Power In His Presence

Which English Version of the Bible do you use for the following: preaching/teaching, group devotional, personal devotional, easy reading, quoting in letters? And Why?

Basicaly, I use the King James Version (KJV) for Preaching, Teaching, group devotion, Personal devotion, easy reading, quoting in letters and every other activity which demands a reading of the bible.

For my money, the KJV Bible is very easy for my reading and memorizing and the deeper researches I had made is also evident that KJV’s Version is the most closest to the original manuscripts. To boot my apology, I have immensely identified diverse mistakes in other versions which have enormously diluted many biblical truths found in lother versions. By position is embedded on the following findings”

DANGER IN OTHER VERSIONS (HISTORY)

The modern contemporary translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England–B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, were apparently deeply drawn in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text, out of which the King James Bible was decoded, so they fabricated THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very unseemingly unconventional fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope’s library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai).

HOW THE KJV BIBLE WAS GOTTEN

In July 1604, King James the King of England wrote to Bishop Bancroft demanding him to opt for 54 able and scholarly men who would carry the burden of translation. Among these chosen vessels, a couple died before the commencement of the work and a few were incapacitated to participate because of numerous commitments. The 47 remaining scholars (according to Eldred Thomas in his book ‘Bible Versions’) comprised of six Bishops and 41 were university professors, of which 30 held doctorates and 23 were unusually gifted in Hebrew and Greek. The 47 were allotted and divided into six groups (two at Westminster, two at Oxford and two at Cambridge) who were employed under some 15 severe and stringent guidelines, one of which was that they were to keep the old ecclesiastical words. For example, ‘church’ was not to be translated ‘congregation’. Apparently, none of the translators received any pay for their work, as they gladly volunteered their time.

WHY IT IS USEFUL FOR ME (MY PERSUASIONS)

King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is traditionally the foremost English translation. The KJV is measured as one of the masterpieces of early modern English literature, although most modern readers find the language a bit behind the times and occasionally dense. There have been various successive English translations, many of which have in a great deal borrowed from the KJV.

Like the earlier English translations such as Tyndale’s and the Geneva Bible, the King James Version was translated primarily from Greek and Hebrew texts, with only secondary reference to the Latin Vulgate. The King James Version’s Old Testament is based on the Masoretic Text,the New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, and the Apocrypha is based on the Septuagint. The King James Version is a formal translation of these base sources; words implied but not actually in the original source are specially marked in most printings (either by being inside square brackets, or as italicized text).

The King James Version has traditionally been appreciated for the quality of the prose and poetry in the translation. However, the English language has changed since the time of its publication, and the King James Version employs words and grammatical structures that may be foreign to modern readers. For example, the King James Version uses the second person singular pronouns, such as “thou“. Some words used in the King James Version have changed meaning since the translation was made; for example “replenish” is used in the translation in the sense of “fill” where the modern verb means “to refill”, and “even” (a word very often introduced by the translators and thus italicized) is mostly used in the sense of “namely” or “that is”. Because of this, some modern readers find the King James Version more difficult to understand than more recent translations.

WHICH DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION? WHY?

Hermeneutics is defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. There have been huge tomes written on hermeneutics, but I want to boil it down to the essence of the most significant principle of interpreting the Bible.

I consider the Principle of Intended Meaning or the Face Value Principle to be the most important courtesy of the following reasons:

This is a system or method of interpreting a text that interprets terms in their normal, routine and customary designation. Each word is given the basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking. Author’s of the bible doesn’t have it in mind that a variety of meanings should be drawn from their utterances and the correspondences. Assigning echelons of meanings to a statement is very erroneous.

This method is also referred to as the historical-grammatical method of interpretation by many scholars. In this method, the principal goal is to be identified with the original intent of the author when he wrote. The underlying assumption of the face value method is that God intended to communicate His word to man so that we could understand it. God did not try and hide truths in the Scriptures; His intent is not to make it as difficult as possible to understand. Rather, He wants us to read and understand His word. The apostle Paul says the same thing to the Corinthians when he writes: “For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end.” (2 Cor. 1:13).

The overriding principle of our Bible study must be to understand what the human author (and divine Author) intended to communicate. The only way to accurately do this is to take words in their normal meaning. As the adage goes, “if the plain sense makes sense you have the right sense.” All Scripture must be taken in its proper context. This means that the interpretation of Scripture should be looked at in the light of the verses and book in which the passage is found. The argument of the author must be taken into account. The historical and cultural context should be remembered as well. This is possibly the most desecrated of all the principles and is, in my opinion, the number one violation of biblical interpretation which plagues the church today. A text without context is a pretext! No interpreter can cleave unto a literal interpretation of every word in the bible.

The primary meaning of a text is its original intent by the original writer to the original audience. The Implied Meaning is the full original intent by the original author.
The Extended Meaning is based upon this Primary Meaning and reaches to the reader with application to his/her life.
I want to clarify this point by offering an example from the bible:

“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18)

The Primary Meaning is the command that the Ephesians [and others the letter circulated to] are not to be drunk with wine, but to be filled with the Spirit. The Implied Meaning is that the Ephesians are not to be drunk on ANY alcoholic beverage or other mind-altering drug, but to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Extended Meaning is that Christians are not to let a medication, drug, or alcohol influence our mind so that we cannot be led by the indwelling Holy Spirit. God may even use this verse to rebuke a single reader living 2,000 years later by speaking directly to his heart through the text of Scripture. “For the word of God is living and active; sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” [Hebrews 4:12]

ARE ANY OF THE CHARASTERISTICS OF THE LIBERAL SCHOLARS’ APPROACH TO THE BIBLE VALID?

NONE OF THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF THE LIBERAL THEOLOGY IS VALID AND APPLICABLE.

Features of the Liberal Theology Misses basic certainty and veracity. A principal distinction between liberals and conservatives theologically is the way they interpret the Bible. The word liberal in liberal Christianity indicates a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture in an intellectually independent manner—with no preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture when its passages are literally interpreted

The mode and fashion of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of resources of factual statements but instead documents the human authors’ beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context.Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding.

Liberals read the Bible symbolically or allegorically, as a collection of interesting stories to take whatever meaning out of that pleases them. This allows them to reject various portions of the Bible they disagree with. Liberals label their interpretation as a “critical” approach, which essentially allows most of their theology to consist of finding ways to “criticize” the Bible, rather than actually trying to determine what it says. Theological conservatives believe the Bible is God’s inspired word to humanity, and therefore believe that the Bible must be studied seriously. Conservatives believe that God does not make errors.

Liberals primarily criticize conservatives’ interpretation of the Bible by accusing them of interpreting it “literally.” Of course, most conservatives who interpret the Bible “literally” are simply reading the plain meaning of the Bible, as opposed to attempting to distort it to fit their own personal shortcomings. Furthermore, they aren’t always interpreting the Bible “literally.”

Liberals have come up with a litany of ways to dismiss the plain truths found in the Bible. Two of their favorite ways include trying to find contradictions and vagueness in the Bible, in order to discredit portions of it. Because of the syntax of language, as well as differences resulting from translation, anyone can find anything “wrong” in any literature. For example, if my friend and I were both at a meeting, and I took copious or plenteous notes, and my friend made sure my notes were precise, there would always be someone later who read my notes and could point out supposed contradictions or vagueness.

Liberals also search for parts of the Bible that address the culture of the time it was written in, in order to discredit the (entire) Bible as “outdated.” For example, liberals insist that none of the Bible can be taken literally, because the Old Testament consists of extremely harsh laws that God once instructed his people to live by. Of course, with the coming of Jesus, who replaced the harshness of Old Testament laws with his kinder teachings, the Old Testament law was replaced. Yet instead of acknowledging this, and accepting the Old Testament without the harshness that Jesus removed from it, liberals would prefer to write off the entire Bible.

Liberals believe in “moral relativism,” which means there is no clear right or wrong, just varying shades of gray. They then try to transfer this belief onto the Bible, focusing on the few verses they can find that can be twisted to support this interpretation. However, the Bible is full of clear moral judgments. A favorite verse liberals overemphasize and exaggerate is “Judge not lest ye be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Of course, this verse can be interpreted in many ways, and even more importantly, there are hundreds of verses in the Bible that could be considered contradictory to this one verse, if liberals would examine them in the way they do other portions of the Bible where they insist there are contradictions.

CAN THE PENTATEUCH BE BOTH MOSAIC IN ORIGIN AND SIXTH CENTURY?

The Pentateuch can never be sixth century writing and still be Mosaic because Moses didn’t live to see the six century. In the actual sense it is believed that Moses wrote major part of the Pentateuch and some few passages that speaks of his death was also penned down by another. The assumption that the Pentateuch was written in the sixth Century is not plausible. The Talmud which is the collection of ancient rabbinic writings on Jewish law and tradition (the Mishna and the Gemara) that constitute the basis of religious authority in Orthodox Judaism believes strongly and asserts that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch and even Job and the sections concerning Balaam. The Talmud is the central pillar supporting the entire spiritual and intellectual edifice of Jewish life. There are some findings in the Pentateuch itself which supports Mosaic authorship. I will accentuate on other findings as my answer to this question unfolds….

Some arguments in favor of Mosaic authorship for the first 5 books of the
Old Testament (The Pentateuch):

Exodus 17:14 “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as
something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I
will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

Exodus 24:4: “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord.”

Deuteronomy 31:9 “And Moses wrote this law, and gave it to the priests the
sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all
the elders of Israel.”

Jesus likewise confirmed Mosaic Authorship:
John 5:46, 47 “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of
me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

John 7:19 “Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law.

With regards to the above findings, being skeptical of Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch is tantamount to being skeptical of the words of Christ Jesus. If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then the Bible is wrong at all these points, and more. Jesus was also wrong. Further, both (the 5 books and Jesus) promote deception for declaring Moses did write it. But we find it easier to think that the critics are wrong, especially when they have a bias against the very concept of divine revelation. The testimony of Jesus and reliable Jewish tradition are more credible.

Secondly, the internal data of the Pentateuch (climate, flora and fauna, geography, linguistic data, etc.) show considerable familiarity with fifteenth century Egyptian life. A thorough and very particular acquaintance with fifteenth century B.C. Egyptian life and geography would be highly unlikely for the sixth Century B.C. Israelite editors. But such knowledge would clearly suggest the author was a resident of Egypt and a contemporary eyewitness of the events recorded.

According to the New Testament “Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22) so we would expect such knowledge.

Thirdly, Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the Pentateuch. It is inconceivable that the vital capital city of Jerusalem would not be mentioned even once in extensive Jewish writings of the sixth Century B.C., not only in light of the alleged diversity of authors, but the very nature of the source documents themselves, especially “P” (the priestly document) which was concerned with the temple worship and sacrifices. On the other hand, if the Pentateuch were written before Jerusalem was the capital of Israel (1000 B.C.), such absence is expected.

Amazingly, one of the first assumptions upon which the Documentary Hypothesis rests was disproved long ago. From the earliest period of the development of the Documentary Hypothesis, it was assumed that Moses lived in an age prior to the knowledge of writing. One of the “founding fathers” of this theory, Julius Wellhausen, was convinced that “ancient Israel was certainly not without God-given bases for ordering of human life; only they were not fixed in writing”. These suppositions most certainly had an impact on these men’s belief in (and promotion of) the theory that Moses could not possibly have written the first five books of the Old Testament. One major problem with the Documentary Hypothesis is that we now know Moses did not live “prior to all knowledge of writing.” In fact, he lived long after the art of writing was already known.

An out-and-out plethora of archaeological discoveries has proven one of the earliest assumptions of the Wellhausen theory to be wrong. Some of these discoveries are as follows:

1. In 1949, C.F.A. Schaeffer “found a tablet at Ras Shamra containing the thirty letters of the Ugaritic alphabet in their proper order. It was discovered that the sequence of the Ugaritic alphabet was the same as Modern Hebrew, revealing that the Hebrew alphabet goes back at least 3,500 years” (Jackson, 1982, p. 32).

2. In 1933, J.L. Starkey, who had studied under famed archaeologist W.M.F. Petrie, excavated the city of Lachish, which had figured prominently in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (Joshua 10). Among other things, he unearthed a pottery water pitcher “inscribed with a dedication in eleven archaic letters, the earliest ‘Hebrew’ inscription known” (Wiseman, 1974, p. 705). According to Charles Pfeiffer,

The Old or palaeo-Hebrew script is the form of writing which is similar to that used by the Phoenicians. A royal inscription of King Shaphatball of Gebal (Byblos) in this alphabet dates from about 1600 B.C. (1966, p. 33).

3. In 1901-1902, the Code of Hammurabi was discovered at the ancient site of Susa (in what is now Iran) by a French archaeological expedition under the direction of Jacques de Morgan. It was written on a piece of black diorite nearly eight feet high, and contained 282 sections. In their book, Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph Free and Howard Vos stated:

The Code of Hammurabi was written several hundred years before the time of Moses (c. 1500-1400 B.C.)…. This code, from the period 2000-1700 B.C., contains advanced laws similar to those in the Mosaic laws….

In view of this archaeological evidence, the destructive critic can no longer insist that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time (1992, pp. 103, 55).

The Code of Hammurabi established beyond doubt that writing was known hundreds of years before Moses.

The truth is, numerous archaeological discoveries of the past 100 years have proven once and for all that the art of writing was known not only during Moses’ day, but also long before Moses came on the scene. Although skeptics, liberal theologians, and certain college professors continue to perpetuate the Documentary Hypothesis and dates Pentateuch as a sixth century writing, I wholeheartedly certify that they should be informed (or reminded) of the fact that “one of the foundational assumptions upon which the theory rests has been completely shattered by archaeological evidence”.

WHAT IS THE RELATION BETWEEN INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE? WHAT AUTHORITY DOES SOCIETY ATTRIBUTE TO THE BIBLE TODAY, AND WHAT HAS LED TO THIS POSITION?

1. The relation between Inspiration and Authority of the scripture

Inspiration according Warfield is an extraordinary force and influence put forth unto the sacred writers by the Spirit of God which is the activity of Inspiration. The divine influence causes the writings to be authoritative and trustworthy which is the result of Inspiration. The authority of the bible banks on its Inspiration.

Inspiration refers to being sourced in God in a unique way that cannot be said of other literature. Gods Spirit worked together with the various human writers to produce inspired writings that are an accurate and trustworthy record of divine revelation. Inspiration is invariably attributed to the canonical Scriptures, the finished product. It is these that are inspired rather than the various human writers and editors. Verbal inspiration of the whole of Scripture is very true and worthy of acceptance. The influence of the Holy Spirit extended beyond the thoughts of the biblical authors to their selection of specific words to convey Gods message. The authority of the bible is based on the fact that it is the Word of God. The great implication of affirming that only the Biblical writings are the Word of God written is that Scripture must be the “final authority for all Christian faith and life.” If Scripture is necessary in order for human beings to know God, and Scripture as Gods Word is centered in Jesus Christ, Gods full and final revelation, then certainly it must be the final and ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is measured. In other words, Scripture must be our lens by which we view and evaluate our lives and the world.

1. What authority does society attribute to the bible today and what has led to this position?

Our society glances at the bible as a laid down stipulations which must be adhered strictly by all and sundry. They say, as long as one abides by these rules like the Ten Commandments, he or she must be satisfied with spiritual life. On balance, the blessings associated with having a personal encounter with God can not be nab in the mud. Scripture will be of little value if it does not govern how we live out our lives both as individuals and as a corporate body. Therefore we gladly embrace it not only for our doctrinal commitments, but also for our daily lives. All Scripture teaches in regard to our attitudes, behavior, and ethical commitments, must be wholeheartedly believed and lived out among us.

The authority of scripture adds meaning to our societies. If Scripture is necessary in order for human beings to know God, and Scripture as Gods Word is centered in Jesus Christ, Gods full and final revelation, then certainly it must be the final and ultimate standard of truth, the reference point by which every other claim to truthfulness is measured. In other words, Scripture must be our lens by which we view and evaluate our lives and the world. All these lapses are mainly caused by many famished leaders who erroneously thwart the scriptures to favor their unscrupulous fantasies.

We live in a world and a society that increasingly asserts and promotes pluralism not plurality in the sense of an increased demographic and cultural diversity in the nation which we embrace and welcome because all people are created in Gods image but a philosophical pluralism that denies ultimate truth. Needless to say, this denial of truth has had a profound impact on our society. Increasingly we are facing a “crisis of authority” in every area of society which has resulted in a breakdown in such areas as government, business, educational institutions, the family, and even in the church. In contrast to this approach, our loyalty to Scripture requires us to reject the assumption that there is no absolute truth to which human beings must submit and also debarring the idea that the society must be lived outside the word of God.

To lose the authority of the biblical witness is to become captive to the culture and its ruling norms. Christian community or society that abandons the authority of the biblical witness becomes little more than the mouthpiece of whatever current cultural norms catch its fancy. The key question I want to briefly allude on is:-

How can one maintain the canonical authority of Scripture alongside living a meaningful lifestyle in the society so that it continues to play a meaningful role in the church while at the same time clinging to the discoveries of modern critical scholarship?

I will have a take on this question on the premise of attempting to transform and shift the process of inspiration from Scripture to the community out of which it grew and for which it was written. The close relationship between the society and Scripture indicates that Scripture cannot be understood in isolation from the society of faith. This means that “the locus of authority lies beyond the text itself” and that the authority of Scripture is demonstrated not in the literary form in which it has been cast but rather in its power to create, shape, and author reality.

The self-communication of God is beyond the reach of the natural man and the natural mind cannot fathom the things that pertain to the spirit, because the Apostle Paul refers to it as spiritually discerned. It takes the spiritually inclined to comprehend spiritual things. It transcends all of the tangible means in history by which we have known God, such as holy people, places, and things.

The dialogue between Christ in the woman at the well in John 4:23, 24 depict the very fact that God is worshiped and known through the spirit and not with the mind or any of our five senses. With regards to the above reason, it is very impossible for the natural man to know God with the physical senses let alone seeing Him with the physical eyes. The One God, Whom prophets and saints have led us to know, is absolute, imperceptible, eternal, transcendent, and omnipresent yet in no single place. He is imperceptible not only to the eyes but to all the sense-organs.

The human mind naturally finds the concept of a being beyond all sense, matter, material expression, scientific test, or ordinary observation, not easy to entertain. People tend to lightly discard what they find to be difficult to conceive; especially when it has a nexus with the reality of God.

The prophets in the OT times communicated to man how they themselves knew about God and how they related with Him. Because God was very transcendent to the Israelites, He dealt with them through physical means in order for them to grasp the hidden reality about Himself.

We know God when God communicates, that is, gives to us the divine self. The gift takes place in the human being, the person who is the “event” of God’s call. When God gives people a share in the divine self, God not only frees them to respond, God also offers forgiveness. God forgives in the ever-renewed offer of a relationship with God. God is known through His nature which is referred to us General Revelation. The creation of God reveals the nature of God partially. Paul stressed on the premise that the Creator is known in creation so no one is with an excuse not to follow and worship Him. Man has a consciousness of God through creation.

Through the redemptive work of God in the life of the Israelites in the Old Testament and in the life of the new Testament Church which relates with Special Revelation, man have a superior understanding of the love and justice of God and God also dealt through that by communicating His will and purpose to man. Through Special Revelation, we understand the essence and the true nature of God in Jesus’ life and teaching. He showed man who the Father is and how we can serve and worship Him. The very nature and attitude of God is seen in the very nature and attitude of Christ. He is the express image of God the Father. The Holy Spirit brings to light what is mysterious about God to us.

A. IS IT IMPORTANT FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS TO LEARN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE?

The bible is encompassed with diversities of literally styles of library books and it is really packaged with three different languages used by the authors vis-à-vis the environment or the milieu in which they were living in. In view of this, religious leaders need to be intimated with the imperativeness of grasping the meaning of these languages in which the bible was written. Apparently, gaining competence, mastery and skill in all of the biblical books is certainly an impossibility. Primarily, the quest of understanding the books of the bible commences with the learning ability of the original languages of the bible. When we engage and give our hearts to the studies of the original languages of the bible, its literary style is alongside known. The grammatical function of the phrases in the languages is also perused by learning the original languages of the bible. We are engrossed with an atmosphere which is very eccentric as far as the 21st century Christianity is concerned. The church is now grasping at stroll or failing in our responsibilities with regards to our improper understanding of the bible, and this is because we are bereft and destitute of the knowledge about how we can know the bible. Many religious leaders are on the other hand wrestling and battling with the truths in the bible because they have built monuments around their traditions and beliefs which are to a large extent at variance with biblical tenets. All these frailties are in fruition because effective studies and learning about the original languages of the bible are sidelined and relegated. Leaders think that the Holy Spirit is their guide and teacher so anything appertaining to the understanding of the Bible would be brought to their knowledge by Him. That is through without any iota of doubt, but in as much as we have the Holy Spirit as our Guide and Instructor, we also need to be under the tutelage of well equipped and trained teachers who can teach our leaders to be kept in the know and also savvy and comprehend the original languages of the bible. The traditional divisions of the bible have different and diverse styles of interpreting. For example the literary style of the Law is different from that of the poetic books. To boot it, the literary blends of style packaging the writings are different from that of the Prophets. Nevertheless, to sort out and efficiently apprehend the hidden meanings in relation to the literary style, religious leaders must sacrifice precious time and resources to learn the original languages of the bible.Our bible now is made up of different kind of versions which was interpreted by different kind of people in different kinds of countries and we must not be oblivious about the very fact that these guys who changed and translated the bible into diverse kinds of versions has their own positions and persuasions with regards to their understanding of the bible. So in these translations and versions, the beliefs and understanding of these translators affected these versions, so for a religious leader to be entwined with the full measure of the understanding of the bible, the original language from which the bible was written must be learned and deciphered in order for him attain unto the understanding of the bible thereof.

The Hebrew language is to a large extent influenced by the Hebrew culture and the same thing applies to the other languages viz, Aramaic and Greek. In the studies of the original languages of the bible, the leader will be enlightened with the settings of the Hebrew scripture and how their culture affected their language. In the Aramaic context, the literary style is very unconventional comparatively to how the Greek language and the Hebrew language came to be. Aramaic was a language employed by the Babylonians and their way of life and culture was greatly diverse and totally different from the Hebrews. The Greek language came to be by the advent of Alexander the great who in a great deal transformed the then world with the Greek language which was also profoundly influenced by their history and culture. In light of the aforementioned reasons, we have to understand that culture, traditions and history has a strong influence on language and this is how the original languages came to be and that must give the religious leaders the urge and the bravado to go for the gold which is learning and understanding the original languages of the bible.

B. IS IT NECESSARY FOR THE PASTOR TO KNOW THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES?

Its very crucial and pertinent for the Pastor to learn the original so that he can be saturated and captivated with greater insights encase in the bible. The Pastor is in the arena and the corridors of explicating and transferring the hidden mysteries of the bible to his congregation and these mysteries are only comprehended through his understanding of the original languages of the bible.

In order for the Pastor to greatly impact his congregation, he must be fully intimated and in tuned with the Hebrew, Aramaic and the Greek languages. His knowledge about the settings, history and cultures surrounding these languages will in a great deal affect his comprehension of the languages. Effective teaching skills will ensue the Pastor’s ability to learn the original languages. He can be very used to every good work by God because now, his understanding of the bible will be outstretched unto different spheres and facets of life and people. Ultimate success in his ministry would be assured and his congregation would be fed richly by the truth embedded in the bible.The Pastor is called into the ministry in which Jesus the Master operated in. He must covet to walk as the Master walked and teach as He taught. The authors of the bible presented the messages of God through a medium which is their language and these languages are only known when the Pastor gives time to learn and to understand them. Understanding is obtained when the perusals of these languages is effectively employed by the Pastor. Jesus learned the languages in His time that endued Him with the transparency and clarity of mind between the Jews and the Greeks in His day. He was able to meet the needs and wants of His congregation because of His vast knowledge of the languages spoken in His day. H read the Law and the Prophets in the Aramaic and Hebrew writing. Greater reading ability is the subset of greater learning ability. A pastor’s learning ability will in a great deal enhance his reading ability.

SIMILARITIES:

1. The old and the New Covenants is submerged with God’s dealings with His people.

2. In both situations and covenants, there was a sacrifice which sealed both covenants.

3. God in each situation gave out a Promise which in turn was embodied with a more developed expression of a gift of redemption. In the Old covenant viz, Noahic Covenant, God produced Noah a sign which cemented and also attested His promise of salvation to all mankind. In the New Covenant too, God gave a Gift who is Christ to be a sign of His love and care for all humanity.

4. Both covenants involve responsibilities on the part of both agreeing parties. The superior who is God explicates on His promise to the inferior who is man, IF only he will walk with God and keep His covenant. A condition affixes the promise.

5. Both covenants were established with the future in mind. That is to say, it geared towards the future progeny of the parties involved. In the Old covenant, it was stated that, He shall be their God and they shall be His people. In the New covenant too, Jesus and the Apostles stressed on every Christian becoming the heirs of God and joint heirs with the father.

6. In both covenants, God expresses the provision of forgiveness to His people and the blessings attached to staying glue with God in all things.

7. In both Testaments and covenants, God gave out His will through laws and commandments with which we can know and serve Him very well.

8. Many moral matters, such as murder, homosexuality and many others, continue to be sinful, no matter what covenant we live under. The precepts engraved on the tablets called the Ten Commandments are still in fruition and there is nothing in it which is outdated or archaic. It was incumbent on every Israelite then, to be up and doing in fulfilling all the laws given to them by God through Moses. The onus is still on us Christians to gird up our loins to fulfill everything pertaining to the Ten Commandments which were also revised by our Master and Savior Jesus Christ.

DIFFERENCES AND DISSIMILARITIES: 1. In the Old Covenant, God went into agreement with several people, but the New covenant God has only one covenant treaty with every one who believes in His Son Jesus Christ.

2. God, over time in the Old Covenant revealed Himself to man in stages – that is gradually shown man who He is and what He would have man to do. However, the covenant we have in Christ is the culmination of that revelation. Hebrews 1:1-4.

3. The bible testifies about the imperfections that surrounds the old covenant (Rom. 8:1,2). Although Moses was faithful in following God, Jesus is superior to Him because He is Creator. He is greater than the angels, Abraham, Moses or any other because is is the Son of God. Hebrews chapters 1-3.

4. Jesus as the New covenant icon is the greatest high priest and sacrifice – The old law was centered around a system of animal sacrifices conducted by a specially chosen priesthood from the sons of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. However, these sacrifices were only given to Israel and were designed to point to a need of a greater sacrifice. How could animal blood be sufficient for the forgiveness of human sin? Hebrews 10:1-4.

Jesus, being sinless, offered His own blood (for our forgiveness) for us and brought His sacrifice to Heaven itself as the only perfect offering to God. Because He has been raised from the dead, His perfect priesthood continues on unlike the priests of Israel. Also, unlike the Levitical priests, Jesus was not guilty of sins and did not need anyone to make an offering on His behalf before He could offer a sacrifice on behalf of others. However, the Levitical priests had to make an offering for their own sins before they could offer sacrifices for anyone else. Hebrews chapters 4-7.

5. Based upon appeal for mercy and not on national physical birth. To be a part of God people under the Law of Moses, you just had to be born and then circumcised (if a male) on the eighth day after birth. Then, there would be time to learn about what God expected of you in the Law of Moses. These instructions were for Israel only, not for all peoples.
Under the New Covenants, we come by faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, looking to Him to forgive us of our sins as we believe in Him, repent of our sins and are baptized in His name. We must make a conscience section to obey Him as He has directed. No matter what nation we are from, He will accept us if we respond by obedient faith. Hebrews chapter 8, Gal. 3:26-29, Acts 2:36-42.