Exposing the Deception of the Word of Faith

★SHOW 1: Justin Peters interviews Costi Hinn (who is Benny Hinn’s Nephew) about his testimony on how he LEFT the: Word of Faith Prosperity Gospel– AND they talk about the “Sovereign Grace of God” in his life of how the Lord mercifully opened Costi Hinn’s eyes (and his wife’s eyes) to the True Gospel of Repentance & Faith in Jesus Christ.

Charismatic Movement: Defining Key Terms | Justin Peters & Costi Hinn – SO4J-TV | Show 2

★SHOW 3: Justin Peters & Costi Hinn (Benny Hinn’s Nephew who LEFT the Prosperity Gospel) examine the New Testament “Gift of Healing”, and expose the false “Healings” happening in the church today that claim to be a work of the Spirit. They discuss some of the misconceptions of Cessationism, especially as it relates to the miraculous “Gift of Healing”. Justin then explains the purpose of the gifts and the true work of the Spirit in regenerating us and conforming us into the Image of Christ.

★SHOW 4: Justin Peters & Costi Hinn (Benny Hinn’s Nephew who LEFT the Prosperity Gospel) speak on: How can God be both GOOD & SOVEREIGN with so much SUFFERING in the world? This is one of the-age-old-questions but one of which followers of Christ need not be afraid. In this installment of their series, Costi Hinn and Justin Peters discuss how we are to understand God’s Goodness and His Sovereignty (Rom 8:28) in light of: Suffering, Persecution, and Sickness (2 Cor 11:23-30, 2 Cor 6:4-10). Trials are not meant to be enjoyed, but we as Believers may count them as Joy as they serve to conform us into the Image of Christ. (James 1:2-4, 1 Peter 4:12-14, Romans 8:29)

★SHOW 5: Justin Peters & Costi Hinn (Benny Hinn’s Nephew who LEFT the Prosperity Gospel) on: Are the Word-Faith/New Apostolic Reformation movements in error on secondary issues or do they actually qualify as heretical? In this program Costi Hinn and Justin Peters demonstrate that these movements actually teach a very different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible. Christology is not a secondary issue. A different Jesus constitutes a different gospel. This program will show why you should be very concerned if you have a friend or family member in this movement. Souls are truly at stake.”

★SHOW 6: Justin Peters & Costi Hinn (Benny Hinn’s Nephew who LEFT the Prosperity Gospel) on: Problem Bible Verses— Scriptures that are often Twisted, Misinterpreted, and taken out of its proper Context. It is not that False Teachers never refer to the Bible– they do! The problem is that they Twist Scripture & take Bible Verses out of their proper Context and thereby distort their meaning. In this program Costi Hinn and Justin Peters discuss Bible Verses that are commonly misused by: Word of Faith / NAR [New Apostolic Reformation] preachers such as ISAIAH 53:4-5, “By His stripes we are healed,” and JOHN 14:11-12, “Greater works than these,” etc. that would SEEM to support that it is ALWAYS God’s Will to be healed AND that we as believers should regularly be performing incredible Miracles. Costi and Justin will show, HOWEVER, that these verses have been TWISTED to mean something they simply do NOT mean, and then they will discuss the TRUE meaning of these verses. When we know God’s Word rightly, we will know HIM rightly.

★SHOW 7: Justin Peters & Costi Hinn (Benny Hinn’s Nephew who LEFT the Prosperity Gospel) answer: What Tactics do Faith Healers use to manipulate people at Healing Crusades? How do Faith Healers use Music to manipulate people? Is anyone actually miraculously healed at a Benny Hinn crusade or is it Fake? Justin Peters & Costi Hinn discuss these Issues– as well as Costi Hinn also ANSWERS some of the CRITICISMS he has received since he LEFT the Prosperity Gospel and his Uncle Benny Hinn’s ministry.
★Justin and Costi also share that they BOTH wish they did NOT have to WARN about FALSE TEACHERS and would rather just talk about the GOSPEL, but as the Book of Jude rightly talks about in Jude 1:3-4 it is unfortunately “necessary to do so”. This last show in this series ends with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ as shared from Costi Hinn.

What Is the Regulative Principle?

Article: What Is the Regulative Principle? by Dr. Derek Thomas (original source here)

Put simply, the regulative principle of worship states that the corporate worship of God is to be founded upon specific directions of Scripture. On the surface, it is difficult to see why anyone who values the authority of Scripture would find such a principle objectionable. Is not the whole of life itself to be lived according to the rule of Scripture? This is a principle dear to the hearts of all who call themselves biblical Christians. To suggest otherwise is to open the door to antinomianism and license.

But things are rarely so simple. After all, the Bible does not tell me whether I may or may not listen with profit to a Mahler symphony, find stamp-collecting rewarding, or enjoy ferretbreeding as a useful occupation even though there are well-meaning but misguided Bible-believing Christians who assert with dogmatic confidence that any or all of these violate God’s will. Knowing God’s will in any circumstance is an important function of every Christian’s life, and fundamental to knowing it is a willingness to submit to Scripture as God’s authoritative Word for all ages and circumstances. But what exactly does biblical authority mean in such circumstances?

Well, Scripture lays down certain specific requirements: for example, we are to worship with God’s people on the Lord’s Day, and we should engage in useful work and earn our daily bread. In addition, covering every possible circumstance, Scripture lays down a general principle: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:1–2). Clearly, all of life is to be regulated by Scripture, whether by express commandment or prohibition or by general principle. There is therefore, in one sense, a regulative principle for all of life. In everything we do, and in some form or another, we are to be obedient to Scripture.

However, the Reformers (John Calvin especially) and the Westminster Divines (as representative of seventeenth-century puritanism) viewed the matter of corporate worship differently. In this instance, a general principle of obedience to Scripture is insufficient; there must be (and is) a specific prescription governing how God is to be worshiped corporately. In the public worship of God, specific requirements are made, and we are not free either to ignore them or to add to them. Typical by way of formulation are the words of Calvin: “God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his Word” (“The Necessity of Reforming the Church”); and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689: “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (22.1).

Where does the Bible teach this? In more places than is commonly imagined, including the constant stipulation of the book of Exodus with respect to the building of the tabernacle that everything be done “after the pattern … shown you” (Ex. 25:40); the judgment pronounced upon Cain’s offering, suggestive as it is that his offering (or his heart) was deficient according to God’s requirement (Gen. 4:3–8); the first and second commandments showing God’s particular care with regard to worship (Ex. 20:2–6); the incident of the golden calf, teaching as it does that worship cannot be offered merely in accord with our own values and tastes; the story of Nadab and Abihu and the offering of “strange fire” (Lev. 10); God’s rejection of Saul’s non-prescribed worship — God said, “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22); and Jesus’ rejection of Pharisaical worship according to the “tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:1–14). All of these indicate a rejection of worship offered according to values and directions other than those specified in Scripture.

Of particular significance are Paul’s responses to errant public worship at Colossae and Corinth. At one point, Paul characterizes the public worship in Colossae as ethelothreskia (Col. 2:23), variously translated as “will worship” (KJV) or “self-made religion” (ESV). The Colossians had introduced elements that were clearly unacceptable (even if they were claiming an angelic source for their actions — one possible interpretation of Col. 2:18, the “worship of angels”). Perhaps it is in the Corinthian use (abuse) of tongues and prophecy that we find the clearest indication of the apostle’s willingness to “regulate” corporate worship. He regulates both the number and order of the use of spiritual gifts in a way that does not apply to “all of life”: no tongue is to be employed without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27–28) and only two or three prophets may speak, in turn (vv. 29–32). At the very least, Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians underlines that corporate worship is to be regulated and in a manner that applies differently from that which is to be true for all of life.

The result? Particular elements of worship are highlighted: reading the Bible (1 Tim. 4:13); preaching the Bible (2 Tim. 4:2); singing the Bible (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) — the Psalms as well as Scripture songs that reflect the development of redemptive history in the birth-life-death-resurrection- ascension of Jesus; praying the Bible — the Father’s house is “a house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13); and seeing the Bible in the two sacraments of the church, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38–39; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; Col. 2:11–12). In addition, occasional elements such as oaths, vows, solemn fasts and thanksgivings have also been recognized and highlighted (see Westminster Confession of Faith 21:5).

It is important to realize that the regulative principle as applied to public worship frees the church from acts of impropriety and idiocy — we are not free, for example, to advertise that performing clowns will mime the Bible lesson at next week’s Sunday service. Yet it does not commit the church to a “cookie-cutter,” liturgical sameness. Within an adherence to the principle there is enormous room for variation—in matters that Scripture has not specifically addressed (adiaphora). Thus, the regulative principle as such may not be invoked to determine whether contemporary or traditional songs are employed, whether three verses or three chapters of Scripture are read, whether one long prayer or several short prayers are made, or whether a single cup or individual cups with real wine or grape juice are utilized at the Lord’s Supper. To all of these issues, the principle “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40) must be applied. However, if someone suggests dancing or drama is a valid aspect of public worship, the question must be asked — where is the biblical justification for it? (To suggest that a preacher moving about in the pulpit or employing “dramatic” voices is “drama” in the sense above is to trivialize the debate.) The fact that both may be (to employ the colloquialism) “neat” is debatable and beside the point; there’s no shred of biblical evidence, let alone mandate, for either. So it is superfluous to argue from the poetry of the Psalms or the example of David dancing before the ark (naked, to be sure) unless we are willing to abandon all the received rules of biblical interpretation. It is a salutary fact that no office of “choreographer” or “producer/director” existed in the temple. The fact that both dance and drama are valid Christian pursuits is also beside the point.

What is sometimes forgotten in these discussions is the important role of conscience. Without the regulative principle, we are at the mercy of “worship leaders” and bullying pastors who charge noncompliant worshipers with displeasing God unless they participate according to a certain pattern and manner. To the victims of such bullies, the sweetest sentences ever penned by men are, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also” (WCF 20:2). To obey when it is a matter of God’s express prescription is true liberty; anything else is bondage and legalism.

Why Every Christian Needs The Church

Article: 3 Reasons Why Every Christian Needs The Church by Nicolas Davis, lead pastor of Redemption Church (PCA) in San Diego, California. Nick has worked for White Horse Inn for several years, has contributed to Modern Reformation and other places, and is a writer for Core Christianity. (original source here)

When you become a disciple of Jesus, you are not the only disciple in this world. There are others whom Jesus has also called, and we all belong to one another. Christianity is not a religion for those who would like to walk alone.

We may need to make an individual decision to believe the gospel, but once we do, it is no longer “I who live but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 3:20). Christ has a visible body, and he calls it his “church.” Christians were never meant to live apart from other Christians—we were made to be part of the same community.

Here are several reasons why every Christian needs the local church.

1. Every Christian needs spiritual care.
It’s common for people to attend a church regularly without officially belonging to that particular church. What this sort of church attendance fails to understand is that all sheep need a shepherd. Jesus is, of course, our ultimate Shepherd, but he leads his sheep through under-shepherds who are specially called to care for his people.

The biblical warrant for the spiritual care of every Christian comes from the following passage:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Pet. 5:1–5; emphasis mine)

It’s clear from passages like this that God desires every Christian to be under the spiritual care and authority of flesh and blood elders (see also Heb. 13:7). Elders are those whom God has called to shepherd his people, and they are to give an account of their spiritual care to Jesus—the true Shepherd—on the last day.

Additionally, Paul charged Timothy and Titus to “entrust” the apostolic teaching to “elders in every town” where there is a church (Acts 14:23; 2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5). He expected each church to have people who were called and appointed to serve in every place that people gathered.

Who really wants to live life unprotected and alone, anyway? Unfortunately, this is what Christians are functionally doing when they forgo the ordinary care they would normally receive from a local church.

2. Every Christian needs accountability.
When I was in college, I had accountability partners with whom I could share my deepest struggles. As great as that fellowship was with other Christians, it only went so far. It wasn’t until the end of college that I experienced the benefits of belonging to not only an accountability buddy but also to a group of real men to whom I could look up and learn from in both doctrine and life experience.

When I had an accountability partner, I could only be held accountable to what I shared. Furthermore, if I did share something really “bad,” my friend could only tell me that it was wrong. He didn’t have any more authority than that. If we are members of a church, however, then the leaders of that local church will have the ability to hold me accountable to my profession of faith. If I am denying the gospel outwardly, I’m rebuked and corrected.

This is necessary for Christians, so that we don’t become hard-hearted or leave the faith altogether. In Matthew 18, Jesus describes the practice of church discipline. This may sound like a scary term, but it outlines the process a believer should take when another believer sins against him. If the sin cannot be resolved between the two Christians, then the last step is to “tell it to the church” (v. 17).

The only way Christians can faithfully obey Jesus in this life is if they are part of a broader body than their own Christian group: they need to actually belong to a Christian church.

3. Every Christian needs others.
When Jesus Christ died on the cross, he tore down the walls of hostility that existed between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:13–16). The body of Christ has many members—it is multigenerational and multiethnic. It has always been this way.

In Hebrews 11, Paul describes how Rahab, the non-Israelite prostitute, was engrafted into the people of God by faith. It is also always going to be this way in the new heavens and new earth:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands. (Rev. 7:9)
As sinful human beings, we tend to hang around people who are most like us. But God calls us to something much greater and grander than this when he knits us together as one body in the church. In this new community that God creates by his Word, we are forced to be around people whom we may not always like—but we are still called to love.

We are surrounded by older and younger Christians, people who are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck, those who are independently wealthy, and those who are racially or culturally very different from us. The gospel brings all of these differences together, and it shows forth the beauty of the entire creation that God is redeeming. God created variety, and he is redeeming variety.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:14–15, Paul wrote to encourage a mature church with these words: “And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.” We really do need one another, and we are always better off when we’re together.

The Miracle of Conversion

John 3:19-21: “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

In every true conversion, a lover of Darkness and a hater of the Light, is given a new heart and nature to want what he once hated. It is a breathtaking miracle of new creation performed by the power of God alone.

Choose Ye This Day

How do Reformed people defend God’s sovereignty over Joshua’s call to the Israelites to CHOOSE ye this day whom ye will serve?

John Hendryx answers: Similar to Deut. 29:4-30:16

“But to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear.” – Deut 29:4

“And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” Deut 30:6

“See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of “the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live…” – Deut. 30:15, 16

When you read these texts together God indeed requires obedience, but he also gives the grace necessary to obey. God Grant’s what he requires.

To Be Reformed Takes Courage

Article: The Courage to Be Reformed by Buck Parsons (original source here)

When we come to grasp Reformed theology, it’s not only our understanding of salvation that changes, but our understanding of everything. It’s for this reason that when people wrestle through the rudimentary doctrines of Reformed theology and come to comprehend them, they often feel like they have been converted a second time. In fact, as many have admitted to me, the reality is that some have been converted for the very first time. It was through their examination of Reformed theology that they came face-to-face with the stark reality of their radical corruption and deadness in sin, God’s unconditional election of His own and condemnation of others, Christ’s actual accomplishment of redemption for His people, the Holy Spirit’s effectual grace, the reason they persevere by God’s preserving grace, and God’s covenantal way of working in all of history for His glory. When people realize that ultimately, they didn’t choose God, but He chose them, they naturally come to a point of humble admission of the amazing grace of God toward them. It’s only then, when we recognize what wretches we really are, that we can truly sing “Amazing Grace.” And that is precisely what Reformed theology does: it transforms us from the inside out and leads us to sing—it leads us to worship our sovereign and triune, gracious, and loving God in all of life, not just on Sundays but every day and in all of life. Reformed theology isn’t just a badge we wear when being Reformed is popular and cool, it’s a theology that we live and breathe, confess, and defend even when it’s under attack.

The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, along with their fifteenth-century forerunners and their seventeenth-century descendants, did not teach and defend their doctrine because it was cool or popular, but because it was biblical, and they put their lives on the line for it. They were not only willing to die for the theology of Scripture, they were willing to live for it, to suffer for it, and to be considered fools for it. Make no mistake: the Reformers were bold and courageous not on account of their self-confidence and self-reliance but on account of the fact that they had been humbled by the gospel. They were courageous because they had been indwelled by the Holy Spirit and equipped to proclaim the light of truth in a dark age of lies. The truth they preached was not new; it was ancient. It was the doctrine of the martyrs, the fathers, the Apostles, and the patriarchs—it was the doctrine of God set forth in sacred Scripture.

The Reformers didn’t make up their theology; rather, their theology made them who they were. The theology of Scripture made them Reformers. For they did not set out to be Reformers, per se—they set out to be faithful to God and faithful to Scripture. Neither the solas of the Reformation nor the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism) were invented by the Reformers, nor were they by any means the sum total of Reformation doctrine. Rather, they became underlying doctrinal premises that served to help the church of subsequent eras confess and defend what she believes. Even today there are many who think they embrace Reformed theology, but their Reformed theology only runs as deep as the solas of the Reformation and the doctrines of grace. What’s more, there are many who say they adhere to Reformed theology but do so without anyone knowing they are Reformed. Such “closet Calvinists” neither confess any of the historic Reformed confessions of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries nor employ any distinctly Reformed theological language.

However, if we truly adhere to Reformed theology according to the historic Reformed confessions, we cannot help but be identified as Reformed. In truth, it’s impossible to remain a “closet Calvinist,” and it’s impossible to remain Reformed without anyone knowing it—it will inevitably come out. To be historically Reformed, one must adhere to a Reformed confession, and not only adhere to it but confess it, proclaim it, and defend it. Reformed theology is fundamentally a confessional theology.

Reformed theology is also an all-encompassing theology. It changes not only what we know, it changes how we know what we know. It not only changes our understanding of God, it changes our understanding of ourselves. Indeed, it not only changes our view of salvation, it changes how we worship, how we evangelize, how we raise our children, how we treat the church, how we pray, how we study Scripture—it changes how we live, move, and have our being. Reformed theology is not a theology that we can hide, and it is not a theology to which we can merely pay lip service. For that has been the habit of heretics and theological progressives throughout history. They claim to adhere to their Reformed confessions, but they never actually confess them. They claim to be Reformed only when they are on the defensive—when their progressive (albeit popular) theology is called into question, and, if they are pastors, only when their jobs are on the line.

While theological liberals might be in churches and denominations that identify as “Reformed,” they are ashamed of such an identity and have come to believe that being known as “Reformed” is a stumbling block to some and an offense to others. Moreover, according to the historic, ordinary marks of the church—the pure preaching of the Word of God, prayer according to the Word of God, the right use of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the consistent practice of church discipline—such “Reformed” churches are often not even true churches. Today, there are many laypeople and pastors who are in traditionally Reformed and Protestant churches and denominations who, along with their churches and denominations, left their Reformed moorings and rejected their confessions years ago.

Contrary to this trend, what we most need are men in the pulpit who have the courage to be Reformed—men who aren’t ashamed of the faith once delivered to the saints but who are ready to contend for it, not with lip service but with all their life and all their might. We need men in the pulpit who are bold and unwavering in their proclamation of the truth and who are at the same time gracious and compassionate. We need men who will preach the unvarnished truth of Reformed theology in season and out of season, not with a finger pointing in the face but with an arm around the shoulder. We need men who love the Reformed confessions precisely because they love the Lord our God and His unchanging, inspired, and authoritative Word. It’s only when we have men in the pulpit who have the courage to be Reformed that we will have people in the pew who grasp Reformed theology and its effects in all of life, so that we might love God more with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves. That is the theology that reformed the church in the sixteenth century, and that is the only theology that will bring reformation and revival in the twenty-first century. For in our day of radical progressive theological liberalism, the most radical thing we can be is orthodox according to our Reformed confessions, yet not with arrogance but with courage and compassion for the church and for the lost, all for the glory of God, and His glory alone.

What Makes a Translation Accurate?

Article by Bill Mounce (original source here)

I saw a chart the other day that mapped out how “accurate” different translations are. Unfortunately, based on the translations that were deemed “accurate,” you could see that the author had a defective view of what “accurate” means.

The old adage is that you measure what you value. If you value the replication of words, then the most formal equivalent translations will win.

I am only somewhat amused at the marketing of the Bible that champions what they call “optimal equivalence,” and surprise, surprise, they are the most optimally equivalent translation. The problem with their marketing is that I know the programmer who did the math, and his work is based on a reverse interlinear approach that sees the purpose of translation to be the replication of the words. You measure what you value.

But two things happened to me the last couple days that illustrate the real issue. This morning I was driving to the gym and saw a construction truck in front of me with the sign, “Construction Vehicle. Do Not Follow.” Now, if a German friend who didn’t speak English were riding with me and wanted to know what the sign was, how should I translate it?

The problem, of course, is that the sign does not say what it means. How can you not follow the truck in front of you? Once the truck is on the road, does the road have to be vacated until it leaves the road? Of course we understand that it means, “Do not follow closely.” So what would be an accurate translation? If you said, “Folge nicht,” would that be an accurate translation for your friend? Or would you have to say, “Folge nicht genau”?

It’s kind of like a stop sign. The last thing it means is stop. It means, stop, and when it is your turn go; otherwise, you would never leave the intersection.

The second thing that happened was that I was translating Philippians 2 with Martin (a friend) and we came to 2:13. “For it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work on behalf of his good pleasure (ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας).” What is an “accurate” translation of the verse? Every major translation says “his good pleasure,” even though the possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ does not occur. The KJV and NASB put “his” in italics, which is not technically accurate because we know that ὁ (τῆς) can function as a possessive pronoun, and the fact that it is unusual to have ὁ in a prepositional phrase clearly shows that ὁ is functioning as a possessive.

So what is more “accurate”?

“On behalf of the good pleasure”
“On behalf of his good pleasure”
“On behalf of his good pleasure”
#1 isn’t accurate since it doesn’t mean anything in context. What does “the” refer to?

#2 isn’t accurate since “his” is present in the Greek as τῆς.

#3 is accurate since is accurately conveys the meaning of ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας.

My point is this. If someone thinks that accuracy in translation means they replicate words, then the conclusion is foregone. If someone thinks that accuracy is a matter of meaning, then it leaves the question open for a positive debate on which translation is the most accurate.

Sun and Shadows

Text: John 3:17,18

“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”