Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pneumatology' started by Fool for Christ, Jul 3, 2017.
Are you saying that Jesus spirit is the Holy Spirit then?
Mike, this can be a difficult area to choose words well and make meanings clear. It's an area where it behooves us to tread carefully. Some of your expressions quoted above, and others in the thread, could make one wonder if you are denying the distinct personality of the Son and the Spirit. From your last sentence above, I would take it that isn't your intention. So please answer these two questions clearly and briefly:
In the unity of the Godhead, are there three distinct persons, the same in substance, equal in power and glory, yet distinguished by their personal properties?
If so, what is the distinguishing personal property of the Second Person, and what is the distinguishing personal property of the Third Person?
Yes, but you are in really good company. The concept of the Trinity is the most unnatural thing for any man to understand. We have nothing in nature which parallels the concept to provide an example for us. Christians have struggled for the last 2,000 years trying to come to grips with terminology which will help us understand the Trinity. I had the Trinity wrong for the first 20 years of my Christianity. An elder I know who leads a Bible study group still has it wrong. And I've heard many stories of elders and pastors who have it wrong.
I have never tried explaining this before, but I will give it a try.
The Westminster Confession of Faith says,
WCF II.III In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Some creeds and confessions use "substance" and some "being", but these terns are all part of the definition of One God. The key in understanding the Trinity is the distinction between being/substance and person. The three Persons are distinguished by name and function. The concept of different names for the same Person I will cover below.
Notice that the Holy Ghost "proceeds from" the Father and the Son in the WCF above.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Just in this one verse the Father sends the Spirit, and the Son sends the Spirit. In saying "whom I will send" Jesus is not saying I am coming to you as the Spirit, but I as a Person and sending this other Person to you.
You mentioned John 14:6 and quoted verse 16a, 17a, 17c, 18. For clarity, here is the complete passage.
John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
In the concept of the Trinity, the distinction is between the "Comorter" / "the Spirit of truth" / "him" in verses 16-18a and "I will come to you" in verse 18b. It turns out that Jesus describes what he means by "I will come to you" in this chapter both before and after this verse. He is speaking of His second coming.
John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
So in verse 18b Jesus is not saying that He and the Spirit are the same Person and He is returning as the Spirit.
I often encounter instances, whether in confessions or even the local church, where they already assume you understand what they mean. In this WCF example it refers to Jesus and "his Spirit". Consider this Old Testament passage.
Ezek. 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
This is part of the new covenant promise the Father makes to us. So if the Spirit of Jesus refers to the Person of Jesus living in us as a Spirit, then doesn't this Old Testaent verse refer to the Person of the Father living in us as a Spirit? The distinction needs to be between the three Persons, and the multple names given to a single Person.
The Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of God" (Gen. 1:2, etc.), "the Spirit of your Father" (Matt. 20:10), "the Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:19), "God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts" (Gal. 4:16). So these names all refer to the one Person of the Holy Spirit, but not to the Persons of the Father or the Son.
It doesn't help that we have a multitude of churches filled with Sunday school teachers teaching our children that it is Jesus who lives in our hearts. They teach us wrong at the very start.
All of this is a case of expanding on the concept of a word study. Find all Scriptures which speak of the same thing, and determine how the pieces fit together, because they do, just not in a way man is born to understand. And we often have to evaulate different possibilities and test those against whether all of the Scriptures support it. In this case the WCF gives us really good guidelines. It just is a little incomplete. I read sections from several different creeds, confessions, and catechisms before responding to you and they miss the one crucial point to answer your question. Other people know and teach it, it just is not in those particular documents.
I hope this helps, and gives you something to chew on.
I have never considered being a spirit form without a physical body. I know there are some nuts out there but if we refer to the scripture as the source of information and knowledge about the spirit realm how can any of us ever have a spirit form without a physical body first?
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
This thread has gone way beyond the desired scope of my original inquiry/subject/topic of pondering why different terms are used for the Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit, and I would like to bow out here. Thank you all for your research. I would like to comment on the issue that was raised about the possibility (or absurdity) that the KJV translators had a text or sources of information that has been lost to us today.
Most authorities tell us that no one knows for sure what happened to the manuscript that the KJV translators used. Some think that their sources were destroyed in a fire.
But the best source of information concerning what documents they used are the translator's words themselves. In discussing the Septuagint, in the Translator's to the Reader, they say, "...the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets. They did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight and another through ignorance; yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it...this may suffice touching the Greek translation of the Old Testament."
Many times the translators talk about "the originals" or the "original tongues" as if they possessed them. If they knew the Septuagint was corrupt, how did they know what the correct reading was, unless they believed they had the original manuscripts to refer back to. They seem to be very confident of this. But, as we all know, if anyone would dare make such a statement today he would be laughed out of seminary. "The originals no longer exist anywhere on the face of the earth," we are told.
So were the translators confused and ignorant? Were they liars? Or, heaven forbid, did they actually have originals that had been preserved carefully for 1600 years that were on the very verge of extinction? We can all attest that that assumption is absurd and yet can we really prove it wrong? They said they translated their text out of the original Greek and Hebrew and diligently compared their work with other translations. How did they know they had original material?
All I know it that I have been studying this old bible for over 40 years and I can tell you from experience that it is the least problematic translation out there. It is precisely accurate and beautifully worded, just like I would expect from a translation of an original God breathed-book. There are many godly men with heavy credentials after their name that have made greater boasts of this excellent work that I ever would dare. Yet this bible is the most hated and slandered of all the translations available today. But it is also the most loved, respected and trusted version ever to see the light of day. When we see the Lord, I expect that we will then be shown the truth. I can hardly wait for the day.
1) Yes, I believe in One God (Essence) distinguished in Three distinct Persons, all equal in every way.
2) The distinguishing property of the Second Person (whom I love as The Word, Jesus Christ, the Son) is that He came as the Word, Wisdom and express Image of the Father, and gave His life for me, (and that of the world too) taking my sin upon Himself and imputing His righteousness to my unworthiness.
The distinguishing characteristic of the Third Person (the Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost) is the eternal power and might which proceeds from the Father and the Son, and who comforts, enlightens and saves to the uttermost all who come by faith to trust in the shed blood of Christ Jesus.
And, since you are giving me the opportunity to preach what I believe, let me add further, that I believe there is "none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we MUST be saved..." And that that name is Jesus Christ. Furthermore, This Holy and Humble Jesus has been placed by God, at His own right hand, far above all principality, power, might and dominion, and every name that is named in this world and the one to come; that all things have been put under His feet, that He is head of the church and that in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily.
If I can be criticized, beaten or martyred for my faith in this truth I will rejoice until my last breath, so help me God.
Hope this helps.
I have contemplated that fact of which Christ took note: That there are some who would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
I believe what Jesus said: The Lord our God is one Lord: (Mark 12:29)
I believe what Paul wrote under inspiration of the Holy Ghost "...but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11) I am justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God, not because they are two Gods, but because I believe they both come from the same essence. Both are One God with the Father.
Many seem to think and write like the Trinity is three Gods, and that Jesus is somehow inferior to the Father; That He is somehow a little less than God. I do not believe that. I also believe that in my love toward Christ, that if I honor Him too much, (if that is possible) that the Father will not be displeased with me. The Godhead loves each other just like Christian brothers should.
I may not be technically proper in all my doctrine, I have never been to a university. But if my desire is to honor my God, I believe that He understands, even though my words are not clearly stating what I am intending to say. In true charity there is a tendency toward grace. Charity covers a multitude of sins. There are doctrines that are very wrong, very divisive and heresy. I try to avoid even thinking those thoughts. I want to have a pure mind and imagination as Php 4:8 teaches.
I believe God has highly exalted Jesus Christ and that it glorifies Him even when every tongue confesses that He is Lord! The Father is not like some scholars who get offended if one of their associates gets more credit or praise than he would expect. I believe strongly there was a reason the Lord chose unlearned and ignorant men. They were a lot easier to get along with.
But I am appreciative of brothers who desire to keep doctrine pure. Without "scrupulous brethren" King James would not have authorized a better translation of the Bible and I would not have that precious book that I meditate upon day and night.
Thank you David,
Thank you for your thoughtful research. I found it very helpful to my understanding. Please bear with me a moment: I have always understood the Trinity as One God. If the Holy Ghost comes into my being and flows out of my belly as living water, then I have always understood that to mean that My Father and My Lord are also there, since they are One. They are three separate persons but they operate from the same mind and will. Jesus said, "I do the will of my Father...I always do those things that please the Father...Not my will, but thine be done." Does not the will of the One define the will of each?
When Abraham said to Isaac, "My son, God will provide Himself a lamb...." (Gen 22:8) I understood that to mean God Himself was Isaac's savior and mine as well; That God Himself (as a Trinity) made mankind in His image in the beginning. He did say, "Let us make man in our image..." Therefore He thinks as one. And I have one body. I operate as a unit. Although I am body, soul and spirit, I cannot leave my soul at home when I go to the store. So, I have always thought that the Trinity is in like manner indivisible in will and mind, although each with a unique function. How do we define a spirit when we cannot see it/him? Jesus came with a body of flesh so we could have an understanding of God. He came as the express image of the Father so I could understand Him, at least a little.
Then I see scriptures like John 3:13, which most new translations of the bible corrupt, (I believe because they try to put God in a box and that does not fit their understanding) "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." If the Son of man is on earth and in heaven at the same time, that matches perfectly with my understanding of God. But it does not match with the creeds. Although try as we might to define God, He is still outside of a perfect explanation.
Then we find another mind bender like John1:18, (which also many versions corrupt) "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." My understanding of the text says Jesus resided on earth and yet was still in the bosom of the Father in heaven at the same time. In trying to understand this, I see what Jesus said in John 14:23, of a man who loves Jesus, that "we" meaning the Farther and the Son, would "come unto him, and make our abode with him." This cannot mean that the Father and the Son would come to the man only at the resurrection, because verse 22 specifically demands how Jesus can manifest himself to his disciples in this way and yet not to the rest of the world. We know that at the resurrection, "Every eye will see Him." So my understanding says that this must be a private coming to one who believes in Christ.
I know my understanding of God is imperfect. But so is every other man's understanding. God tells us this. "Your ways are not my ways. My thoughts are not your thoughts, for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts and ways above yours. (this is not a quote). So, I thank God for brothers who are humble, and who know the scripture. I love them. I stand rebukable. I admit I have a very finite understanding. But I do make my bible my meditation. It is my inspiration and my entertainment. I do not watch Hollywood movies. My time is spent meditating on God's word and I see many things that do not match with the confessions that I generally support and believe. Men who make such creeds are fallible. The scripture alone must be our guide unto death. But I do thank God for fallible, but faithful men who hazarded their lives for the sake of the gospel and who wrote such creeds. They are examples to me of sound doctrine, which I also love. I know that our doctrine must be pure and it took great enlightenment and intellect to write the creeds. My hat is off to them. I support them. I love them. But I bow my knees before the Book. I pray that God gives me a teachable heart, for even teachers must be taught. And yet, the unction can reveal deep and secret things which defy human understanding, even about the godhead. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying the Westminster Confession is wrong. We need these guides to keep us and our faith in safegaurd; for there are many wolves who would destroy the flock, especially today, and even in orthodox churches.
I do not believe that God will damn me for having an imperfect understanding of Himself. His word contains many mysteries of which even learned men struggle to understand. He knows my frame. I am but dust.
I want you to know that I greatly appreciate your fellowship through what you have studied and written.
God bless you my brother,
The KJV translators had the best available source texts to them of that time, but there has been considerable advancements made in textual criticism and available texts and textual tools since 1611.
Still a very good translation, but not perfect, and there are some modern versions just as good, if not better for serious study of the scriptures now.
My main concern my friend was that you were not accepting either just the spiritual resurrection of Jesus and us, or that Jesus was the Holy Spirit, as a type of oneness doctrine, or Modalism.
Mike, I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest.
Your statement about how you study, and your view of things like confessions, I recognize and respect. I am similar. Much of my learning has happened over time. I am fully convinced this is how God works in someone like myself who submits themselves to the Scriptures, who searches the Scriptures diligently, who asks questions of the Word and wrestles with the Word, all the while asking for God's help. (Those of us who do that should never arrive at something new in history, or arrive at someplace too closely linked with false groups.)
My concerns started with the way you originally expressed Jesus was resurrected as a Spirit, which is dangerously close to the Jehovah's Witness belief. And then your expanded explanation has some things which I think are missing some concepts from other clear places in Scripture.
I searched through a host of Scriptures and can share those with you and point out a few things to notice. Even within several verses which speak of God in us there is something to point out. Let me know if you would like to see those.
This issue is very hard, at times, to get a firm grasp on, as the church has been allowing some really bad theology on this area, as shown by oneness and Modualism, and holding to just spiritual resurrection.
...some really dodgy(?) theology...
Even the council of Nicea, which met to deal with false views of the Trinity, did not so much conclude exactly what the Trinity is as much as they chose careful language to better define what the Trinity is not.
Yes, I would love to see everything you've dug up. I appreciate your time. I certainly do not align myself with JW's, but I do witness to them when they come to my door. I tell them, "There is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved!" And that name is Jesus. I have heatedly debated Jn 1:1 with them and even got them to concede that the "a" added therein is not there in their Greek text. It least is wasn't 20 years ago.
I love my brothers who love the Word.
Which would make sense, as full understanding of the trinity would be beyond our current means.
My Dear Brother,
I know what you mean. I too used to use all of the major translations of the Bible in my studies and writings. And I felt that some translations were more clearly worded in places than the KJV. However, over the years I began to note mistakes in the modern versions that are not found in the KJV. I began to read whole books of the bible side by side, comparing the newer version with the KJV. What I found astonished me. Most versions say they get their source texts from the Wescott/Hort, the Septuagint, the Sinaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, etc. All of these source texts have been corrupted and have been shown by many men far smarter than I am that this is the case. But not wanting to believe scholars without doing some of my own research, I read these books side by side. What troubled me is that I began to notice patterns. The translations generally often were missing information in the same places, as if the same editor had worked on all of them. Of course all are slightly different; they have to be (if I remember correctly) at least 10% different to get a copyright. After a while this 10% difference begins to be significant when all the English words in the thesaurus are used up.
Let’s just use the Lord’s prayer as an example:
The conclusion is missing in Mt 6:13 in most modern bibles, or, in the rare case it is included, it is relegated to footnotes, italics or parenthesis. It is also missing in the Catholic Douay version of 1609, and in it’s case, and many others, there are no footnotes to explain that part of the text has been left out.
“Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever,” is gone. We know that Luke’s teaching on the Lord’s prayer is missing this ending. (And it is assumed by some that because of this Matthew shouldn’t have it either, but we forget that there are many things unique to every gospel. It always amazes me that only John mentions the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead; such a powerful miracle and yet none of the others mention it.)
We know the words should be included because, as Wycliffe said, “The same words of scripture may be proved by other places in scripture.” We find this to be true in this case. David used these words in his prayer in 1Ch 29:11 Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. David even addresses God as, “our Father” in this passage in the preceding verse. This is rare in the Old Testament with the only other instances found in Is 63 and 64.
As you know, there is a principle in scripture of 2 or 3 texts establishing a “witness,” or reading. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” (Deut 19:5, Mat 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1) Most texts teaching doctrine usually have another witness to back up the truth. It seems to be the way God confirms things.
Neither codex Vaticanus or Sinaticus contain this reading in Mathew 6, but 99.5% of other Greek texts do. And our brothers who framed the Westminster Larger Catechism believed without any doubt that it should be included. As you know, there is a whole paragraph detailing the importance of the conclusion of the Lord’s prayer in question 196.
The Lord’s prayer addresses forgiveness. It teaches doctrine. Many people know that Christ taught that we should forgive until at least (490) seventy times seven, times, (Mathew 18:22), and they want God to forgive them in like manner. But sadly most don’t know that this is not what the texts of their modern bibles say. Many have Peter forgiving his brother only seventy-seven times. This weakens the doctrine of Christ by 50% and it is a serious error. This is found in the CEB, CEV, NIV, ERV, ESV, and many others, although by no means all. The point is, I know, that we should never stop forgiving, but why weaken the point at all? It makes no sense. It confuses weak people and casts doubt upon the inspiration and authority of scripture.
Wycliffe said, “The scripture has it’s own rules. It is not to be opened by the means of grammar used by boys.” We have a lot of boys today who pretend to be translators.
This is only one very small reason why I use the KJV. I have found it to be far and away more accurate and trustworthy than all others, even though it is more than four hundred years old. I could write many books on the problems with other versions as I have studied from them for years. To me, accuracy is of utmost importance, whereas, an easy, modern voice is not important to me. I can study to show myself approved. I don’t need somebody else to do it for me.
You may disagree. I choose not to argue. “A servant of the Lord must not strive.” (2 Tim 2:24)
There have been no corruptions of the scriptures though in the modern versions, as they would deem to be using source texts that more accurate fashion reflect what the Originals ones had recorded down.
And there are no differences between the KJV and any good modern version in regards to any doctrines and practices.
David, I would like to pray for you.
Father Almighty, in Heaven: Hallowed be thy name.
I petition thy grace this morning to open the eyes of my brother David. Father, thy word clearly and unmistakably instructs that thy WORDS may not be added to or taken from thy holy book, without consequence. Those consequences are clearly described in Proverbs 30 verse 6, "add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar,..." and in Revelation 22:19, "If any man shall take away from the WORDS of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life,..." and, Deu 4:2 instructs us that, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
O, holy God, thy Word is not negotiable. It is given for our learning and profit, or if we resist it ; our damnation. We must fall upon him and be broken or he will fall upon us and grind us to powder. I petition thee this morning to show my brother that when the conclusion of thine instruction on the Lord's Prayer is missing in the New Testament of many bibles that THIS MATTERS! That this is a big DIFFERENCE and that it hides instruction in prayer that thou hast desired us to have and commanded us to use for the sake of thy glory and honor. Father, them that honor thee, thou wilt honor. Help David understand that.
And I thank thee for the instruction found under question 196 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, that the "conclusion of the Lord's prayer...teacheth us to enforce our petitions with arguments, which are to be taken, not from any worthiness in ourselves, or in any other creature, but from God: and with our prayers to join praises, ascribing to God alone eternal sovereignty, omnipotency, and glorious excellency; in regard whereof, as he is willing and able to help us, so we, by faith, are embolden to plead with him that he would, and quietly rely upon him, that he will fulfill our requests. And, to testify this our desire and assurance, we say, Amen." Again, I thank thee for faithful men who are anointed to teach the truth of thy word, without compromise, as these men have here. Bless this word to our understanding and show us the profit in obeying ALL thy will and thine instruction. I thank thee, in advance, for hearing and answering this prayer of my heart.
To thee be all glory, majesty and power, both now and forever.
In the mighty name of Jesus Christ, thy Son,
Appreciate your prayer, and please remember that those of us who do use modern versions are not denying, nor adding/deleting from the scriptures, as we just see that the Originals were closer to what the Nas states than what the KJV would. Also, the KJV is still a a fine translation to use and study the scriptures with, as this issue should not be used to divide or get heated with another Christian over.
Jesus as spirit is one possible framework for viewing those verses you mentioned. But are there exceptions? Are there other places which speak more clearly? Are there other possible frameworks with less exceptions? These are the kinds of questions I submit my own beliefs to.
When Jesus was on earth He said He was going back to the Father and would send the Spirit to us.
John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
John 14:12 ... I go unto my Father.
John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:28-29 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
After Jesus' resurrection, He ascended up to Heaven, and is now at the right hand of the Father.
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Rom. 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Col. 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Heb. 10:12-13 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Acts 7:55-56 is the account is of Stephen, sometime after the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was given. Notice it does not say Stephen was full of Jesus and looked up to heaven and saw Jesus.
These have been plain verses which are the kind of thing I try to base my understanding on. Your understanding seems to be based more on those verses which say God in us.
What about "in us"?
John 14:10-11 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
Notice the reciprocal -- Jesus in me, and I in Jesus. There is something going on here more than all 3 persons of the Godhead being in me.
Also see, John 6:56, John 15:5, Rom. 8:1, etc. There are a whole host of verses in 1 John. To easily find other verses I use the Treasury Of Scriptural Knowledge (TSK). This is both an e-sword module and is also available on the BlueLetterBible website. For example see,
You said that God made man in His image, man is body, soul, and spirit so this is an analogy of God's indivisibility. God made man in His image and those 3 parts of man are sometimes used by many to argue that man is a trinity. Man having 3 parts skips over other verses which list some of those parts as being distinguished from mind and or heart. In those parts of man God takes out our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36:26), and gives us a new spirit (Ezek. 36:26). So God is removing old defective parts within us and replacing those with new parts. So for this analogy to not only apply to man but to God also, God would have to be doing the same thing within Himself. It is also not a good argument of indivisibility, since the Holy Spirit can divide soul and spirit just like bones and marrow can be divided (Heb. 4:12).
This information I am providing is along the lines of have you factored these in?
I would like to offer some thoughts on some comments about the KJV versus other translations and sources. Mike, if you are already convinced that everything which came before and after the KJV is corrupt then I have nothing to offer.
I have a long time high school friend who is also now a retired pastor. He is very dogmatic in his views -- he is right and all the world who doesn't exactly agree with him is wrong. He always used to send my links to KJV Only websites. One time I decided to try to find out what this movement was and stumbled across a 4 part article on "The History of the English Bible".
It walks through the history of how we came to have English translations of the Bible. The interesting thing for me to discover was there is history, and facts, and that differences between translations and sources are explainable from actual available data. And I learned that a lot of people have access to this information, and that many KJV only people simply declare all of this information corrupt.
I also came across a book about KJV only which does not hold to that viewpoint. It closely examines a multitude of differences between the KJV (and the sources it used) and modern translations based on the critical text (and the much broader number of original sources it uses). I use this book as one of my resources when I find a difference between translations. Also, I have read through (and listened through) the KJV many times. And I have read through (and listened through) the 1984 NIV many times. When I encounter a difference I use all of the reference materials available to me. And here is what I've found. I don't find that textual differences between translations is all that significant when it comes to understanding what God speaks to us in His Word. The important thing I have found is related to a viewpoint we both expressed earlier -- teachers who develop ideas which do not closely follow the text of Scripture, or search Scripture diligently to find everything about a subject, or who simply use their own wording thinking they can explain Scripture better than Scripture can. But that is my own personal opinion.
"Most" sounds like an awful lot. Many other authorities and learned men can explicitly state which sources the KJV translators used. For the New Testament, they used a handful of (I forget if it was 6 or 8) printed editions of the Greek texts. These were compiled by folks like Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza from handwritten copies of the Greek text available to them in their part of Europe. The number of those manuscripts is known, and so is the earliest date of around the 12th century. They had to use textual critical methods on that limited number of manuscripts to compile those down to their single printed editions. And each revision to a printed edition differed from the previous one. I recently learned there are even photos of an original 1550 Stephanus Greek New Testament at http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/1550.html . The margins contain notes on textual variants -- the same thing that the "critical text" does. The critical text simply deals with more, and earlier, handwritten manuscripts.
The views of KJV only, or TR only, or Byzantine only, or ecclesiastical text only, are held by members of this forum, and disagreed with by other members.
One can prefer a particular source text, as in TR/MT/Bzt/CT, or an English translation, but there would be no legitimate reason we can be only one text/translation, and all others are bad or corrupted.