Explanatory Notes - PART 1 - for Chapter 4 of "New Jerusalem, the Mother of us all!"

Explanatory Notes for Chapter 4
The Garden Bride (this will have to be broken up into two posts, for length is too long for only one)

*14. These are the First and Second Works of God; or, the First and Second Covenants...
This Explanatory Note is a follow-up to an earlier Explanatory Note, for chapter 1, called "I John SAW (past tense)..." I went over this notion pretty well in my book "In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start," in that 'Heaven' has to be reinterpreted for us. Why? Because, it's not as simple as the modern Church World makes it out to be. Again, why? Because, we cannot simply tell folks that when they die, they will be going to Heaven. Why? Because, there's not just one Heaven in scripture, but three ... Again, see Revelation 21:1 and 2nd Corinthians 12:2 ... Therefore, when we tell them that they'll be going to Heaven, we need to tell them which one they'll be going to ... 1st ... 2nd ... or, 3rd ... Then, we'll have to explain why there are three and not just one. Getting a bit deeper in study, I've heard some scholars explain that 1st Heaven is the immediate atmosphere of the earth, where we breath oxygen; that Second Heaven is the area we call outer space, which begins just outside of earth's atmosphere; and, that Third Heaven is the cosmic realm just beyond the reaches of outer space, wherein God actually lives, and that it is the famous Heaven, in which we ourselves will eternally abide. Now, however one may see these Three Heavens within the sphere of this sort of understanding (that is, tossing it around with different sorts of ideas that work together to form a similar thought), I must here contend that I do not agree with such theories, for I cannot see them match up to scripture. And scripture, it must be understood, has to be the final authority on all things doctrinal. Being so the case, we must consider the following verse, which speaks of Jesus' travels at His ascension:
Ephesians 4:10
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.
John Gill, in his Exposition of the entire Bible, is quick to solve this problem for us:
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible: [All heavens, which are] the visible heavens, the airy and starry heavens; Christ ascended far above these, and went into the third heaven, the holiest of all; and this is expressive of the exaltation of Christ, who is made higher than the heavens.
However, that's not what Paul said. He didn't specify that he didn't mean 3rd Heaven when he said "ALL" Heavens. Why skip 3rd in that equation, and mean only 1st and 2nd? Well, Mr. John Gill said this because to say otherwise would destroy a long Church history of a doctrinal teaching. And, even though the man was highly respected (and, even I have quoted him several times in my books!) that doesn't mean he was always correct in what he believed to be truth. Though, this isn't me particularly saying that he was wrong; it's just that I view the truth differently. Actually, Paul said "ALL" Heavens; and, we can't assume that he didn't mean 3rd Heaven when he said it. However, saying otherwise (that is, that 3rd was, indeed, included in Paul's saying) wouldn't make sense with scripture, would it? After all, the final reward is that we'll spend eternity in Heaven, right? And, to say or think otherwise would be anti-biblical, would it not? ... However, we have to also consider "heavenly conditions" and "heavenly places" in this; for, therein may lie some answer to the puzzle.
Ephesians 1:20
Which he [the Father] wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.
Here's another scripture that speaks of Jesus' ascension. But, what is so strange is that instead of simply saying that Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father in Heaven, it says heavenly places instead. But why is that? Well, let's seek the Greek:
Heaven/Heavenly, Epouranios, G2032, from Strong's Greek Dictionary: From G1909 and G3772; above the sky: - celestial,* (in) heaven (-ly), high.
Of course, seeing as the word places is italicized in this verse, we could not look that word up, seeing as all words in italics in the King James Bible aren't actually emphasized words, but are words that were placed in by the KJV Translators for ease of sentence flow.** But, why in the world would they add a word here, when it would have been much simpler to say 'Heaven' only? After all, the Greek definition for the word Heaven in this instance (just above) is what we would expect to see if we believe in a Heaven that traditional, biblical Church teachings tells us about. Well, even though I would agree with many folks that sometimes the Translators added in extra words that they shouldn't have, in many instances (such as this) they did us a favor by doing so! And, why is that? Because, it truly should have read "heavenly places," instead of "Heaven;" for, I believe that this phrase actually expresses Paul's original thought better than what a single English word could have. Again, why? Well, in a few verses just above – in the same chapter of Ephesians – Paul used this same Greek word for Heaven there, too; and, the Translators, once again, translated it into "heavenly places" ... Not only so, but in Chapter 2 (of Ephesians, of course!) we see the very same thing happen a third time. That is, the Translators added in the word places in these other two instances, to where if they hadn't, the verses (as one will see by simple observation) would not have made any sense at all to have left this extra, added word out ... Oh, and by the way, I will again emphasize that Paul used the exact Greek word, epouranios, in these two other verses that he used in verse 1:20 ... Let's observe:
Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us [present tense] with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.
Ephesians 2:6
And hath [present tense] raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
Both times and in both places Paul had used 'present tense' phraseology, and did not imply anything that would happen to those folks after death – but, whilst they were still alive. But, what if we took out the word places in both of these other instances, and simply used the word "Heaven" instead? Well, that wouldn't work; for, they wouldn't make any sense, and they would not read correctly. And yet, the first verse that I had quoted from Ephesians, verse 1:20, is set smack dab in the middle between these other two; and, the Translators knew that they wouldn't be justified by using "Heaven" only in that verse (which would have been traditionally and doctrinally friendly if they did) when they couldn't use it for the other two. Again, they got it right when speaking of Jesus ascending to heavenly places rather than some celestial city with a sign post out front that reads: "Welcome to Heaven!" Therefore, many times in scripture, when it says Heaven, it could be insinuating a heavenly place, or a heavenly condition or situation; but, it doesn't have to mean the name of a certain place in the cosmos ... Colossians says some similar things:
Colossians 3:1-3
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Our clue as to what Paul meant is in verse 3, when he says "for ye ARE dead," present tense, is that it's metaphorically insinuating them being dead to sin (i.e. Romans 6:2;7;11; etc.), and dead to this ungodly world (Matthew 8:22; Romans 6:8; Romans 11:15; etc.), that's why they were "risen" with Christ (in their hearts, and not literally from a grave), and that they should seek things that are above (above carnality and fleshly thoughts). Again, not above in the clouds, or out in the cosmos somewhere; but, above earthly, fleshly, or carnal matters ... Is it truly possible, as I've been contending in this Teaching Series, that in order to understand many of Paul's words we will first have to learn how to understand the usage of metaphors? Or, indeed, even the words of Jesus in the Gospels? Or, surely, many passages of scripture in the entire Bible? Why does the abode or realm of God have to be way out in outer space somewhere? If God's actual abode is an invisible dimension (which I do believe that it is), then why does it have to be beyond the reaches of space? Why can't it already be here, all around us? After all, it is an invisible, heavenly realm, not being subject to the laws of nature, and neither should it be pushed up against a natural border. In fact, it really has nothing to do with a natural realm, at all. Neither is it attached to a natural realm. So, why be a part of it in any sense? Or, much rather, bordered along it's boundaries? ... So, by me saying all this, does it mean that I don't believe there's an abode for the dead saint to abide in for eternity after that saint has died and then lives again? Certainly I'm not saying that! I really do believe that there's life after death, and that it will be lived-out with God throughout eternity. That, I am certain of. But, I cannot buy into the theory that the abode has a specified name, nor that it can only be reached by a long journey through natural space. It's my belief that when we die, we simply slip into the True Reality realm (away from this Temporal Reality), which is just a doorway away. The promises are eternal life (i.e. St. John 4:36-37; Romans 6:23; Titus 1:2; Titus 3:7; and 1st John 2:25), and not that we will get to live in Heaven – despite some scriptures that may lead somebody to believe that:
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:12a
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven...
Etc ... I really have no problem with all such scripture; they do not throw a stumbling block in front of me or my views. They merely enhance what I already believe. Again, if we are to take these last two quoted scriptures at face value (and, not as a metaphor), then which Heaven do we apply them to? 1st? 2nd? Or, 3rd? Why can't we see (as we do in Ephesians 1:3 and Ephesians 2:6), and interpret these things as to being for us right here, and right now? The Father, as well as the Son are, indeed, in a "heavenly place" – that's for certain. In fact, while Jesus was on earth, He declared boldly that He was also in Heaven ... Watch what He says to Nicodemus:
St. John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which IS [present tense] in heaven.
So saying whilst upon earth; and even though the Day of Pentecost hadn't yet come, He Himself ascended unto the 2nd Heaven at His baptism by John. And, it had nothing to do with the natural water of the baptism, but had everything to do with the dove descending on Him. That is, the Spirit of God coming upon Him, pulling Him into the 2nd Heaven prior to anybody else. After all, He had to create the way for others to enter ... But, even so, what I had just quoted (St. John 3:13) certainly will raise some questions, such as: "Wouldn't that simply prove that Jesus was merely the Father in fleshly form – making Him the Father? And, in that way, it can explain how He was both in Heaven and earth at the same time!" I had briefly touched on this question in my first book, called "Brotherly Love," without getting into too much detail; and, had promised to address this issue head-on in my upcoming book, called: "The Godhead: How Many Gods Are There?" Of which I still plan on doing. But, in the meantime, allow me to quickly re-quote what I had said in my first book, then I'll round it all off with a new thought:
St. John 14:8-9
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Well, doesn't that last verse just prove that Jesus was the Father? No. Let's consider what it says next:
St. John 14:10 (Jesus speaking)
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
If Jesus was the Father, it would make no sense for Him to add that He [Jesus] speaks not of Himself, and that the Father, that dwells in Him [through the Spirit], does the works for Him − unless we are to consider that Jesus was nothing more than an empty container that the Father merely occupied whilst on earth, and didn't have anymore need of it once Jesus ascended! But it makes much more sense to say that Jesus [a separate Being] was in His Fathers likeness and image − His ambassador on earth ... Even Paul himself throws in on this thought:
Galatians 4:14
And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
And we surely know that Paul was the ambassador of Christ:
Ephesians 6:19-20
And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
And then, Paul hands that type of responsibility on over to the Saints of God:
2 Corinthians 5:20a
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ..."
Then, as a follow-up, in my book "In the Beginning," I added to that original thought:
"But, considering that Jesus had remained an important figure after His Resurrection, and that the Father didn't become one Being with Him (by adding the risen Jesus to His Person), then we should see two separate Beings called the Father and the Son – proving that Jesus wasn't just an empty, fleshly container that was disposed of once He ascended. Because, honestly, if both were one Being, what need would the Father have with His flesh and bone body anymore? Perhaps as a mere reminder of what His flesh had to suffer whilst upon earth, by showing others His wounds throughout eternity? Even if we try to justify a single Being that way, it would be very strange to see that He would remain one Being in two separate bodies for the rest of time! Again, actually having two separate Beings, called the Father and the Son, would make a lot more sense than to try and justify such an hypothesis. Besides all that, after His ascension we should take note that Jesus was still considered the Son of God, a title that shows Himself to being a lesser God than the Father. Not only so, but Paul stresses, in 1st Corinthians 15:24-28, that Jesus, at the very end (and this is way after His ascension), will become subject to the greater God by coming under Him in authority."
To which, I'd like to now add the thought that we must seriously consider that if Jesus was the Father in fleshly form (the same Being in two separate bodies), then why did Jesus have a separate will? A contrary will which He displayed in the Garden, near His last day on earth; for, showing us a separate will shows us a different mind, a different Being...
Matthew 26:39 (Luke 22:42)
And he [Jesus] went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed [praying to Himself?], saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
St. John 5:30-31
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true [because, He's not the Father].
And, too, why did He have to learn obedience by the things that He suffered if He were already the Father?
Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
Etc ... Again, I will go over these thoughts thoroughly in my upcoming book on the Godhead ... Now, as to me saying what I believe the Third Heaven to be, I will only say that I see it as a spiritual realm – which has nothing to do with the natural universe, at all; but, I won't really say herein what my views on it are, for I will be dedicating an entire book toward it in the near future, called: "St. Paul in Arabia: And of His Travels to the Third Heaven" ... Though, later on in this book, I will actually throw some more hints toward the reader as to how I see this Third Heaven when I will speak more on these Heavens.
*Celestial...
I wanted to point out that, in our dictionary meaning, we don't have to imagine that Heaven only means a city up in the sky somewhere. Heaven, no doubt, has certainly come to be known as a wonderful city in the clouds or cosmos, for that is what many folks believe. But, our word celestial, which is one of the definitions, can denote things that are just heavenly, or simply wonderful, without having anything to do with a city, at all. But, of course, this Greek word does have to do with God's Kingdom in general, and should denote anything that His hands touch and blesses; i.e. things that are heavenly.
**Words in italics ... were placed in by the KJV Translators for ease of sentence flow...
This is actually a well known fact amongst scholars, and can be seen as a reality by even a simple online search. However, opinions vary tremendously about why the Translators decided to do this, so if you are just wanting a simple fact expressed without massive opinions about it, you need not look any further than Cambridge's website's faq section on the Bible, at:
cambridge.org/gu/bibles/about/faq ...
Be careful, though, of what opinions you read online concerning this subject (well, be careful about anything you read online for that matter!), for some of those folks highly praise what the Translators had done – going as far as to say that the italicized words should now be counted as actual scripture! – and, some of those folks completely condemn the Translators for it, saying that the italic words shouldn't even be there at all ... As I've expressed several times before, even in other of my books in this Series, my own personal opinion is that, at various times, these italics both help and hinder the reader to or from fuller understandings (helping much more than hindering, though!); but, also, that they should never be counted as actual scripture. Why? Simply because the Translators were not the original authors of the text. They were, again, only the Translators, trying to help the rest of us to understand the original words in a single language ... However, again, as I've also expressed in other books in this Series, God did, indeed, have the Translators do the italics for various reasons – to both help us in our vernacular understandings, and to also obscure the pure truth from those who only wish to use the Bible for self-gain ... complicated? It's not when we understand that God wrote the Bible (through the hands of the original authors) to only His true children, and not to all the occupants of the entire world – especially not to Pharisaic, natured and minded men (i.e. like those false ministers of Jesus' day). Therefore, only God's actual children will truly understand what their Lord is saying within, and they will ignore what man says.
St. John 10:4-5*** (Jesus speaking)
And when he [Jesus] putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him [they will follow Jesus]: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
Matthew 24:24*** (Jesus speaking)
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, IF it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect [i.e. it's NOT possible to fool God's true children].
But, even so the case (that is, that God ordained the italicized words to be in the Bible – for both good and decoying purposes), one still cannot say that the italicized words are actual scripture. Only what the original authors wrote down to begin with should be considered so. In fact, I could go as far as to say that even though I believe God ordained those italicized words (for the reasons I have just expressed), that we still don't actually need them; and can, if need be, simply ignore them when clear understandings come to us of what the original authors meant. Because (once more) the italicized words weren't in the original autographs (i.e. the original texts), and should therefore only be considered crutches to help us understand the original thoughts. But, seeing as a few of them (and, only a few!) actually hinder our full understanding (see Sub-Sub-Note just below for an explanation), that alone should prove they aren't canon. But, again, God really did oversee and had orchestrated the construction of the King James Bible, as I will thoroughly express in my upcoming book, called: "The Bible is not a Buffet;" and, as I had briefly went over in short detail about in my already published book: "In the Beginning: It was Spiritual from the Very Start." However, and even though expressed by my words (i.e. that God indeed ordained the KJV), that doesn't mean that I'm a King James Version only person – as I will also speak on therein.
***St. John 10:4-5 and Matthew 24:24...
I don't want to be misunderstood of why I chose these two scriptures to quote. My meaning is not for the reader to think that I believe the added-in words (i.e. the italicized words) of the KJV (or, any other translation for that matter) are just as bad as the words of a false teacher; my meaning was simply to say that even if the added-in words might throw a person off, God's true children won't be deceived by them – even if they don't completely understand what they're reading at first ... But, even so, is it really possible to be thrown off a true thought with them? Case in point (of which I had thoroughly went over in my book "In the Beginning") are the scriptures in St. John 18:3-6, where the religious leaders of that day were coming to arrest Jesus, and He simply asked them whom they sought. They answered: "Jesus of Nazareth." To which He had replied: "I am he." So, as one can see, the word he was italicized – insinuating that the word wasn't in the original letter by John.
St. John 18:3-6
Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Of course, I'm not going to, once again, go over the pros and cons of this, but I will simply refer my readers to my other book for fuller details. But, I will say quickly that if we were to remove the word he in this instance, then we'll have a greater understanding of why all the men fell backward to the ground when He said it; for, He had claimed, with that one statement, that He was the great "I AM" of the Old Testament – especially from Exodus:
Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
And, even further in John:
St. John 8:57-58
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.
Is that even important to point out? It certainly is! For, it tells us of the pre-existence of Jesus prior to His natural birth on earth. But, with a reply like: "I am he," (i.e. leaving in and considering the added word) we get the impression that He made a simple statement like: "Yeah, I'm the guy you're looking for!" ... But, anyway, I am again not trying to point out any wickedness or evilness on the part of the Translators because of their intrusive words; for, again, I believe that God had a firm hand in the KJV's construction (even with it's added-in, italicized words!); and, that the Translators felt confident in what they had done ... The real problem, my friends, is that there are no pure 100% translations of the scriptures for us in English, and neither was there ever meant to be one ... what was that? ... God only meant for there to be a pure Bible in the original languages. And, as I had pointed out in my book "In the Beginning," I believe those to have been reserved in the Masoretic Old Testament, and the Received Text of the New Testament – the foundational texts of the King James Version, the William Tyndale Version, J.P. Green's Literal Translation, and even Martin Luther's German Version – though some scholars would firmly disagree with my assessment that those source texts are the best, as I will also go over in my upcoming book: "The Bible is Not a Buffet" ... It has been pointed out by author Benson Bobrick, in his wonderful, historical book (called 'Wide as the Waters, the Story of the English Bible and the Revolution it Inspired,' Penguin Books, 2002), that: "In the beginning was the Word, and that Word was Hebrew and Greek." Such a powerful statement, even if a bit cheeky in its delivery. From which we should understand that God had spoken to the world through those ancient languages; and, from which also we should understand that we can gain a clearer understanding of God's Word when studying them ... That brings about a big problem, though, because most readers of the Bible today can't read or speak Hebrew and Greek! So, that's why God had provided for us some wonderful study helps. And, if one truly wants to get nitty-gritty, and free themselves from a fleshly-minded teacher, then one must simply apply themselves to a deeper study; for, by doing so, we gain closer insights into God's thoughts ... Don't have time to study? Life too busy? ... Well, I have to ask a few questions to such statements. Why are we here in this world if it's not to follow God? If not to learn about Him? If not to study His Word? Did we just arrive here to make a family, get a job, and eat food till we die? If so, what then separates us from the animals? For, just like them, we eat grass then die!
Ecclesiastes 3:18-20
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
If something's important enough, we must find time to do it. Not only so, but praying about this situation (i.e. praying about finding the time to read and study) can surely open shut doors; for, it's sincerely God's desire for us to learn more and more about Him. Education, my friends, is the only thing that will make us truly free (St. John 8:32) – even if we are in bondage to a working system, or even to a Church system. Certainly, we can find time to simply read our Bibles for half an hour a day if we've got time to do any other worldly activity, such as watching Television, playing games, etc ... Now, having said such harsh things, allow me to point out some wonderful study tools for the English readers, which allows us to side-step a lengthy language study, and save us some time:
*The New Strong's Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, by James Strong, Thomas Nelson Publishers 1996, containing English, Hebrew, and Greek Dictionaries ... At the time of me writing this sentence (today is March 30th, 2019) I found about half a dozen copies online, at abebooks.com, for under $5! – which price includes shipping.
*The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, One Volume Edition, by Jay P. Green, which lists the original Hebrew and Greek words with the Strong's Dictionary numbers above each one for cross-referencing. Also, on the left hand side of each page, you'll find Jay P. Green's literal, modern translation. Again, he uses the same Hebrew and Greek source texts (the Masoretic OT and the Received Text NT) which the panel of the King James Bible used, and of which William Tyndale and Martin Luther used ... At the time of this writing I found copies ranging from $30 to $40 at both christianbook.com and amazon.com.
*e-Sword: the Sword of the Lord with an electronic edge, (The Ultimate Computer Bible Study Tool!) by Rick Meyers, Free PC study tools (free to download and free to use!). Download many Bible versions (including J.P. Green's Literal Version!), Dictionaries, and Commentaries, along with old, historical documentations. The Dictionaries include Strong's Greek and Hebrew – along with Strong's famous numbering system; and, also, Webster's Dictionary. This can be downloaded onto your PC, Mac, iPad and iPhone. But, if you have an android phone, like myself, there's a similar one to this that I use called 'MySword' – which is also free at the Google Play Store ... But, on my PC, I certainly use e-Sword. I cannot tell you how valuable this tool is for my own personal studies; and, I use e-Sword all the time on my PC ... And, if you've got a couple of extra bucks, maybe you can help support Mr. Rick Myers for his awesome contribution to our study life by forwarding a donation. Not only so, but also to the Green family, by buying from their personal website the Interlinear Bible, or other of their helpful tools ... And, no, I'm not in cahoots with either one of them, but am just a fellow-Minister who knows that a lot of spare time is contributed into helping others.
With such tools as these at your side (and, there's more to get, but I simply named off the one's that are the quickest to use, and the cheapest to obtain), then nothing can stop you from getting as deep as you can into God's Word – actually deciphering the original languages to as close to an understanding as we can possibly get ... Furthermore, I want to say (even if it seems apologetic for what I've just stated (but, it's actually not, because I stick with my guns on this issue!) that if one finds themselves studying an English Bible only, with no help from studying the original languages (or, any Bible study help tools, at all), that it certainly doesn't mean that those people are doomed! As it's stated in both St. John 10:4-5 and Matthew 24:24, God's true children will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, and will not follow the voice of a stranger. Just as long as we are attempting to read God's Word is what truly counts ... As one who was raised on the King James Version Bible, I had left it entirely at one time (for reasons that I had briefly explained in my book "In the Beginning" – for, I was battling God over proper Bible Versions at one time, thinking that there couldn't be a good Bible since man's hands had composed it to begin with, and had corrupted any possible good translations – to which, by the way, God had proved me wrong about!), but I had eventually found my way back to it. For, even though I've stated earlier that I'm not a KJV only person (which, I'm not), I now actually prefer it as my #1 choice of translations for many, various reasons – of which, again, I hope to explore in my upcoming book on Bible Translations, in "The Bible is not a Buffet." But, in all actuality, I can truly hear the voice of the Good Shepherd within its pages. The simplicity of its construction, and the beauty of its passages can truly find no equal in English as that most famous version expresses. Therefore, if one wants to simply find a single Bible to read from, to study from, and from which God can give abundant truth from, then look no further than the King James Version. I believe it to be the most perfect possible translation on the market for the English reader. Forget all concerns, though, about its archaic, old-fashioned wording and expressions, and just simply learn how to swim through it. The rewards are beyond measure. It's a true, Godly blessing to the English speaking peoples. But, on the other side of that coin, if one cannot wade through the turbulent waters of Old English, then our best choice for a modern translation goes out to J.P. Green Sr. And, on that note, if you are not wanting to sift through all the Hebrew and Greek lettering in his huge single-volume Interlinear Bible – nor the easier to read (larger lettered) four volume set – then he has (well, his son and daughter now) a single volume traditionally leather bound Bible with only the literal translation inside, over at their website: sgpbooks.com (Sovereign Grace Publishers).

www.SeekingTheGospel.webs.com