Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

From Florida: `Do we have scriptural authority for `chain prayer?’. . . It is being practiced here at the college, and as it brings back memories of my days in the Baptist church, this is a matter of great importance to me.”

It is much better to hear of college students engaged in prayer than in a chain or succession of dirty jokes and immoral jesting. All agree with this, but it does not answer the question.

First, what is “chain prayer?” A chain prayer is a succession of petitions, supplications, intercessions, and thanksgivings delivered by two or more persons. It is a sequence of prayers uttered by various ones in order. This is my understanding of “chain prayer.”

Second, is it scriptural? It is scriptural for Christians to come together to pray (Acts 4:23-31). “Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him” (Acts 12:5). “He (Peter) came to the house of John. . . where many were gathered together praying” (Acts 12:12). In Philippi, Luke begins the record of the events that led to the conversion of the jailer with these words, “And it came to pass, as we went to prayer” (Acts 16:16). Later, in the prison, “Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God and the prisoners heard them” (Acts 16:25). At the conclusion of his farewell to the Ephesian elders, Paul “kneeled down, and prayed with them all” (Acts 20:36). “And they all (disciples at Tyre) brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore and prayed” (Acts 21:5).

One way for several to pray would be for certain ones to pray audibly in succession; hence, a chain prayer. That is one means. It is not the only manner to pray, nor would it always be the most appropriate, but it is one way that several could pray. Such a method would be generally authorized.

Abuse and Admonitions

A practice is not wrong simply because it can be abused; however, some chain prayer procedure is fraught with danger. Guilt by association is not totally fair, but chain prayer has had its glory in denominationalism, Pentecostalism, emotionalism, and in unscriptural escapades of all kinds. Our inquirer opened the door for such comment when he said, “It brings back memories of my days in the Baptist church.” No, a thing is not essentially wrong because Baptists do it, but some items bear close watching due to their popular association and acceptance by known spiritual outlaws. Chain prayers under certain circumstances are one such item, in my judgment.

In times of deep emotional distress, Christians have assembled to pray, and they have used what would be called “chain prayer” as they have poured out their pleading and bleeding hearts unto the Father of all mercies. So, in moments of strong emotions, prayer offered in succession may be a natural outpouring of kindred spirits. No criticism is given of fervent prayer addressed in chain form unto God, provided, of course, that all other factors connected to the situation are scriptural.

What are the dangers of chain prayers? One may develop the idea that such prayers are the most “intimate” and “thrilling” way to approach God and that those who “merely” pray privately “don’t know what they are missing.” It is easy to use the chain prayer format to be seen of men (Matt. 6:5, 6). The environment of some chain prayer services is not wholesome. Our querist, it is hoped, did not refer to the modern day chain prayer phenomenon; at least, he did not mention it. Our reference is to the habit of some chain prayer advocates who hold hands and stand in a circle with the lights dimmed or the room darkened. Such an atmosphere is used to produce a spiritual “high.” It allows the participants to take a religious “trip” into the mysterious world of “pious” sensualism. Under these circumstances, prayer is a substitute for pot (marijuana). Since the members of the group are Christians, they are not on drugs, but their chain prayer circle is merely a subtle replacement for the “trip” pot smokers take in a dimly lit, incense filled room. I do not charge that affairs like this are what our querist has in mind. I say that this is the practice of some and that similar acts can occur; it is a dangerous trend, I fear.

“But Brother Hafley, didn’t you say earlier that deeply stirred emotions often are connected with informal chain prayers?” Yes, but the emotions were the father of the prayers, while frequently the chain prayers are the father of induced and contrived emotions. Aroused, undefined “feel goodishness” leads to all manner of wild speculations and fanciful sensations. Thus, they are not at all parallel to what was earlier described.

Summary and Conclusion

Brethren may gather and pray in orderly succession. The modern chain prayer concept is filled with perils and pitfalls. The abuses of this means of prayer are not easily avoided. The dangers of chain prayer are real and warnings should be constantly urged. “Feelings” and “leadings” of one’s emotions and impulses should be generated and motivated by the word of God. Guide your heart and life by the Spirit of God as revealed in the Book of God, the Bible. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and learn not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thing own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil” (Prov. 3:5-7).

Beware of staged and planned piety that requires “a certain atmosphere.”

Truth Magazine, XX:11, p. 12-13
March 11, 1976

By John McCort

One of most glaring discrepancies in Mormon doctrine is their position on polygamy. Over the years their position on polygamy has changed like the colors on a chameleon. They try to give the impression that their position has never changed on this particular subject. History does not bear that fact out.

The original Mormon position was that polygamy was sinful. The Book of Mormon scathingly condemns polygamy in no uncertain terms,

“But the word of God burthens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax In Iniquity; they understand not the Scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord …. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it one wife; and concubines shall he have none; for I the Lord God delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me, thus saith the Lord of hosts” (Jacob 2:23, 24, 27, 28).

The original Doctrines and Covenants likewise rebuked the practice of polygamy,

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproach with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again” (Doctrines and Covenants, Section 101:4, 1835 edition.).

This section was included in every edition of the Utah Doctrines and Covenants until 1876. In 1876 Section, 101 was removed and Section 132, which allows polygamy under certain circumstances, was inserted.

“David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save In those things which they received not of me. David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan … And in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife ” (Doctrines and Covenants, 132:38-39, 1876).

The contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the 1876 Doctrines and Covenants is unmistakable. “Behold, David and Solomon truly had wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me ” (Jacob 2:24). Compare that with, “David also received many wives and concubines … and also Solomon … and in nothing did they sin ” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:28-29). How can the Mormons explain deleting Section 101 from the original Doctrines and Covenants, since the Doctrines and Covenants are supposed to be inspired? How can they reconcile what the Book of Mormon says on polygamy and what the revised Doctrines and Covenants say?

The early leaders of the Mormon movement officially favored polygamy. Joseph Smith had approximately 44 wives, some of which were joined to him by “celestial marriage.” Brigharn Young, who succeeded Joseph Smith as President of the Latter Day Saints church, stated that if any denied the scripturality of polygamy they would be damned:

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise you that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny It In your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned” (Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses”, Vol. III, p. 266. Delivered July 14, 1855).

Orson Hyde, a later president of the Latter Day Saints church, stated,

“The revelation of the almighty from God to a man who holds the priesthood, and is enlightened by the Holy Ghost, whom God designs to make and ruler and a governor in his eternal kingdom, is, that he may have many wives, that when he goes yonder to another sphere he may still continue to perpetuate his species, and of the increase of his kingdom and government shall be no end . . .” (Orson Hyde, “Journal of Discourses”, Vol. 11, p. 85. Delivered October 6, 1854).

This same Orson Hyde declared that Jesus was a polygamist,

“We say it was Jesus Christ who was married (at Cann to the Marys and Martha) whereby he could see his seed before he was crucified.” (Apostle Orson Hyde, Sermon 3). “If all the facts were written, we, no doubt, would learn that these beloved women were his wives “(The Seer, p. 159).

Their position makes Christ not only a polygamist but a fornicator. The Book of Mormon, in no uncertain terms, states that polygamists are fornicators and whoremongers. The Mormon position forces them to take the position that Jesus was married. (The Bible never mentions Jesus’ being married.) They take the position that in order to enter into the “celestial kingdom” (the highest of the heavenly kingdoms), an individual must be married. They suddenly discovered that Jesus couldn’t go to the celestial kingdom because He wasn’t married. They had to invent this story about Jesus’ being married and having children to get him into the celestial kingdom. In the process they made him a fornicator.

The Mormon churches now teach that polygamy is sinful. Either they must repudiate Brigham Young as a prophet, or they must concede that they will be damned as Brigham Young stated. (My guess is that both alternatives are true.) They have been guilty of blatant dishonesty by telling people that their position has never changed. The polygamy issue certainly is a millstone around their neck.

Truth Magazine, XX:11, p. 11
March 11, 1976

By Mike Willis

Throughout the history of the American restoration movement, the term “disciple” has been a popular one both in the description of the individual members and of the congregation. Indeed, the most liberal segment of the groups historically related to the restoration movement has called themselves the Disciples of Christ. The usage of this term was not accidental; it was taken from a biblical source: “. . . and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). But, what are the particular characteristics which are supposed to manifest themselves in the life of a Christian who is referred to by the word “disciple”?

Definition of the Term

The Greek word from which “disciple” is translated is mathetes. Here are several definitions of it:

“Lit., a learner (from manthano, to learn, from a root math-, indicating thought accompanied by endeavor), in contrast todidaskolos, a teacher; hence it denotes one who follows one’s teaching . . . all who manifest that they are His disciples by abiding in his word . . .” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 1, p. 316).

“A learner, pupil, disciple: univ., opp. to didaskolos.. . . one who follows one’s teaching” (Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 386).

“Learner, pupil, disciple” (Arndt and Gingrich, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 486).

. . . The emphasis is not so much on the incompleteness or even deficiency of education as on the fact that the one thus designated is engaged in learning, that his education consists in the appropriation or adoption of specific knowledge or conduct, and that it proceeds deliberately and according to a set plan. There is no mathetes without a didaskolos . . .” Mittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 416).

“(1) … The word is found in the Bible only in the Gospels and Acts. But it is good Greek, In use from Herodotus down, and always means the pupil of someone, in contrast to the master or teacher…. In all cases it implies that the person not only accepts the views of the teacher, but that he is also in practice an adherent…. (2) …. The disciple of Christ today may be described in the words of Farrar, as `one who believes His doctrines, rests upon His sacrifice, imbibes His spirit, and imitates His example’ ” (International Standard Bihle Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 851).

There is nothing in the word to denote of whom the person is a disciple. The New Testament refers to disciples of John the Baptist (Mt. 9:14), the Pharisees (Mt. 22:16), Moses (Jn. 9:28), and Jesus (Mt. 12:1). Our interest lies only in the last of these. Sometimes the word “disciple” is applied to the Twelve; all apostles were disciples but not all disciples were apostles.

Emphases of the Term

The primary thrust of the word is this: Christians must be learners. The person who is a disciple acknowledges his ignorance and his need for a teacher. The disciple of Jesus recognizes “that a man’s way is not in himself; nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). Obviously, not all men are willing to acknowledge this need for revelational guidance. The acknowledgment that one is a disciple implies his desire and willingness to learn. A disciple does not possess a lackadaisical attitude toward Bible study. Therefore, to be a disciple also implies progress is being made in one’s knowledge.

Actually, no one can be a Christian without possessing these attributes. The Great Commission commanded the apostles to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them (i.e. those who have become disciples-MW) in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28:19). No one who lacks the characteristics of a disciple is a proper subject of baptism. The “making disciples” (from the verb cognate of mathetes) emphasizes that one is drawn to Christ through teaching; Christianity is a taught religion. Jesus said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, `And they shall all be taught of God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (Jn. 6:44-45). The teaching and learning process is to continue throughout one’s life as a Christian. The newborn Christian is to “long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2); all are expected to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18). The blessings of God abide on “he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it” (Rev. 1:3).

Anytime a Christian ceases to be a learner, he is in danger of falling from grace. God has never been pleased with a Christian’s quitting his study of God’s revelation. The author of Hebrews rebuked some with these words: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for some one to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). Paul warned that those who lost their love for the truth were inevitably headed toward apostasy. For this reason, Paul wrote Timothy saying, “Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture” (1 Tim. 4:13). The disciple is a learner.

Secondly, a disciple is a follower. The man who knows the Christian religion revealed through Jesus is not necessarily a disciple; he must be an adherent to it. Jesus left a perfect example with the expectation that we should try to follow it (1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Pet. 2:21-25). “Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If any one wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Mt. 16:24). The redeemed in heaven will be those “who follow the Lamb wherever He goes” (Rev. 14:4). The disciple of Christ will try to imitate the life of Christ in his daily living.

Thirdly, a disciple of Christ recognizes the authority of his teacher. ” `There are three senses in which men are sometimes called “disciples” of any other person: (1) Incorrectly, from their simply maintaining something that he maintains, without any profession or proof of its being derived from him. Thus Augustine was a predestinarian, and so was Mohammed, yet no one supposes that the one derived his belief from the other. It is very common, however, to say of another that he is an Arian, Athanasian, Socinian, etc. which tends to mislead, unless it is admitted, or can be proved, that he learned his opinions from this or that master. (2) When certain persons avow that they have adopted the views of another, not, however, on his authority, but from holding them to be agreeable to reason or to Scripture, as the Platonic, and most other philosophical sects-the Lutherans, Zuinglians (sic), etc. (3) When, like the disciple of Jesus, and, as it is said, of the Pythagoreans, and the adherents of certain churches, they profess to receive their system on the authority of their master or Church, to acquiesce in the “ipse-dixit,” or to receive all that the Church receives. These three senses should be carefully kept distinct’ ” (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. II, p. 815). The true disciple of Christ is the one described in number three. (The disciple must maintain loyalty to Jesus and not to the teachings of a religious institution.) He accepts as truth things which he cannot verify simply because his teacher Jesus said they were true. What possible manner do we have to verify whether there is one God or many, a good God or a bad God, etc. except through the revelation communicated through Christ?

Being a follower who recognizes the authority of his teacher, a disciple will submit to Christ’s will even if he disagrees with it. If I follow Christ’s teaching only where I am able to logically verify it and reject it at points which I do not like what it teaches, I am not a disciple. Abraham was a faithful follower of God because he submitted to God’s will to sacrifice Isaac even though his better judgment told him not to sacrifice him. Some are followers of Christ to a point; they follow him until He says something which they do not like (e.g. divorce and remarriage, dress codes, submission to the civil authorities, etc.). Such a person is not a disciple of Christ.

Conclusion

Jesus summed up these aspects of discipleship when He said, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:31-32). If you profess to be a disciple of Jesus, you need to be involved in some kind of regular, systematic study of His revelation, you must be an adherent to the principles revealed therein, and you must be an imitator of the One who revealed God’s word to us. If you are a Christian, you are a disciple; are you a disciple?

Truth Magazine, XX:11, p. 9-10
March 11, 1976

By Donald P Ames

Many times a Bible gains a great deal of publicity because of certain features. Some of this is good-and some bad. Sometimes a Bible may be a “big seller” and those buying it be totally unaware of some dangers which are inherent in it (i.e., many do not realize that the Scofield Bible, though a King James Version, is actually set up in the footnotes and cross-references to teach the false doctrine of Premillennialism by following them). This same problem is to be found in some modern translations. Whenever such be purchased, they need to be considered carefully. Some are good! Of these, I would highly commend the New International Bible (N.T.) and also the New American Standard Bible. On the other hand, despite the publicity, I cannot recommend others because of dangers associated with them. In this latter class I place the Today’s English Version (more popularly known as Good News For Modern Man) and The Living Bible-Paraphrased.

Because it is laid out exactly like a copy of the Bible, many do not realize that The Living Bible-Paraphrased is NOT a translation, nor are they aware where the author has inserted his own ideas in preference to those used in an actual translation. “To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the author used. It is a restatement of an author’s thoughts, using different words than he did” (Preface). Thus, Mr. Taylor, who authored The Living Bible-Paraphrased, acknowledges that “There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say…. For when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide” (Preface). This is one reason a translation made by a group of scholars with a mixed background is much safer than one by a single person. It is my contention that The Living Bible-Paraphrased contains many such translation errors-even when the original IS clear. This, we intend to reveal.

It might also be noted that Time Magazine, July 24, 1972, made the following comment: “Mysteriously, half way through the paraphrase, Taylor lost his voice, and still speaks only in a hoarse whisper. A Psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the word of God.” That such “tampering” existed is evident. We urge you to get your own Bibles and compare them with the following taught in The Living Bible-Paraphrased.

Inherited Sin

“But I was born a sinner, yes, from the moment my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5).

“These men are born sinners, lying from their earliest words” (Ps. 58:3).

Contrast this with the plain statements found in Ezek. 18:20 and 2 Cor. 5:10, which notes each individual answers only for his own actions, and not for something he “inherited.”

Total Depravity

“We started out bad, being born with evil natures, and were under God’s anger just like everyone else” (Eph. 2:3).

“Your old sin-loving nature was buried with him by baptism when he died. . . .” (Rom. 6:4).

“Then you won’t always be doing the wrong things your evil nature wants you to” (Gal. 5:16).

Again, compare these comments to what is revealed in Eccl. 12:7, Heb. 12:9 and Matt. 18:3. Are we ready to blame God as being the “Father” of sin?

Faith Only

“For Abraham found favor with God by faith alone, before he was circumcised” (Rom. 4:12). That statement is also supported by that found in v. 9, that we need “only trust in Christ.”

“In baptism we show that we have been saved from death and doom” (1 Pet. 3:21-emphasis mine, DPA).

The footnote in John 3:5 on the word “water says: “Or, `Physical birth is not enough. You must also be born spiritually. . . . ” This alternative paraphrase interprets “born of water” as meaning the normal process observed during every human birth. . . .” Thus he seeks to eliminate water baptism as being involved, despite the plain parallels found in Eph. 5:26 and Titus 3:5.

“For now we are all children of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and we who have been baptized into union with Christ are enveloped by him” (Gal. 3:26-27-again, emphasis mine, DPA). Here Mr. Taylor uses the word “and” for the Greek word gar, which clearly means “because” and shows we have been made sons of God by baptism.

“For God loves the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16-emphasis mine, DPA). The original in this passage is “should not”, and thus implies he will go ahead and complete obedience.

“But to all who receive him, he gave the right to become children of God. All they needed to do was to trust him to save them” (John 1:12). The KJV and NASB read completely different in actual translation, noting nothing whatsoever about “all they needed to do was to trust him to save them.” Again, Mr. Taylor has allowed his theology to cloud his scholarship on this passage.

“For it is by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation” (Rom. 10:10-emphasis mine, DPA). The fact “confession is made unto salvation” shows it has not yet been achieved, hence cannot be “confirmed” yet.

No one denies the fact that we are saved “by faith” (Rom. 5:1), but no where does the Bible affirm it is by faith only, as Mr. Taylor believes and has altered the text to imply. James 2:24 is the only place this term appears and affirms just the opposite. Note also such passages as Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 22:16, Heb. 5:9, etc.

Holy Spirit

“For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts, and tells us that we really are God’s children” (Rom. 8:16). Here it is good to note that the correct meaning is not “to,” but “with” and thus is not affirming the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.

“I advise you to obey only the Holy Spirit’s instructions. He will tell you where to go and what to do” (Gal. 5:16).

Although he assigns the correct purpose to baptism in Acts 2:38 “for the forgiveness of your sins”-which contradicts his paraphrases under the previous headings), he then goes on to say, “Then you also shall receive this gift, the Holy Spirit.” Whether the Holy Spirit itself was the gift, or the gift of salvation made known by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, has long been debated by the Bible scholars (I personally believe the latter is correct), and must be determined contextually, which has been eliminated from consideration here by Mr. Taylor.

Premillennialism

“These are the ones coming out of the Great Tribulation” (Rev. 7:14). That the saints were, in this passage, undergoing a great tribulation is true; but Mr. Taylor’s use of caps clearly reveals his theological ideas.

“Who will some day judge the living and the dead when he appears to set up his kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:1-emphasis mine, DPA). Even the prophecy he quotes in Isa. 2:2-4 carries a materialistic ring to it. Yet, Dan. 2:44 claims the kingdom would be set up in the days of the Roman Empire (not another one like the original). Mark 9:1 says it was to be set up during the life time of the apostles, as we see fulfilled in Acts 1:8 and 2:1-4. Paul says we have it already (Col. 1:13, Heb. 12:28). When Christ returns, it will not be to “set up” his kingdom, but to “deliver up” (1 Cor. 15:24-25).

In Rev. 1:9, John is not “in” the kingdom, as correct translations affirm, but Mr. Taylor claims “we shall share his kingdom” (emphasis mine, DPA)—thus avoiding a conflict with his futuristic view.

In Rom. 11:26, where Paul says, “thus (in similar manner) shall all Israel be saved,” we find Mr. Taylor makes it a future, national salvation—“And then all Israel will be saved.”

Once Saved, Always Saved

In addition to the perversion of John 3:16, which we have already noted under the heading of “Faith Only,” which is changed to justify salvation by faith only as well as to fit the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer, note also the following from John 5:24-“I say emphatically that anyone who listens to my message and believes in God who sent me has eternal life, and will never be damned for his sins, but has already passed out of death into life.”

“Christ is useless to you if you are counting on clearing your debt to God by keeping those laws; you are lost from God’s grace” (Gal. 5:4). Mr. Taylor here follows the usual dodge of implying it is talking about one’s initial salvation-and not that they had already had God’s grace, from which they were “severed” and from which they had “fallen.” One cannot be “severed” from that which he has never had (cf. John 15:6).

Mr. Taylor’s efforts are further bolstered by his paraphrase of Gal. 5:2, “Listen to me, for this is serious: if you are counting on circumcision and keeping the Jewish laws to make you right with God, then Christ cannot save you.”

Other Liberties

In 2 Cor. 3:17, he implies there is no need to do the will of God (see the consequences of this doctrine in Matt. 7:21-23) as he says, “The Lord is the Spirit who gives them life, and where he is there is freedom (from trying to be saved by keeping the laws of God).”

In Matt. 16:18 he inserts “a stone” into the text; which only creates confusion and is not in the original at all-“You are Peter, a stone; and upon this rock I will build my church.” A good chance to clear up some of the misuse of v. 19 (as was correctly done in the New American Standard Bible) was passed over—“whatever doors you lock on earth shall be locked in heaven; and whatever doors you open on earth shall be open in heaven” (compare this with John 12:48 and John 16:13 to see who was actually dictating to whom).

Although the word “Christian” appears only three times in the original, Mr. Taylor had made very free use of it throughout the epistles of Paul, even catching himself in another contradiction of his doctrine of “once saved, always saved” in Gal. 6:1 by saying, “Dear brothers, if a Christian is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help him back onto the right path . . .” (See also 1 John 2:4-6).

In the Song of Solomon, he arbitrarily decided who is speaking in each case-a point many challenge for correctness.

The poetry of the Psalms has been completely removed in favor of a prose rendition. While this does not affect its validity, it certainly makes it much more awkward to those accustomed to the beauty and poetry of other versions.

In John 1:1, Mr. Taylor decides to completely ignore the original (which clearly reads “the Word”-see Acts 2:36), and paraphrases it, “Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God.”

In Acts 20:11 we find, “They all went back upstairs and ate the Lord’s Supper together.” However, the original here again differs, saying only that “he” ate, and refers to Paul pausing for a bit of nourishment while things settled back down, and not to the Lord’s Supper at all in this verse.

Although the word “bishop” is also correct when applied to a “pastor” or “elder,” as he did in 1 Tim. 3:1, he adds the following footnote; “presiding elder”-for which there is no justification. In Acts 14:23 and 1 Pet. 5:2 the scriptures plainly teach a plurality of elders over each local congregation, and all sharing equally. There was no such thing as a “presiding elder,” and these qualifications apply to all “elders,” and not to one “presiding elder.”

2 John 1 assigns the name of “Cyria” as the one being addressed-and again with no justification whatsoever, We do not know exactly who it was who was addressed in this passage.

Heb. 5:7 takes the liberty of inserting that the death of Christ was “premature,” implying the Jews got ahead of God’s schedule, in spite of the fact it was in full accord with the will of God (Luke 22:42). Note: ‘Yet while Christ was here on earth he pleaded with God, praying with tears and agony of soul to the only one who would save him from (premature) death.”

In 1 Cot. 13:10, Mr. Taylor does away with the Bible teaching that when the completed divine revelation was revealed (Jas. 1:25), the partial (miraculous gifts) would cease, and becomes, “But when we have been made perfect and complete, then the need for these inadequate special gifts will come to an end, and they will disappear.” There is no justification whatsoever for changing “that which” here to “we”.

Rom. 16:16 changes both “the churches of Christ” and “holy kiss” and reads, “Shake hands warmly with each other. All the churches here send you their greetings.” But, no wonder, since Mr. Taylor does not believe one must wear the name of Christ (Acts 4:12) and identify whose church it is in Biblical terminology.

Consistency

No effort at all has been made for consistency. “Casting lots” Js so translated in Lev. 16:7 and 1 Sam. 14:42, but becomes “draw straws” in Jonah 1:7 and Acts 1:26; and changes to “throw dice” in Esther 3:7; and to “toss a coin” in Prov. 16:33 and 18:18.

All of Paul’s epistles are headed in The Living Bible-Paraphrased by such headings as “Dear friends in Rome,” etc.-though not in the original-and all close with the closing, “Sincerely, Paul.” I should say all except 2 Cot., 2 Tim. and Philemon, where Paul for some reason was not so “sincere,” but rather just signed them, “Paul.” Phil. 4:21-23 has been assigned as a “P.S.” footnote as well.

The term “holy kiss” is retained when it was received by Jesus from Judas and the sinful woman, but becomes “shake hands warmly” in Rom. 16:16 and also a “loving handshake” in 1 Cot. 16:20.

In Poor Taste

Many other expression manifest a very poor sense of taste and a lack of proper forethought.

“It was at this time that beings from the spirit world looked upon the beautiful earth women and took any they desired to be their wives. . . . In those days, and even afterwards, when the evil beings from the spirit world were sexually involved with human women, their children became giants, of whom so many legends are told” (Gen. 6:2,4). This almost sounds like something from the Exorcist, rather than the word of God. Here the term “sons of God” is rendered as “being from the spirit world” and “evil beings from the spirit world.” However elsewhere it is used regularly and consistently of those human beings who were walking according to the laws of God, thus here to the descendants of Seth-and not to “evil spirits” at all! In light of the statement in Mark 12:25 and the context, there can be no justification whatsoever for such liberties.

Many other such expressions exist as evidence of very poor taste and judgment.

“You illegitimate bastard” appears in John 9:34; while the term, “You son of a bitch” is found in 1 Sam. 20:30. Would you parents like to recommend a volume containing the above to your kids and have them begin using such expressions? They will find them in The Living Bible-Paraphrased!

In Acts 4:36, “Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, the Son of consolation)” is rendered by Mr. Taylor as “Joseph (the one the apostles nicknamed `Barny the Preacher’. . . )”.

Acts 23:3 finds Paul’s statement of “Thou whited wall” becoming “you whitewashed pigpen.”

2 Cor. 12:16 refers to Paul as a “sneaky fellow” who “didn’t seem to cost us anything” (emphasis mine, DPA).

2 Cor. 8:11 introduces a term unrelated to the Bible in origin-“Having started the ball rolling.” Other terms unrelated to the Bible in origin found in The Living Bible–Paraphrased include: “Wine, women and song have robbed my people of their brains” (Hosea 4:11). “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch” (1 Kings 20:11); “a stubborn lout” (1 Sam. 25:17); “You keep putting your foot in your mouth” (Prov. 10:19); and “When the horse is stolen, it is too late to lock the barn” (Eccl. 10:11-totally different from the original).

Paul is not nearly so concerned with pleasing God as contrasted with pleasing men in Gal. 1:10, but rather, “You can see that I am not trying to please you by sweet talk and flattery.”

The familiar passage in Psa. 8:4 becomes, “I cannot understand how you can bother with mere puny man, to pay any attention to him.”

Conclusion

This paraphrase is dangerous, not only because of the many liberties taken by Mr. Taylor in making it, but because it is laid out like a Bible with nothing to call attention to where he took these liberties. Laid out thusly, many assume that it is a good and correct translation, and so use it, referring to it as a “Bible.” But, it is not a translation, and as we have demonstrated in this review, it is not even a good paraphrase! It has been dubbed by some as “A Handbook on Calvinism,” and certainly that would be a much more appropriate title for it. Because of the many liberties taken-often when the original was very plain-some glaring, and some more subtle; I cannot recommend, endorse or encourage usage of it.

I hope this review, if used properly with your own Bibles, will help you to become aware of the many errors of this paraphrase, and that being forewarned, you will also join in discouraging its deceptive teaching.

Truth Magazine, XX:11, p. 6-9
March 11, 1976