About Me

My photo

I am the Pastor/Teacher of Rivers of Joy Baptist Church in Minford, Ohio since August 2008.  I am married to Charity since June 14, 1969.  I have four grown children.   Having served in the local church for over forty years as Pastor/Teacher, Asso., Youth Pastor, Minister of Education, Building Upkeep, Camp Director, Sunday School Teacher, etc. Also I have worked in the public place for as many years as I have preached. Charity and her sister are co owner of Union Mills Conf. (Bakery) in West Portsmouth Ohio

Sanctify the Lord In Your Heart

Charles preaching 06 03 15

1 Peter 3:15  but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;  (NASB: Lockman)

Greek: kurion d ton Christon hagiasate (2PAAM) en tais kardiais humon hetoimoi aei pros apologian panti to aitounti (PAPMSD) humas logon peri tes en humin elpidos, alla meta prautetos kai phobou,

Amplified: But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. )

KJV: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

NLT:  Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life. And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.

Phillips: simply concentrate on being completely devoted to Christ in your hearts. Be ready at any time to give a quiet and reverent answer to any man who wants a reason for the hope that you have within you. 


Young's Literal: and the Lord God sanctify in your hearts. And be ready always for defence to every one who is asking of you an account concerning the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

similar phrase "sanctify My Name" is used prophetically to describe the future day (Ro 11:25-27) when Israel  will have the veil lifted and by grace through faith will recognize her Messiah as her Lord...

Therefore thus says the LORD, Who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob ("Israel"): "Jacob shall not now be ashamed (in the future when the remnant of Israel is saved), nor shall his face now turn pale; 23 BUT WHEN (Not "if") he sees his children, the work of My hands, in his midst, they (the saved remnant of Jacob) will sanctify My Name. Indeed, they will sanctify the Holy One of Israel (The Lord Jesus Christ). (Isaiah 29:22-23)

Notice that Jehovah's promise is to literal Jacob ("Israel") and not to the church, which did not even exist at the time of this prophecy. To "replace Israel" with the NT church is to impugn (attack with words, dispute the truth of) the prophetic Word of Prophecy (2Pe 1:19) Jehovah gave specifically to Jacob (the nation of Israel). (See related article on What is replacement theology? from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

But is a term of contrast, which begs the question of what is Peter contrasting? Here he is saying that instead of fearing and being stirred up and agitated because of possible suffering for righteousness' sake, the solution is to set apart Christ as your Lord. If He is in your heart, He is ruling over the control center of your being. Don't fear man. ''Fear'' (reverentially) the Lord! When the center of one's life is rightly related to the Lord Jesus, that person is able to respond properly to the vicissitudes of life.

But sanctify - As A T Robertson says "This instead of being afraid." Sanctify Christ as Lord instead of worrying or being afraid.

Peter lifts the quotation "sanctify the...Lord" from the Greek translation (Septuagint - LXX) of Isaiah 8:13 which reads

Peter was exhorting the readers to set apart the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, as Jehovah, Very God, in their hearts, giving first place to Him in obedience of life. To sanctify Christ has the sense of to recognize, to worship, and to honor Him as the only Lord.

Sanctify (37)(hagiazo from hagios [see word study] = holy, set apart)  means to set apart for God, to sanctify, to make a person or thing (in the OT altars, days, priests, etc were set apart) the opposite of koinos, which means profane or common. Sanctify is translated “Hallowed,” with reference to the Name of God the Father in the Lord’s Prayer...

Hallowed (hagiazo) be Thy Name (Mt 8:9-)
There are 28 uses of hagiazo in the NT - Matt. 6:9; 23:17, 19; Lk. 11:2; Jn. 10:36; 17:17, 19; Acts 20:32; 26:18; Rom. 15:16; 1 Co. 1:2; 6:11; 7:14; Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Tim. 4:5; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12; 1 Pet. 3:15; Rev. 22:11

Here in 1Peter 3:15, hagiazo is in the aorist imperative which means do it now. Do it effectively!  The aorist imperative can even convey a sense of urgency.

This is a moral imperative that holds priority over all other decisions -- This foundational choice begets and controls all subsequent choices. Is He really the Lord of my life?

Submit to Christ as Kurios, the One Who is to in control. Remember the context is potential persecution/suffering. No matter what looms on the horizon we are to live in submissive communion with our Lord and Master Christ Jesus and the result will be that we have nothing to fear. The writer of Proverbs declares...The fear of man brings a snare, But he who trusts in the LORD will be exalted. (Proverbs 29:25)

How do we “sanctify Christ as Lord” in our hearts? We turn everything over to Him, and live only to please Him and glorify Him. It means we fear displeasing Him rather than fear what men might say about us as His disciples or what they might do to us. And one evidence that Christ is Lord in our lives is the readiness with which we tell others about Him.

Christ (5547) (Christos from chrio = to rub or anoint, consecrate to an office) refers to the Anointed One and thus is a title of the Messiah, the divine One (fully God) the Jews were looking for and of Whom the OT bore prophetic witness.

In the Gospels "the Christ" is not a personal name but an official designation for the expected Messiah (Mt 2:4, Lk 3:15). As by faith the human Jesus was recognized and accepted as the personal Messiah, the definite article ("the") was dropped and the designation "Christ" came to be used as a personal name. The name "Christ" speaks of His Messianic dignity and emphasizes that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises concerning the coming Messiah.

Lord (kurios from kúros = might, power in turn from kuróo = give authority, confirm) describes One who has absolute ownership. Kurios describes the One who has sovereign power and authority.  Kurios also conveys the idea of master. Thus, the second Person of the Trinity was to be Lord and Master of their lives. He was to be their resource and defender when persecution came.


Jesus is referred to some ten times as Savior and some 700 times as Lord. Supreme in Authority. Kurios translates Jehovah (LORD in OT) in Septuagint (LXX) 7000 times.  When the two titles are mentioned together, Lord always precedes Savior. Is He your kurios, your Lord, your Master, your Owner, your Possessor?

In summary, kurios signifies sovereign power and absolute authority. The primary idea is Jesus is the One in possession of all power and authority over those who are truly His possession. Paul in his description of genuine believers asks the saints at Corinth...

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit Who is in you, Whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.  (1Co 6:19,20)

Which Bible is the Word of God?

Is The Bible You Hold in Your Hand  is the Word of God?

The Logo of many Preachers use.  I am An Independent Fundamental Baptist. They mean they are a select kind of Baptist.  Not just any kind of Baptist, all other Baptist are not the real Baptist.  And if you use any other Bible other than the KJV you are not a real Bible Baptist at all.

I am not one of those kind of Pastor.

KJV logo Ba[tost

From a number of resource.

Having been raised on the KJV and was led to believe it was the only “Word of God” that I was not allowed to believe there were any other Bible other than Scofield Bible KJV.

 

Yes this is my 1960 well used and read Scofield Bible KJVCharles Bible Scofield

So for a number of years I would only read the KJV,  until I learned the facts.

I still read the KJV and it is a good translation, but I have come to believe (1983) that there are a few other good translation.

Timothy and Maura had been married only three weeks when the persecution of Emperor Diocletian reached Mauritania in Northern Africa. In A.D. 303 Diocletian had ordered that all Scripture be destroyed. Some Christians complied with the emperor’s order and as a result, a new word entered into the vocabulary - traitors (traditores - those who delivered).

As a deacon, one of Timothy’s jobs was to keep the Scriptures and knowing this, the authorities had him arrested. When Timothy refused to turn over the Scriptures, he was blinded with red hot irons so that "The books shall at least be useless to you."(1) When, after further torture, Timothy continued his refusal to surrender the scriptures, he and his new bride were crucified.

Down through the years many Christians, like Timothy, have given their lives for the Word of God. The Bible is the foundation for our beliefs and doctrines. The dissemination and teachings of the Bible are some of the main jobs of the Church. In order to make the Bible more accessible, it has been translated, in whole or in part, into more than 1,000 languages.(2)

Until recently, the Authorized Version (AV) (which is more commonly referred to as the King James Version (KJV)) was considered to be the English translation of the Bible. In fact for many it was not even seen as a translation, it simply was "the Bible." While the KJV is a good translation, two factors have pushed for newer translations.

Why A New Translation?
The most important factor for a new translation is that, over the nearly four hundred years since the KJV was translated, the English language has changed to the point where many people have trouble understanding it. For example, few people today would know what "and anon with joy receiveth" (Matt 13:20) or "I trow not" (Luke 17:9) means unless they were raised reading the KJV.

The other factor pushing for newer translations was of concern mainly to scholars. Since the translation of the KJV in 1611, our understanding of ancient languages, and the number of early manuscripts on which to base a translation has increased tremendously.

As a result, over the last 100 years there has been a flood of new translations, with an alphabet soup of initials. Some of the more notable ones are

The English Revised Version (RV - 1885),

The American Standard Version (ASV - 1901),

The Revised Standard Version (RSV - 1952),

The New American Standard Bible (NASB - 1967)

The New English Bible (NEB - 1970),

The New International Version (NIV - 1978),

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV - 1990).

Translation Controversy?

Yet all of this effort to make the Bible more understandable has not been without controversy. Some simply prefer the KJV as the version they grew up with (either literally, or in the faith, or both). Others, however, take a much more divisive stance. They claim that these new translations are not just updating, but changing the Word of God. These proponents have "defended the KJV and its text and unashamedly call for their re-instatement as the Bible for the English-speaking world."(3)

Still others take a more extreme position of KJV-only and outright condemn these modern translations. G. A. Riplinger, for example, recently charged that there exists "an alliance between the new versions of the Bible (NIV, NASB, Living Bible and others) and the chief conspirators in the New Age movement’s push for a One World Religion."(4) Are these charges true? Is the KJV the only true word of God?

One of the factors that makes this debate so difficult for most people is that much of the discussion does not center on the translations themselves, but on the underlying Greek text on which the translations are based. For example, in 1 Tim 3:16 the KJV reads: "God was manifested in the flesh" while the NASB reads "He who was revealed in the flesh." The difference is not in the translation but in the fact that the Greek text used to translated the KJV reads "God" (theos) while the text used to translate the NASB reads "He who" (hos). As such, the problem is not really a question of the translation, but is a textual issue - a question about the Greek text itself. In order to simplify the discussion, this article will concern itself solely with the New Testament.
The Text of the New Testament

Currently we have over 5,000 early Greek manuscript portions and over 20,000 early translations of the New Testament. While most of the time these manuscripts agree, there are some places where they differ. When they do, a decision must be made as to which reading is most likely the original reading. This process is called Textual Criticism. Generally, there is little difficulty in determining the original reading, but sometimes scholars are not completely sure. This is why you sometimes will see a footnote on a verse indicating there is a variation in the Greek texts at that point.

The early Greek manuscripts of the Bible can be categorized into three groups depending on their readings: Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. The Alexandrian texts centered around Alexandria, Egypt. Because of the dry climate of Egypt, these texts tend to be the oldest. The Byzantine texts centered in the Byzantine Empire. Since the West church switched to Latin, and Alexandria fell to the Arabs, the Byzantine texts tend to be the most numerous.

Textus Receptus: Inspired?
Neither side of this debate question the inspiration of the apostles and prophets who wrote the Bible. But in addition to this, most supporters of the KJV-only position also claim that the Greek text used to translate the KJV, the Textus Receptus (TR), was either protected by God, or that those who assembled the TR were also inspired. Some even go as far as to claim that the translators of the KJV were inspired.(5)

Because of this, KJV-only supporters see any variation from the readings found in the TR (and thus the KJV) as a change in God’s Word. As such, the real question in this whole debate is: Does the TR hold some special status above all other Greek texts of the NT?
The origin of the TR can be traced to a Dutch scholar, Erasmus who in 1516 published the first Greek New Testament using the newly invented printing press. (6) Erasmus was not able to find a single Greek manuscript that contained all of the New Testament. As such, he had to combine the few manuscripts he had in order to make one complete text.

Erasmus had only one copy of the book of Revelation, from which the last page was missing. To get around this problem, he translated the missing six verses from the Latin. Erasmus published five editions of his Greek New Testament which became the basis for the text used to translate the KJV.

From its origin it is hard to see how the TR can lay claim to being the only true Word of God. Since Erasmus combined several manuscripts and translated some portions from the Latin, the resulting text was in many ways unique. An identical text had never existed before. Thus if the TR is the only true word of God, the true word of God did not exist until the 16th century!

Of course one could argue that Erasmus was inspired by God to recreate the original Greek New Testament, and as such his translations from the Latin only restored the original. But this raises the question, what claim had Erasmus to being a prophet? Also, if Erasmus were inspired by God, which of his five versions should be considered inspired since they all have minor differences between them?
KJV: A Perfect Translation?

Perhaps the clearest example of an error made by the translators of the KJV is in 1 John 5:7-8. Actually, as we will see, it was not the translators who made the error, but Erasmus, when he printed the Greek text that was later used by the translators. In the KJV this verse reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (Italics added to mark disputed portion)

The same verses in the NIV reads:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

It is quite apparent that some of the words in the KJV (referred to as either the Comma Johanneum, or the Heavenly Witness passage) do not appear in the NIV. The question is: were these words part of the original text written by John, or were they added by someone else later? (6)

To date, this passage has been found in only four Greek manuscripts (manuscripts are designated by number)

Manuscript Date
61 - 1520 A.D.
2318 - 1592 A.D.
629 - 14th -16th century A.D.
918 - 16th century A.D.

In addition it has been found written in the margins of four other Greek manuscripts
Manuscript Date
221 - 10th century A.D.
635 - 11th century A.D.
88 - 12th century A.D.
429 - 14th century A.D.

The first time we hear of the passage quoted as being from John is in a fourth century Latin work Liber Apologeticus written by the Spanish heretic Priscillian, or one of his followers. After that, the passage is quoted by some of the Latin fathers, and from the sixth century forward it begins appearing in Latin manuscripts of the Bible. The passage was not quoted by any of the Greek fathers, which would be most unlikely when one considers the controversy concerning the Trinity. Furthermore, as Bruce Metzger has pointed out "The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin."(7)

Thus it would seem clear that the passage was added to the Latin versions of the Bible. (Perhaps an early scribe wrote it in the margins as a note, and a later scribe copying the manuscript thought it was a correction and included it in the text). If as it appears, the Heavenly Witness passage was an addition to 1 John, then Erasmus could not have been inspired when he assembled his Greek text, nor can we consider the translators of the KJV to have been inspired when they translated the KJV.

Doctrinal Problems?


Allen Roberts and Another charge that is often leveled against the modern translations is that they corrupt the doctrines of the Bible.
P. A. Hall concluded that "Our comparison of the various English translations shows a weakening of the major doctrines." (8) Riplinger charges that those in the New Age movement are "gradually changing the bible to conform to its One World Religion." (9)

There is a major problem with the approach taken by some of the KJV-only supporters.
They make doctrine more important than the Word of God. In other words, they are judging the Bible by doctrines instead of judging doctrines by the Bible. One cannot have it both ways. If we are to judge our translations by how they conform to a set of doctrines, we could easily end up with a Bible like that of the Jehovah Witnesses’ New World Translation (NWT) in which all difficult passages are written in such a way as to eliminate any difficulty.

Deity of Christ: Weakened?

While we do not have space here to examine all of the doctrines, we will look at one of the most important, the deity of Christ. Do modern versions weaken Jesus’ claim to be God? To show that they do, supporters of KJV-only cite verses which support the deity of Christ in the KJV but have been changed in modern translations. There are two problems with such an approach.

One is that, by selecting different verses, the argument could be turned completely around. Consider John 1:18

KJV - No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Italics added)

NIV - No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known. (Italics added)

Here the NIV refers to Jesus as God, while the KJV refers to him as the Son. If we were to follow the logic of the KJV-only supporters we would have to conclude that the translators of the KJV were trying to weaken the doctrine of the deity of Christ.

Difference or Contradiction

The second major problem with the approach of the KJV-only supporters is that a change in one verse does not necessarily affect the overall teaching of the Bible. Changing 1 Tim 3:16 from "God was manifest in the flesh"(KJV) to "He who was revealed in the flesh" (NASB), does not affect the teaching of the Bible on the deity of Jesus, for there are many other verses (such as John 1:1) which do support this doctrine and which have not been changed. Roberts and Hall base their criticism on a belief that "a change in one verse renders the concept at least contradictory to other verses," (10) but this is simply not the case.

The NASB version of 1 Tim 3:16 does not say that Jesus is not God, or even that God was not manifest in the flesh, it simply says "he" was manifest in the flesh. If we ask who this "he" was, we will find that the NASB version of John 1:14 still says "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us," and the NASB version of John 1:1 tells us that "the Word was God." Thus the NASB still teaches that it was God who was manifest in the flesh. We may have to do a little more studying to discover this (which may account for the addition of the word "God" in 1 Tim 3:16), but the doctrine is identical.

You Can Trust the Bible

The bottom line is that it really does not make much difference which of the major Bible translations you use. It is true that, because of the vast increase in our understanding of ancient languages and the number of manuscripts upon which to base translation, there are some differences between the KJV and the modern translations. For the most part, these differences are minor.

In fact, the important point that so often goes overlooked in such discussions is that with over 5,000 early Greek manuscripts, there really is very little variation. Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks noted, "There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of the faith. Note: the problem is not that we don’t know what the text is, but that we are not certain which text has the right reading. We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it."(11)

The KJV is a good translation, but so are the NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc. All of the major translations have their good points. All major translations, including the KJV, have their problems.

When choosing a translation, as long as you are considering a major translation, you do not have to worry if it really is the Word of God. The only real concern is whether or not this is a Bible you will read and study. For if you don’t bother to read and study the Bible, then the accuracy of the translation is of little importance.

Footnotes
1 Fox’s Book of Martyrs ( Grand Rapids, Zondervan) p. 29
2 Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life, 1979) p. 19
3 Allen S. Roberts and P. A. Hall, Take Heed Unto Doctrine: The Degrading of Doctrine in Modern Bible Translations (Warburton, Victoria, Australia: Good News Literature Centre, 1987) p. 83
4 G. A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions (Munroe Falls, Ohio: AV Publications, 1993) p. 1
5 Riplinger, New p. 510
6 The often heard story of Erasmus including this passage based on a challenge has been called into question by recent scholarship and cannot be considered reliable.
7 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1975) p. 716
8 Roberts, Take p. 36
9 Riplinger, New, p. 1
10 Roberts, Take, p. xi
11 Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences (Wheaton, ILL: Victor Books, 1989)
http://www.consider.org/library/which.htm

Doris Morton Passed Away



Charles and Charity Whisnant, had the joy and privilege of being in the First Baptist Church in Altoona, Kansas for 16 years. We had the joy of ministering to a great group of believers. One of those dear folks was Doris Morton, along with her husband Bernard. ( I had the service when he passed away in 1991.) Doris and Bernard always sat on the back seat of the church, to my right as I preached each week. They were always the first to arrive and the first to leave, I might add. I had to run to shake their hands if I could catch them!

Doris was one of our good and faithful friends. She was always at church and loved working in the nursery with Donna Cornwell and Michele Nunnenkamp. She was so good with the babies, and each new addition to our nursery and church family was a special gift just for Doris. My how she loved those little ones and they all seemed to love her too.

We had the joy of seeing her in May 2015 and that was good. We have a lot of memories of her and Bernard and their daughter Donna. I could tell stories for sure, but I will let Charity tell you some stories about Doris and the blessing she was to our family personally:

When our son Chad was born on July 12, 1980, we had a new baby brother for Eric and Becki and a new Tuesday addition to our family. Each Tuesday morning Doris would knock on our door and then just come on in. At first we didn't quite know each other and she really just came to hold the baby, but gradually she just started helping me do whatever I was doing (usually laundry!). As a stay at home mom, I also kept other children whose moms were working, and Tracie Edwards summed it all up: "It's Tuesday! Doris is here and we're going to have potato soup for lunch!" Doris was such a blessing to us, and never asked anything except a short nap and a break to watch Days of Our Lives! After that she would start another load of clothes or fold the ones fresh from the dryer. We baked a lot of cookies on Tuesday, too. After Kyle was born Doris had another baby to love!

One year Toni Barnhart had another great idea! We decided to do something special for each lady on her birthday....when July came around we had a birthday party on our new deck to celebrate Doris's birthday. We were all so touched when Doris thanked us and said she had never had a birthday party before.

Another special memory I have is of Doris telling me how she didn't know what to do after Bernard died. She said she cried and prayed and kept singing over and over...."My Lord knows the way through the wilderness....all I have to do is follow." How often I sing that and think of Doris when the way does not seem clear...

Many times I tell about Doris, the amazing gift from God to our family. Just last Friday I was sharing with a girl who works at the bakery the story of Doris and her dependability. Doris loved babies and loved to help their moms. She used her talents and spiritual gift of service faithfullly to honor her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Thank you Doris for all you have taught us.