King James Flunked All His Writing Classes

Let's get honest, the KJV Bible isn't the wondrous work that it's unanimously tauted to be by the community of believers.  In terms of literary qualities, this is especially true.  It's full of language that can be misconstrued in this modern age, and it's got numerous grammatical errors and ambiguations, that almost lend to the wondering of whether or not it has contradictions.  The perfect book?  I hardly think so.  Take a look:

Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body. - Heb 13:3 (KJV)

Does "remember" mean what it means today:  referencing something by memory?  Or does it mean to be mindful?  It took me a while before I finally understood what it was trying to say:  if somebody else is in bondage or suffering, then you should feel what they are feeling, too, out of sympathy.  But the verse is still ambiguous.  What is "them" referring to -- just anybody or a fellow believer?  And I thought we weren't supposed to suffer with others, but rather bring them out of their suffering?  (Unless suffering with them brings the two of you out).  If this verse is what it says it is, there is hardly a believer I know that does this and that means we're all screwed.

But if it does mean to suffer along with them, at what point do you stop suffering?  I mean, the two of you need to get out some how.  You guys can't always be "remembering yourself as bound with those in bondage."  In this case, then, the verse should read the following:

If somebody else is in bondage and suffering, be empathetic with them -- feel their bondage and their pain.  But don't do it indefinitely.  Bring them out of it soon, after remembering what it feels like. - Heb 13:3 (MJV - Mark Jones Version)

There.  Much more clear.  It's a good verse, but unfortunately, trying to unravel the meaning is a job.  And did I just add words to Scripture?  No, I just put two principles of scripture together.  The Bible does say to heal other people of their pain and suffering.

And note the version:  the Mark Jones version.  I have this theory that all of us, when reading the Bible, interpret and reword the Scripture our own way anyway.  It's the only way one can understand the literary brainteaser that is the King James.

Many people might look at this and say:  my, what an over-analysis!  And they're exactly right.  You need to over-analyze a King James scripture sometimes in order to understand it (heck, you need to over-analyze a scripture from *any* version in order to understand the Bible as a whole).

Actually, I take what I said back.  It's actually pretty simple to understand whole sections of scripture sometimes.  Hebrews chapter 1-2 basically says these things:  Jesus is the Son of God, he is above the angels, and he died on the cross for our sins.  In the Bible, it takes 50 times as many words to say that.  Way to adhere to the brevity principle:  try using as few words as possible.

And other people might say, "you're taking the verse of context."  (Back to Hebrews 13:3)  It's already out of context.  The surrounding verses, the subject of marriage and being hospitable to strangers, don't closely pertain to bondage and suffering (unless the stranger you absentmindedly welcomed into your home is behaving like a real jerk).

Here's another example:

13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. -- James 4:13-14 (KJV)

Go to where?  It never says.  The first few words of verse 13 lead to a either an incoherent thought, or a fragment.  Unless "now" is a place.  But in today's language, that's not the wording for it.  It's this:  "be in the present."

Another example of garbled communication:

  4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but
    chosen of God, and precious, 1 Peter 2:4 (KJV)

"To whom coming"?  Not even a five-year old talks like that.  "Disallowed indeed of men"...disallowed what?  You can't disallowed an "indeed," indeed is not a noun.  And "of men"?  Is there a sort of "indeed" out there that is of the "men" type?  The verse might make sense, but I feel like once I grasp the meaning of it, the words used to understand the verse will be far different from the original words of the verse.


Oh, I get it.  He was disallowed by men.  The all-too-common missing verb problem.  Found in too many places for a book that wishes to sell itself as authoritative.

But I mean, it doesn't say what he was forbidden to do.  Everything?

Putting the verse in "context" doesn't help either:

  1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies,
    and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere
    milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted
    that the Lord is gracious.

  4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but
    chosen of God, and precious, 1 Peter 2:4 (KJV)

  5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy
    priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
    Jesus Christ. -- 1 Peter 2:1-5 (KJV)

Right off the bat, a comma splice at the beginning of verse 5.  "Ye" is a subject, so it should be separated by a comma and coordinating conjunction, a period, or a semi-colon.

And the "If" in verse 3 doesn't make sense.  Either that or "so be" should be ommitted.
Perhaps the most prominent case of failed literary aspiration in the King James is found in Hebrews 4.  Let's start with the first verse:

"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."

Thank you for being so clear and straightforward with that.  It is very clear what we should fear, and the "promise" is an animate force that left the believers "of entering into his rest," except for those who "should seem to come short of it."  Seem to come short of it (the promise, of course); not everyone who seems has actually come short of the promise.  How do you come short of a promise?  You don't know?  It said in a previous verse (the third verse of Hebrews 4), that you do so if you don't believe in it:  "for we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world."  I guess some people can also pretend to work on the Sabbath, seemingly coming short of the promise.

And don't you love it when colons actually serve their purpose in writing?  Well, I'm sorry you won't be feeling that love here in Hebrews.  Colons usually elaborate on the preceding statement or word (in this case, it would be "if they shall enter into my rest," or the word "rest" itself).  The clause following the colon is very much a non-sequitir.

When I write a paper for school, my English teacher always encourages me to spellcheck and fix grammatical errors.  This teaching must be a modern American one that no person under the rule of King James had ever even considered.

And if I wrote like King James did for my English professors, I'd sure fail my composition classes.  Thank goodness I was smart enough not to swallow the nonsense notion, "the King James Bible was the greatest book ever written."

Purity Cults

Christianity, in general, makes a big deal about sinning (although post-modern approaches are starting to deviate).  If this religion were a book, all the words relating to sin would be bold and highlighted.  After all, lest a Christian stumble, it will be evident to the other members of his puritan community that he is lacking in faith and is perhaps backsliding, moving farther from God.  Thus, the rules, the "thou shalt not's", should be emphasized a great deal.  Sometimes above all else.

However, the more I immerse myself in this sort of culture and familiarize myself with these sorts of people, these puritans of the modern day, the more I start to see just how little their faith in Christ really is.

Let me clarify just what I mean by "these sorts of people."  Take Bible-thumping Bill, for instance.  He'll sit in his room all day, reading the Bible and praying to God, while the rest of the world sinks in the abyss.  Lest he fall into temptation and stumble, Bill should not go out into the world.  He shall remain "pure and holy" before God, by staying in his house all day, or remaining a shiny but lifeless saint in a church, similar to a beautiful tiger stuffed and mounted by a taxidermist, or a wax doll.

He doesn't struggle with the sins emphasized by his puritan community -- no, he's too holy and too "spiritually up there."  No, he doesn't struggle at all.  And, I'll have to agree on this; I don't think it's possible to burn with lust after zebras and goats in a bestiality flick if you don't have a TV or a computer to begin with, and I don't think it's possible to commit adultery when you're not even married.  Outwardly, at least.

Still, however, the question remains:  does he struggle?  Yes, he doesn't outwardly do the sins -- but does he wrestle with keeping his heart and mind clean from lusts of a hurtful sort?  It doesn't matter if you don't outwardly do a sin if your heart wishes it.

Let's say for now, however, Bill doesn't think those sinful thoughts at all.  Is he still struggling with them?  And does this defiant act of holiness necessarily show a firm faith in God?  Continuing to live the reclusive lifestyle that he does, I'd have to say no.

First of all, faith in Jesus Christ implies faith of the final result of any sinful deed and struggle being positive.  The Book of Romans talks extensively about this, repeating this principle over and over again to the point of one's exclaiming "okay, I get it already!"  If Bill truly believed that God will carry him through any misstep he makes after putting himself out there in the real world, and truly had faith that everything would work together for good in the end in spite of sin, and that the truth will prove itself in the end amongst other things, he would not be running away from the very thing that he's neurotically convinced himself he's conquered.  He'd not be afraid to reach out to animal porn addicts, or seek out a love partner.  Why?  Because he knows that either he won't fall from grace, or that if he does mess up, the consequences of that sin won't have any power over him due to the power of Christ and his faith in that.

Hiding in a room all day isn't an active exercising of this faith, in my opinion. 

Another way to look at it is this:  suppose there is another man in his church named Bob.  Bob struggles with both indulging in alcohol and occasionally getting in an affair with another woman not his wife.  But he goes out to the homeless shelter every single week to give encouragement to those in need and to spend quality time with them.

Who is more fit for the kingdom:  Bill or Bob?  Bill doesn't sin remember, but neither does he do anything.  Therefore, there is no kingdom advancement (at least one that's fully realized).  Bob sins and screws up from time to time, but he infuses life to the souls who need it the most.  He advances the kingdom.

The difference between Bob and Bill is their focus:  Bill is focused on sin, Bob is focused on actually doing something and advancing the kingdom.  And, lo and behold, he actually does advance it.  Bill focuses on what he can't do -- and what do you know, he does nothing in the end.  How ironic!

I feel like a whole flock of Bills have congregated under the steeples of disillusionment, and have amassed onto the grassy pastures of weak faith in this present day and age.  They've formed "purity cults" amongst themselves -- organizations of devotees who've dedicated their lives to serving full-time the god of neurotic holiness, an idol of fear and denial gilded with the pseudo-precious metals of righteousness.  They're not pure:  they've just lied to themselves, that's all.  Because if they really overcame their sins and their impurities, they'd definitely have an answer to those in the world who are still struggling with them.

Sitting in front of a blank wall in your room all day with a Bible in your lap isn't quite that convincing, oh thou of little faith.

Hating the Sin and Not the Sinner

I've heard this phrase (given in the title) often said in many Christian debate circles, and often used as a defense phrase on many a blog's comment section; and I must say that I find this phrase used too often in vain, or as a cover-up for a hidden agenda or an unclean emotion.  Take, for example, blog posts or real-life arguments centered on homosexuality, a touchy subject in today's world.  (For this example, the arguers will both have claimed to be Christians and will each rely on Scripture to make their points.)  One of the biggest arguments is that we should "love everyone" -- since "God is love!"  The rebuttal for this argument is, usually, "I don't hate homosexuals, I hate their sin.  There's a difference."

However, the problem I find is that the owners of this proposition usually don't know anything about their homosexual neighbor, other than the fact that he's gay.  How can you not hate homosexuals, when all you see is their sin?  To hate their sin is to hate them, especially if you've labeled them "gay" and that's the only label you've given them.  Since all you see is their homosexual sin, in both their actions and in their words, how can you say the gay does anything else except be gay, and love that other part of them when that other part is a complete void?

Simply put, people who defensively throw back the "love the sinner but not the sin" argument in a heated debate are effectively lying to themselves.  Most, especially those who engage in these debates for the sole purpose of defending their own values and winning, hardly know anything about the gays they've labelled in their lifetime.  Some don't see the doctor in them, or the hard-working American citizen.  The only thing they see and know is the fact that they're gay.  When this type of person says "I hate their sin but I love them," what else is there to love after he's hated their sin?  He's basically hated almost everything he's labeled the person to be.  What else can he love about them, then, when the only thing he sees in them is what he hates?

Also, a side note.  I don't recall Jesus ever clarifying to anybody, "Hey, don't get me wrong -- I don't hate you, I hate your sin."  This is because Jesus was beaming with love, and it only took a brief glimpse at him or a slight hint of his presence for the people around him back in the day to automatically feel it.  Jesus didn't have to prove his love with words, because his life was his words.  He is love, and people really don't need clarification on that fact when they are in his presence.

Selfish "Compassion"

Selfish "Compassion"
I sit atop the hill alone,
Clad in holy white.
And sitteth smugly upon my
pristine throne,
Beholding a joyful sight.

Look at the sinners below,
All tiny as ants.
They walk maimed
towards the flame,
I hath already warned them once,
So for their death they are to blame.

From up here
My view is pure.
From up here,
I can watch my word unfold
and my authority upheld.

I am free to move about--
Even free to go down.
But I enjoy sitting up here
in pompous priestliness,
I am safer up here,
And I loveth my throne
and the purity of my robe
way too much.

Righteousness abideth
up here on the hill.
Come up here thy sinners,
Thy weak and crippled sinners,
Crawl up the hill on your knees

And come and join me.

Where nobody heareth my words
Except thee.

The Prayer Request Box

There's a pretty good symbol I'd like to share with you today, reader. And that is the “prayer request box.” This little cardboard box has a slit on the top to serve as an entry point for little slips of paper to penetrate and get stored inside the box. What does these little pieces of paper have written on it? The answer is simple: prayer requests.

Each time a holier-than-thou spots a sinner in real life, she'll take out a slip of paper and a pen, and write the person's name and the dominating sin they're living out. She'll then fold the piece of paper and slip it inside. Then, she'll somehow open the box – usually there's a little door at the side that enables a person to grab a slip of paper. She'll grab a random piece of paper and, you guessed it, start praying for you.

She'll keep doing this until you've “changed” – until her prayer's have been answered and she see's God's miraculous work in the person's life. After that has happened, she forgets about you.

I see this way too often in CC. How often do holier-than-thou's only approach others when they see them “sin”? They go up to them, “stand up” for the truth, and maybe (just maybe) pray for you when they're not in public anymore and no one's watching them. Praying more than once may even be a stretch. And they'll keep going up to you, telling you to quit what you're doing, being the holy and righteous crusader for “justice” that they are – until you quit. Then they'll quit. Quit paying attention to you, only focusing on themselves, their own “holy” relationship with God and only seeking self-preservation for their purity. The Scripture says, “He that saveth his life shall lose it.” In my viewpoint, these holier-than-thou's have already lost it – they share quite an ineffective gospel message.

Is there more to the Word of God than just 66 Books?

One of the trademark beliefs of CC is that the Bible is the complete Word of God.  They say that all of what you need to know about the Christian life and how to get closer to God is given by the Bible.  In fact, most members of CC will say that God wrote the Bible directly.  From my knowledge and reasoning, all of this seems to be incorrect.

The meanings and definitions belonging to words on a page are very dependent on your personal experience and prior knowledge.  This is a basic concept.  A person can't possibly decipher the parable of Jesus feeding the five-thousand if he has been living in an arid desert all his life, a place completely devoid of fish.  In addition, much of how we interpret the Bible is based upon what we've learned throughout history outside of the Bible.  Just go online and look at the numerous apologetics and theological studies about the Bible written on web pages -- it relies on archaeological evidence and background knowledge about Jewish and Greek culture and other outside historical knowledge.  Open any book on the history of the world, and chances are most of what you'll find was hardly mentioned in the Bible.

Science and mathematical textbooks are also an interesting topic to add to this discussion.  If teachers in the private Christian schools teach that it is only the 66 books that will sustain you, and that that is all you need, why teach science and mathematics?  There are hardly any science or mathematical principles taught in Scripture.  But, these principles are still the truth -- and we believe in them, even if the Bible leaves those things out.

So what do I currently believe about the modern Bible?  It's hard to know at times...but there are some overarching patterns I've noticed about the world (specifically the CC sect of it) and their approach to it.  This is why it's confusing:  there are more than one version to the Bible, each one teaching different things and each one leaving out certain scriptures.  Which one is correct?  Also, after reading some apologetics outlining the Bible's origins, a lot of the choices made of whether or not to leave out certain books of the Bible (e.g., the Apocrypha) seem to me to have been based upon "authority figures" instead of God himself.  It seems to me that the decisions were based on faith in man, instead of faith in God (or by labeling these men as God, which is close to blasphemy).  In addition, there are many different denominations of Christianity, some waging wars against one another due to their different interpretations of the Bible, even though they all refer to themselves as "Christians."  The reason for this?  To me, the answer seems to be "different experiences and ways of seeing life."  Consequently, this also causes people to "pick and choose" what they want to believe about the Bible -- to take the Bible literally at times, whereas other times (especially when contradictions are proposed to them), to say, "Look at the verse in context," or "Given knowledge about the Apostle Paul's personal life, that verse means something different."

Because of this, it seems like a lot of the Bible is what we make it to be.  And it also seems to me that knowing God happens with both learning about the lives of those in history (and the ones around us) and going through personal experiences -- just living life every day, seeking to know Him more instead of merely going to words on a page for an encounter with God.  We can learn many great lessons from the Bible, sure, and without the manuscripts upon which it relies we might not be aware of Jesus Christ.  However, if we experience life always asking the question, "Is that in the Bible?" we'll never learn or experience anything more than what we already know or have experienced.  It is life itself, your personal experiences and knowledge, and your attitude that makes the Bible spring to life.  Without those things, you're just reading words on a page with no meaning or weight to them.  Words are symbols that reference certain emotions, spiritual states, concepts, or personal experiences.  To me, the Bible is just that -- it's a collection of spiritual diaries, documents, and letters of men who were very close to God (as they have much to say about Him and the life-giving experiences they've had).  But to say that they are God is having faith in man instead of God, not to mention, like I said earlier, blasphemy.


It's illogical to reason that the word "inspiration" or "moved" as mentioned in the verses II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:16-21 respectively mean the same things like the words "direct revelation" or "written."  To me, "inspiration" means just that:  inspiration.  Much as a great tragedy in real life (like the death of a loved one) inspires a playwright to write a sad play, so does God with man when he's inspiring authors to write the stories and concepts found in the Bible.  God is the reason they write, but it's not Him writing it per se (like the deceased love one not writing the sad play).  In a case like this, that would mean that all the things the authors of the Bible did was God directly doing them, and thus we could reason that all of us, if we would document our spiritual lives the same way, are being God.  I don't see it this way -- I see it as God giving them (and also us) the life and the inspiration to do the things we do.  But He's not actually doing them for us.  God gives us the experiences in real life (if we choose to see them or accept them).  It is we who write about them and interpret the way we do.  God will remain God, man will remain man.

In this light, it is thus logical to conclude that there are more works out there documenting experiences with God -- not just the Bible itself.  Works written by historians, scientists, priests, pastors -- even writers of autobiographical works -- these are all major contenders of God's Word.  If God inspired the Book of Romans, He also inspired The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.  To members of CC, the latter book might not seem to be inspired by God due it's lack of the word 'God', but if leaving out the word 'God' is the sole basis for making a work "non-Christian," then that must mean the Song of Solomon was written by Satan.  I'm not saying that all works are inspired by God (some are very good expressions of a lack of God in the author's life) -- but The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People brings life to those who read it.  And we all know who the giver of life is, right?

In short, the Word of God consists of more than just 66 books, much as the fully documented life of Jesus would span thousands of volumes according to the Gospel of John.  We can read God's Word not only by reading the NIV Bible but by exploring the world around us and learning about other people, by learning about different places and cultures.  We can learn more about God by doing research in a given field, or reading a history book.  To say that in all cases a person who doesn't read the Scriptures very often is farther away from God than a person who reads the KJV Bible every single day of his life, is very, very inaccurate.

In fact, I question the spiritual validity of those who solely read the Bible but don't experience much else in life, other than reading words on a page.

Why?  Because the words will lack definition.

How Christian Culture Catalyzes the Disintegration of my Faith

For a while, I must say that I didn't have a problem with Christian Culture (CC).  I grew up in that environment, and for the majority of my life I was either quite fond of it or had a neutral stance with it.  Church was there on a Sunday.  I went to it, fellowshipped with others like I would at school -- I said what I was supposed to say but all the while still felt like the odd one out because I felt if I was myself, I wouldn't be accepted at all (or understood).  This always ended up in the result of me coming across as shy, or not very talkative.  Socially, church and school were equivalents of one another; I felt comfortable being more reserved and isolated, and I stayed this way up to my final year of high school.  Because I kept myself hidden and was in a place where I knew what I was supposed to do, I ironically felt at home more often than not.  High school was different, but nonetheless I still felt like I had a firm faith in Jesus Christ (and in God).

I now go to ORU, a university notorious for CC -- and the strange part is it's actually quite different from the churches I went to back in L.A.  Being at this university has taught me that CC is not exactly the same everywhere you go (although the similarities remain), CC in California is different from that in Oklahoma or maybe even Texas and other southern states.  I must say that the culture here is pretty antagonistic to my personality and my upbringing at times.  Many people would view many aspects of my beliefs as conflicting with those of CC here, and would thus question my faith in Jesus Christ.

The clash didn't just happen purely because of a change in location -- being more independent now has taught me to think for myself, to blaze my own trail in life.  Instead of just accepting things the way that I knew them, I now am seeking out the truth on my own, trying to resolve conflicting thoughts in my head rather than ignoring them.  It has taught me a lot.  It has taught me that culture and common attitudes are different from one place to the next, that many people's beliefs are shaped by the society around them and not by personal experience or by thinking globally, and that people are afraid of change even if their current way of living causes them grief and unhappiness, or is illogical. It has opened my eyes to a lot of truths that I wouldn't have seen otherwise.  And now, some of these truths conflict with traditional teachings of the CC.

Because of this conflict, there are times where I feel like I'm not a Christian.  The reason for this is because when the people in the society around me call themselves Christians, I believe them more often than not, even when, more often than not, they don't act like such.  I'm not saying people in the CC are bad or evil -- they're definitely not going to be your next Hitler or all grow up to be terrorists.  What I'm saying is that the word "Christian" here doesn't even mean what it originally meant anymore, and often times I find myself very confused at that.  This leads to it causing me to feel like I'm losing my faith, or that I myself am not a Christian.

What happens is this:  the society around me communicates its definition of "Christian."  According to this popular definition, a Christian is a loving and outwardly friendly soul who goes to church every Sunday, reads his or her Bible every morning, prays at least one prayer every day, and says the commonplace phrases "Praise God!" or "Amen."

But here's the problem I run into:  most of the things that members of the CC do is actually not found in the documentation of the disciples' lives in the Bible.  The disciples didn't have the Bible back then so they couldn't have possibly read what many of us CC folks read today, and (correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't mention them going to church every Sunday morning.  Jesus didn't go to church on Sunday.  And although he went to the temple on the Sabbath, it was a Jewish temple -- not a denominational one like the "Baptist" church or the "Pentecostal" church.  And it's peculiar to note that many modern Christians don't go to Jewish temples even though they preach that we should follow Jesus every step of the way.  This example of reasoning, along with many others, has led me to conclude that members of CC and members of the "secular world" have many common similarities -- they pick and choose what they want to believe even if the beliefs contradict one another, rather than believing or discovering universal truths about God and humanity.  The god they believe in is the one they've created and assembled from scouring a buffet of comforting beliefs.

However, I don't always remember this conclusion when I'm interacting with those in CC.  So, on occasion, I will believe a person when they communicate or act out their pure and holy lives.  Consequently, it will make me feel less righteous -- and at times, cause me to doubt my faith in Jesus Christ.  How this happens is as follows (and I reason this way):  if they say they're Christian, then how come I'm different from them and have different beliefs?  Therefore I'm not a Christian.

The good news though, is this:  this voice that whispers into my head, "You're not a Christian," is speaking less and less these days, due to me becoming more grounded in my beliefs.  Also, getting to know people in depth causes me to see them for who they are more and more.

(The one example I shared is actually just one of the many cases where I clash with Christian culture.  More to follow -- I will continually blog about the truths I've discovered, and the new questions that have arose as a result.)