Kenyon Bowers

Today, many Christians lack a good understanding of the Trinity. They know of the "three in one" but past that, they seem to have little knowledge. And in an attempt to explain it, many times they accidentally teach heresies—even if that is not their intent. In this post, I want to explain what the Bible says about the Trinity, and why I believe the Bible teaches what is known as Classical Trinitarianism. Basic Explanation of the Trinity: As we begin, I want to just explain what the Trinity is. The Trinity is not a term found in the Bible. However, it's a term we use to explain the triune nature of God (which is found in the Bible). Simply put, God is one What and three Whos . In other words, God is one Being and three Persons . As the hymn writer put it: "Holy, holy, holy! merciful and mighty! / God in three Persons, blessed Trinity!"¹   There was a creed written in the 6th century, the Athanasian Creed. This creed gives a very good outline about th...

If Genesis is not literal, then most of the Bible cannot be literal. If Genesis is just a myth, then most of the Bible cannot be true. In this post, I want to look at something interesting. We will be looking at the Bible as if Genesis was merely a myth or legend. We'll see the necessary repercussions of such a stance, and, Lord willing, prove how Genesis is foundational to the Christian faith.   If Genesis is a myth, God inspired a lie that propagated itself as literal history. Unless one wants to deny the inspiration of Genesis altogether, they must believe that God inspired a fake story—not only that, but also that this story was propagated as a real, historical account.   If Genesis is a myth, most of the Bible—by extension—must be mythical as well. For example, if Genesis isn't literal, Adam never truly existed.   " Adam , Sheth, Enosh," (1 Chronicles 1:1, emphasis mine)   Because Chronicles references Adam as a real man with a real lineage of desce...

Recently, I heard a very well-put-together and intriguing argument against the King James Bible. This argument had to do with the thees and thous. Typically, when a King James onlyist hears an argument regarding thees and thous, it comes from the standpoint that says, “The King James is too hard to understand; it is too outdated.” However, this attack I heard had nothing to do with readability, but instead with formality/familiarity.   In 16-17th century England, the word “thee” was used for people you were close to or were of a lower class than you. Similarly, “you” was used for those whom you were not close with or someone of a higher status. Around this time, and much like today, “you” could be either singular or plural.   This argument was about the King James Bible and its use of thee and thou as second-person pronouns. The argument hinged on this idea: If the KJV uses words with a sense of formality/familiarity, then they would be adding to the Bible by adding “formality...

Often, opponents of the King James Only position will point to the KJV reading “heaven” found in Genesis 1:1. They say, “This is an error on the part of the translators.” However, I want to contest this assertion and, Lord willing, prove the KJV reading is correct.   The argument states: “The Hebrew word behind 'heaven' is plural, but the KJV translates it as singular, making it incorrect.” This claim shows a misunderstanding of the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word translated as "heaven" is שָׁמַיִם (shamayim), a masculine plural noun meaning "heavens." At first glance, the King James Bible appears to be wrong. However, this overlooks the fact that plural words in Hebrew are often translated as singular in English.   For example, the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) is also plural, yet it is translated many times throughout the Old Testament (and even in Genesis 1:1) as singular. Context determines how it is to be understood and translated. Another example woul...