Most translations say "I BEING IN THE WAY" and yet, in the VW Edition, it is "BEING ON THE WAY."

There is a volume of difference in meaning by just one preposition here, and I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly.

VW ANSWER:
As 'perfect' as Scripture is...'language' is not always nearly so neatly perfect, and also changes over time.

The difference you are noticing is 'old' English vs 'modern' usage. If you read other places in the KJV and others, it has people going up "into" the mountains, too. Or "in" the mountains. Old English often used "in" somewhat synonymously to the way we use "on". And as I think on this, this likely comes from English's (Romance) Latin ancestry...if one remembers singing "O Come all ye faithful" in Latin, there is the phrase "venite, venite in Bethlehem"; where "in" is what we sing in English as "to".

However, for the Genesis passage, if Abraham's servant had been "in" the way, the way we use English, would that not indicated a "hindrance" to God....you know, like being "in the way"....so the person says, "get out of the way....and let me...." The way we speak English today, we go "on" journeys, not "in" them. We travel "on" paths, not "in" them. The servant was "on" his way, in obedience to Abraham.

[Top]

This is a passage where the Hebrew text is missing the actual number. Some translations leave it blank. Some word it that Saul reigned "one year" and -then- when he had reigned "two years" he did thus-and-so. NASB says "forty", and NIV "thirty".

There is enough in the text to know that it is about "how old" Saul was; NOT how long he reigned before he reigned -another- "two years". The word for "reign" is one that means "take to the throne, begin to reign" etc. And the word "son" (ben) is in there, which indicates the way Hebrew speaks of age. e.g. "the son of so-many years" Thus, it is clear that the intent of the passage is to say, "Saul was the son of xxxx years when he began to reign" But what is missing is the "xxxx".

Inserting "forty" (in italics) is a "best guess" that scholarship might suggest to us. Certainly, David became king at 30. (2Sa5:4) But many others tended to ascend to their thrones, or begin the careers or ministries for which they were known, at 40.

[Top]

We just purchased the VW Bible and have a question:

You write: Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor has stood in the way of sinners, nor has sat in the seat of the scornful. (Ps1:1)

Question: Why the passed [sic] tense? Has not vs does not?

VW ANSWER:
It is actually, technically, the 'perfect' tense....thus the word "has". Past tense would be that the man "did not walk". But perfect tense is "has not walked". Simple past tense might suggest a one-time event, but perfect tense suggests a background and 'habit', or way-of-life; it's not in his past. Make sense? It gives a different 'feel' and 'flavor' to the passage.

The way most render it in 'present' tense: "does not walk" is doctrinally troublesome in a 'subtle' sense. Remember what Jesus said about "relaxes one of the least of these commandments" (Mt5:19) Not just "breaking" the commandments, but also "relaxing" them. Let us take one example from David to illustrate what is taking me extra words here to introduce and get into. (I have the thoughts, but can I put them properly to words?)

When David sinned with Bathsheba and then orchestrated the murder of her husband, when he confessed and repented (Ps51) the prophet says, "Jehovah also has put away your sin; you shall not die" (2Sa12:13) That was a 'present tense' extension of God's grace upon David. His kingdom continued. But as the prophet explained, in the context, David's family would be wracked by scandal; which happened with Absalom, Adonijah, Amnon and Tamar, etc.

When David dies, notice his epitaph:

"because David had done what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, and had not turned aside from anything that He had commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1Ki15:5)

The division of the kingdom happened with Rehoboam. He was the son of Solomon. If David had not sinned, Solomon would not have reigned, nor would Rehoboam. Solomon came through a 'loose' woman who enticed David with her nakedness, and then became the queen-mother under Solomon, given her own throne next to Solomon. Solomon, living the life he did with a thousand wives and mistresses, many of them being pagan, raised up the kind of son that Rehoboam became.

If David -had- not sinned, would the kingdom have been divided later, when it was? People other than Solomon and Rehoboam would have followed. Their reigns would have been different.

Yes, David was forgiven... 'present tense'. But he -HAD- SINNED. If he HAD NOT SINNED as he did, what 'blessing' might have come to the nation, instead of the judgment of it being divided as it was?

In past years many were the testimonies of those who grew up in lives of drugs, sex, rebellion, gambling, drunkenness, gangs and violence... who then claim to have been -miraculously- 'saved'. In so many cases the testimonies almost seem like a 'glorification' of those past lives in sin; in some cases movies were also made of their stories. Audiences became enamored by the horrific past and praise the -individual-. But what of the "sheltered" person who grows up in ministry minded families, is saved, and goes on to do things faithfully for the Lord. Nobody notices them. But like the one person whose mailings I read some years ago, allegedly saved 'out of the occult', but in his ministry could never seem to be able to pull himself away from his old occult mentality, as he proclaimed what he alleged was God's message, through the lenses of his occult past. What would his message have been without the occult past?

Remember: Solomon might have been great, and built the first temple in Jerusalem. But he also built the two sacred pillars next to the temple (1Ki7:21), something which God had proclaimed, "You shall not set up a sacred pillar, which Jehovah your God hates." (De16:22) And even today, some of the primary satanic orders and cults claim their lineage back to Solomon and those sacred pillars. If David -had- not sinned, would those particular specific secret societies exist today? There would probably be others, but they would not be able to allege that their origins were based in Solomon, the temple or his two pillars... and thus, ultimately, alleging that their organizations (in some cases) are "christian".

If a person, in sin, does things by which the body gets busted up, bones broken, flesh scarred up, and deformities, to where the person is crippled... they get saved and serve God faithfully. They go to Heaven. But they are still crippled. But think of the "blessing" -had- they not lived that prior life as they did.

Thus, to simplify...
In other words: God forgives sins committed; but is it not "blessed" for a person to not have all this garbage in his past, in the first place?

Indeed, we "know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Ro8:28) My own life is testimony to that... those 20 years I participated in the apostasy, on the platforms of churches and crusades; and now that I haven't been on any platform for nearly another 20 years, having been there, I know what I'm talking about when I proclaim -against- Babylon's ways. (The critics are silenced, who might taunt: If you haven't experienced it, you don't know what you're talking about, don't criticize it! Well, I -was- there. I -did- it! No, I did not become "spirit-filled" and jabber, but I compromised in other things and participated in the "gray areas"...and yes, used 'soft' rock accompaniment tapes when I would sing) If it had not been for the years in apostasy, I would not be exactly where I am today, in the center of God's will in the -way- I am. But could God have brought me to today by some other means than the apostasy? God's grace put me where I am now. Thus... "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? ... Shall we sin because we are not under Law but under grace? Let it not be!" (Rom6:1-2,15) See? God's grace brought forth Solomon, who built the temple and was a great king. But the temple was not Solomon's. He might have directed the building of it, but the designs were given to David. (1Ch28:11-12,19) It was really David's temple. Had David not sinned, somebody besides Solomon would have been born to him, succeeded him and could have built the temple. It didn't -require- "Solomon" -existing- in order for the temple to be built.

In a couple of weeks we address tattoos and hair. A comparison is made between somebody who had let their hair grow, and me who did not. I was never a hippy. I did not try marijuana. I not only "did not inhale", but was never anywhere near it. I HAVE NOT been a hippy, and can look back at that fact as a "blessed" situation.

Yes...God saves sinners "of whom I am chief" (1Ti1:15); but is it not better to...

"Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, so that the evil days do not come, nor the years draw near, when you shall say, I have no pleasure in them." (Ec12:1)

"Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven." (Mt19:14)

Just like another passage...

"So when Jesus had received the vinegar, He said, It has been finished! And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit." (Jn19:30)

Amen!

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
Would you kindly comment on Matt 28:1 (and similar verses)...SHOULD this actually be rendered "first of the sabbaths" rather than "first day of the week". I see the Greek word "sabbatoon" (??). Which do you feel is actually correct, or better? I have a VW translation on order; nad someone is also giving me a New Testament (for now) of the KJ3. I like both translations, but so far I like the VW a bit better. Thanks a lot.

VW ANSWER:
To use the word "sabbath" would be technically more 'literal' in a word-for-word sense.

But in looking at such a passage, one must also understand how words and concepts have been twisted and distorted. The word "sabbath" means, literally, "rest". The fact that God "rested the seventh day" (Gen2:2) as Israel balked and rebelled against God, they also distorted God's Laws and made "sabbath" into meaning "seventh day". True, they were to "rest" on the last day of the week. But by definition, "sabbath" does not -mean- "seven" or "seventh". They also had other non-Saturday holy days during which they were to rest/sabbath.

The other evening I was browsing the website of a particular denomination, having just gotten better acquainted with a neighbor (several houses away from where I live, with whom we have been waving back and forth as we drive by each others' yards the past couple years) who belongs to it, to have a better idea of 'where' they stand on various things, for next time we might find ourselves chatting; and the website spoke of "sabbath principle"; which is something I have gravitated towards, myself. Sabbath ("rest") for me might occur on Saturday; it might occur on Sunday. Or if it is a holiday, perhaps another day.

But back to this passage: what sense is it to say, essentially: 'As sabbath was ending, sabbath was dawning' ..? Since they had made "sabbath" to mean "seventh", it was not only the last day of the week when they 'rested', but had also come to mean a week of seven days. In our English, western, non-Jewish vernacular we keep time by means of the "week". Thus, when "sabbath" refers to the 7-day week, does it not make better sense to translate it "week" when doing so in western English?

Yes, their 'rest'-day of the "sabbath" (which for them was Saturday) was at an end, and the new week was beginning... when Jesus rose from the dead.

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
Just curious about the verse truncation in Luke 23:34, where what Jesus says, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do," (using NKJV for comparison) was left out [in the VW-edition].

VW ANSWER:
I no longer remember the source (somebody way more knowledgable regarding the manuscripts than me), but the Lord sent it along right about the time I was working near that area; and when I read it, my spirit agreed: that it was added by later copyists, but was not in the original. I know we've been used to it being there, traditionally... but even as you read the passage as the narrative progresses, can you also see how it does -not- 'fit'. Such a comment, considering the flow of the narrative, is out-of-place.

And how would such a "forgiveness" agree with Jesus' comment to Pilate about the "greater sin". (Jn19:11) and His comment, "... but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he was never born." (Mt26:24) Those are not words of (unconditional) forgiveness; especially also considering how that false doctrine is taught by so many, specifically using that verse with that insertion.

Certainly also, Scripture must agree with Scripture. Do we know of any other passage that agrees?

"He has been oppressed, and He was afflicted; yet He OPENS NOT HIS MOUTH. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before its shearers is MUTE, SO HE OPENS NOT HIS MOUTH." (Is53:7)

If Jesus had been talking while He was being crucified (which is what the immediate context is), it would have made Isaiah a false prophet.

"Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life, and not be written with the righteous" (Ps69:25-28) Again: opposite of "Lord forgive them"

This matter of copyist additions raises a question about other places like Mt24:15b also: "(whoever reads, let him understand)" That was left in because the Lord didn't send along an 'alert' regarding it. But then, too, it is a more benign sentence; no doctrine, prophecy or truth hinges on it.

This is why I don't like "study" Bibles, and why the VW-edition was produced in "plain jane" format, with no page headers, paragraph marks, chapter headers, etc of any kind. As "helpful" as some people find such things, there are also people who look at those added 'labels' almost more than they do the text. Instead of reading the text, they read what the label and inline commentary says -about- the text. Just like those who read umpteen zillion different commentaries and suppose that, as a result of all their reading, they know all -about- the Bible.

But they do not know God's Word.

[Top]

VW ANSWER:
Your question has to do with the Greek "aorist" tense. It is a tense that indicates action, without indication as to past/present/future. American Heritage Dictionary says: "A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation."

To use "love" without any indication of tense, about the only way to do so in English is to use "love"....period... and whatever word endings that are appropriate grammatically in -English-. In English we would not say, "the Father love me". Thus, when an "s" is added, it makes it seem like "present" tense. "I also love you" in English could be rendered in many ways: I am loving you (now), I (always) love you, etc. But to simply say, "I also -love- you" can leave it open for various 'hints'. It can mean I (have) loved you in the past, I (am) loving you now, and always (will) love you. But in order to keep it more word-for-word 'literal', simply the word "love" is used.

However, in Jn3:16....one must also observe the surrounding 'context'. Is it appropriate to say, "God loves....that He gives...His...Son"? Well...that "has been finished" (Jn19:30) it is obviously some sort of "past" tense. Both "love" and "give" are the same...aorist tense. So, if "love" is to be "loves", then "give" needs to be "gives"....in order to be consistent. But Jesus -died- (past tense)....and the matter was done "once for all" (Heb7:27)....He is not "ever (continually) bleeding" on the cross, as the catholics proclaim. So, if it needs to be "gave", then for consistency it also needs to be "loved". Make sense?

However, this question brings up another aspect (parameter) of Jn3:16 that we don't usually associate with it. God says to Israel, "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer31:3) Notice the past-perfect tense of "have loved". That is something God has been doing since way-back-when. But the love is also "everlasting". That goes on into the future, on-and-on-and-on, forever and ever and ever. Is that not the definition of "eternal"? Without beginning and without end. Time-LESS-ness. Is that not an "aorist" kind of thing...it is never 'completed', as it continues on.

We know that, while Jesus di[ed] (past tense) at a certain point in time in history, around 2000 years ago; His crucifixion is said to be "..slain from the foundation of the world.." (Rev13:8) Those who are saved were chosen "before the foundation of the world" (Eph1:4) Jesus' shed blood was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1Pet1:18-20) and eternal life was "promised before the beginning of time" (Tit1:2)

Thus, in a very real sense, John3:16 cannot be translated fully -literally-, to get its full meaning. Here is a case where -paraphrasing- might be more appropriate...? (Any of you who have been fluent in more than one language understand what we are getting at here. Some grammatical forms in one language simply do not carry over -directly- to another, without some amount of 'manipulation', to convey the meaning and full intent.)

Perhaps Jn3:16 should sound more like: "God's boundless (eternal) love for the world provides the gift of His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish but have eternal life."

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
Paul, I know I've read your answer on this somewhere but I cannot get my hands on it again. In several passages the VW Edition reads "...that whosever believes 'INTO' Him...". Can you direct me to the explanation of the use of INTO rather than 'IN'?

VW ANSWER:
I can't find it either, but I remember having answered it before.

This is one of those situations of a preposition that can have a broad range of -shadings- of meaning. In OLB the lexicon includes: into, unto, to, towards, for, among. In the KJV the spread of its use includes: into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58, toward 29, against 26, misc 322; A person can go "into" a house, or "to" it, or "in" it, etc. And it doesn't matter, a person can use -any- of those, and the meaning is not ambiguous that they went -to- somebody's house and are now likely -in- the house. But if they went "into" the house, you know they went there, and they are (definitely) now -in- the house

As a person thinks about "in" vs "into", and as one believes in/to Jesus, or puts their trust in/to Jesus....is not "into" a more "intimate" expression than merely "in" or "on"? "into" indicates an engulfing. As I look it up now I notice that all these instances occur in John, and one each in Acts and Galatians. John is a special book, different from the other three gospels....it is the one where Jesus also speaks of "abiding" in the Vine, etc. It is the one where Jesus prays, "I in them and You in Me..."etc. It is a book of being "one" with Christ.

[Top]

The greek means:

1) to define
	1a) to mark out the boundaries or limits (of any place or thing) 
	1b) to  determine, appoint 
	1b1) that which has been determined, acc. to appointment, decree 
	1b2) to ordain, determine, appoint 

ALT says designated
Darby - marked out (as do both the LITV and MKJV)

What is the 'definition' of Jesus Christ (if one were to look Him up in a heavenly 'dictionary')? the "Son of God with power"

This is a case where there are several different words that can serve the same function. However, to say "designated" sounds like a "pick/choose" situation. Certainly, John pointed out, "Behold the Lamb of God..." (Jn1:29) To "mark out" to my mind sounds like a cross between the two. But when one is sorting out the "boundaries", it is a matter of 'territory' and of 'definitions'. If a person has a deed for property, how is that property defined? By its boundaries. -This- is what 'encompasses' who Jesus Christ is....He is the "Son of God". It just seemed to my mind/heart that "defined" does that a little better...besides which, the definition of the Greek begins with the word "to define". But then, I realize this gets into "English" a little beyond the lower-common vernacular of stuff like "Yo, dude! W'zup?" sort of mentality. A person needs to know what words 'mean' to understand it. -smile-

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
The Holy Scriptures Bible (VW-edition) does not use the word "study" in 2 Timothy. However, many others do. Should it say, "Study diligently to present yourself approved to God, a workman unashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth ?"

as presented in KJ3
2:15 Be eager, study to present yourself approved to God, a workman unashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

VW ANSWER:
Hmmmm...so is -this- why he's now calling it a "KJ"?! In the (2001) LITV Green had rendered it "give diligence to present...." Indeed, KJ-onlyists argue and complain if somebody uses anything other than the word "study" there. And KJ-onlyists then use the verse to exhort students in school regarding their school work, exhort young people to go on after high school to Bible college, and regarding Bible study, etc.etc.

But that's not what the greek says. From an interlinear, word-for-word in Greek word-order we would see: "hurry yourself unadulterated to God"

And according to the lexicons the various words that agree with 'spoudazo' include: hasten, make haste, exert one's self, endeavor, give diligence. Nothing about "study", the way "study" is used in current English. The word means to "work hard at it", not: "open some text books and do some homework for school"

Perhaps in 200-400 year old English the word "study" might have included such notions as "really working at it"?

According to the 1828 Webster's, study starts out with a definition: "setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject" With such a definition, "study" might be OK

The Tyndale (1525) uses "study" As does the Geneva (1599)

But the Wycliffe (1384) says " Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God" or.... "busily keep to you thyself"

From the more current American Heritage dictionary: 1) "act or process of studying, pursuit of knowledge" 2) attentive scrutiny While the "attentive" part fits, "scrutiny" is usually thought of in terms of studying something 'else'....not one's own 'diligence' in any given matter.

Apparently, it's a matter of how the English language -usage- has changed over time.

For current modern English, the way we understand and use the words, "study" is a wrong word there.

And when the KJ3 says -both- "eager" -and- "study", Green has doubled a word that is not doubled in the Greek. Ditto for the concept of "study diligently". The meaning of the word is not to 'crack-the-books', but of giving something one's "best efforts"; in this case: being presentable to God.

[Top]

VW ANSWER:
Being "in brackets" means that there is a question as to how it should be. The Greek for "evil" could equally be 'masculine' or 'neuter'. But the word is not, itself, a -personal- sort of word, but a description of...well..."evil, wickedness, etc" It's the same sort of thing as in Mt6:13....where I think you'll find most translations leave it as "evil" there, not adding "one" to the sentence. The ALT (Analytical Literal Translation) says "evil" with "[or, the evil one]" in brackets.

Doctrinally....what is it that sends the sinner to hell? Satan? or sin? Yes, we are to be on guard against the evil 'forces' in the heavenlies. (Eph6, 1Pe5:8) But the "soul that sins shall die" (Ezk18:4,20) the wages of "sin" is death (Rom6:23) We are enticed into sin by our own lusts. (Ja1:14-15) The serpent might have made contact with Eve, but it was her own lust for more knowledge and what she thought was (withheld) wisdom. (Gen3:6) The serpent did not force-feed them.

Did "the devil make me do it"? ....or does our own lust for evil?

[Top]