The language of the Bible. Paul spoke Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Possibly other languages too, but these three we can be certain of. When he traveled around on his missionary journeys, he invariably came to visit people who did not speak one of those three languages. In these cases, one of two things happened – either God enabled the people to understand him (aka speaking in tongues – and by the way, this is the true meaning of tongues, not spouting gibberish as you roll around on the floor) or He provided an interpreter.

Now, I’m going to make a point, so we’ll use the interpreter example. The goal of the interpreter is not to teach people a new language so that they can communicate with the intended speaker flawlessly. Instead, the interpreter takes the message of one person, and rephrases it into the language that is understood by the people who need to hear it.

Now, few people read the Bible in it’s original language; most people choose to read a translated version. This process involves scholars who are competent, or more likely, experts in both the original language and the language of the people they are translating it for.

I’ve not told you anything controversial or unexpected so far; this all should make perfect sense. What doesn’t make perfect sense to me is why some people insist that the original King James version of the Bible is superior to modern translations. The fact is, the English language has shifted since the 1600′s and many of the words used in that version are not understood by people today. Do you know the meaning of the words, “reprobate” and “concupiscence?” What is the difference between “thee” and “though?”

If a Bible translation is not understood by the people reading it, then it’s not a suitable translation.

Now, I will not say that the KJV is with out value. I like the fact that the KJV and NKJV both use a form of English that is both compact and rich with detail. For example, if you and the people you are communicating with know the meaning of the word “reprobate” then when you use it in a sentence you convey a detailed and concise meaning in only one word. I additionally like the fact that it’s 300 year head start on other translations yields a rich repository of study materials available to accompany it.

However, these benefits show that the KJV is suitable (however there are other suitable Bibles available as well) as a study aid for scholars, however is not well suited as the primary Bible in your typical English speaking household.

Just my $0.02 worth (although inflation has driven up to $0.055 recently).

I was wrong… I thought this would be about calvinism, but instead it’s about Isaiah 32:1a,3 (NLT). Actually, it may be related to calvinism… The verse is, “Look, a righteous king is coming!… Then, everyone who can see will be looking for God, and those who can hear will listen to his voice.” This is another one of those verses that seems to be both for and against predestination. Look carefully at the wording: For predestination – “everyone who can see.” For free will – “will be looking.”

I think this is another passage from God’s Word that shows both views are correct. We cannot see God unless we have been elected, but we must still search for him. I guess I will finish out this post as my view on Calvinism, and more specifically, the ULI of the TULIP.

Regarding U, It’s not hard to find passages that show that some people have been chosen by God and some have their hearts hardened by God. However, it’s also easy to find verses that show we must believe in Jesus or trust in the Lord.

Regarding the L, it is easy to find passages that show Grace has been extended to all. That anyone would preach otherwise is foolish.

My biggest disagreement is with the I. I know too many people and actually, too many churches who have the philosophy that if God calls someone they will definitely be saved and there is no need to go out and spread the Good News. This is theology from Satan. To say to people, “Hey, if God has elected people, there’s no way on earth that they will go to Hell,” is both anti-Biblical and yet the obvious mental conclusion a person must come to after thinking that philosophy through.

So about the remaining two points, I’ll clarify my agreement – P: When you believe in Jesus, you become a new creation and the Lord sends his counselor, the Holy Spirit to dwell in you – not in part of you, but to completely fill you. You cannot un-create yourself and no one, not even your sinful nature, can snatch you out of God’s hand. T: Total Depravity – we all have a sinful nature and the only way to not break the Law (note capital L) is for there to be no Law. This may be slightly different than what some Calvinist teach, that being the T signifies that we have no capacity for good and will automatically sink as low as we can go.

Yes, I have Bible references supporting every statement. Have question or comment? Let me know by clicking the “comments” link below.

Confession vs. Repentence – To many, the terms are used interchangably, but there is actually a remarkable difference between the meanings of these two words. Confession is admitting you’ve done something wrong, repentence is turning away from wrong doing (aka U-Turn).

A person will often confess their sins to God when they repent, but confession without repentence is not that big of a deal. For example, an irritating phrase that has been around for a while, “Oh, my fault.” Basically, “Oops, I did something that hurt you; it was my fault, but I’m not sorry and I may do it again.” We are supposed to confess our sins to each other so that we can be accountable and receive support. The goal here is to stop sinning and start doing what is right. God is more interested in our walk than our intentions. If we merely confess our sins and do not make a change in our life, it’s like saying to God, “oh, my fault!”