

Wealth (1 Corinthians 10:24) meant "welfare; well-being"

Shambles (1 Corinthians 10:25) meant "a meat market"

Forwardness of mind (2 Corinthians 9:2) meant "eagerness, readiness"

Provoke (2 Corinthians 9:2) meant "encourage"

Conversation (1 Peter 3:1) meant "one's general behavior; manner of living"

Comprehend (John 1:5) meant "overcome."

We took up our carriages (Acts 21:15) meant "hand baggage," not a vehicle.

We fetched a compass (Acts 28:13) meant to travel by a circular route (the compass was brought from China to the West in about 1260 A.D. and was not known in biblical times)

Careful (Philippians 4:6) meant "worry; anxiety"

Quick (John 5:21; Hebrews 4:12; Psalm 124:3, to name just a few) meant "alive; give life to"

Suffer (Matthew 19:14) meant "permit; allow."

EMBARRASSING PASSAGES IN THE KJV

Due to the evolution of the English language, some words and phrases which were acceptable 400 years ago are not considered acceptable today. To speak of someone "sitting on his ass (i.e. donkey)," for example, conveys a much different meaning today than it did in early 17th century England. Also, most people today would not even consider reading the following KJV passages in public before the congregation (although in early 17th century England it was viewed as acceptable speech):

* 1 Kings 14:10 --- "Behold, I will ... cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth [urinates] against the wall." A modern translation (ESV) reads: "ehold, I will...cut off from Jeroboam every male..." See also 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8.

* 2 Kings 18:27 --- "...that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss." A modern translation (ESV) reads: "...to eat their own dung and to drink their own urine?"