Will we remember our earthly lives when we are in heaven?

Isaiah 65:17 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Some interpret Isaiah 65:17 as saying that we will have no memory of our earthly lives in heaven. However, one verse earlier in Isaiah 65:16, the Bible says, “For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes.” It is likely only our “past troubles” will be forgotten, not all of our memories. Our memories will eventually be cleansed, redeemed, healed, and restored, not erased. There is no reason why we could not possess many memories from our earthly lives. The memories that will be cleansed are the ones that involve sin, pain, and sadness. Revelation 21:4 declares, “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

The fact that the former things will not come to mind does not mean that our memories will be wiped clean. The prophecy could be suggesting the wondrous quality of our new environment. The new earth will be so spectacular, so mind-blowing, that everyone will quite forget the drudgery and sin of the current earth. A child who is scared of the shadows in his room at night completely forgets his nocturnal fear the next day on the playground. It’s not that the memories have been wiped out, only that, in the sunshine, they don’t come to mind.

Also, it’s important to make a distinction between the eternal state and the current heaven. When a believer dies, he or she goes to heaven, but that is not our final destination. The Bible speaks of “a new heaven and a new earth” as our eternal, permanent home. Both passages quoted above (Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1) refer to the eternal state, not the current heaven. The promise of wiping away every tear does not come until after the tribulation, after the final judgment, and after the re-creation of the universe.

In his apocalyptic vision, John sees sorrow in heaven: “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’” (Revelation 6:9–10). John is obviously in heaven (Revelation 4:1–2), and he sees and hears those who obviously remember the injustice done to them. Their loud calls for vengeance indicate that, in the current heaven, we will remember our lives on earth, including the bad things. The current heaven of Revelation 6 is temporary, though, giving way to the eternal state in Revelation 21.

The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31) is further proof that the dead remember their earthly lives. The rich man in hell asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn the rich man’s brothers of the fate awaiting the unrighteous (verses 27–28). The rich man obviously remembers his relatives. He also remembers his own life of self-serving and sinful comfort (verse 25). The memories of the rich man in hell become part of his misery. The story does not mention whether or not Lazarus has memories, but Abraham has definite knowledge of goings-on on earth (verse 25). It’s not until we reach the eternal state that the righteous will leave all sorrow behind.

Does a cashless society have anything to do with the end-times?

It is often postulated that, in order for the Antichrist or the beast to control all buying and selling (Revelation 13:17), a cashless society will be necessary during the tribulation. As long as people are using cash, transactions can be completed in private, but, if all currency becomes electronic, then every transaction can be monitored.

Be that as it may, a cashless society is not necessary to fulfill the conditions of Revelation 13:17, nor does moving toward a cashless society indicate that “the end is near” for the following reasons:

1. The “end times” started with the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. We have been in the “end times” for the last 2,000 years. Paul describes the Corinthian believers as those “on whom the culmination of the ages has come” (1 Corinthians 10:11). He warns Timothy of conditions in the last days as though Timothy will encounter them (2 Timothy 3:1–5). In Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, he identifies the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon believers as a sign of the last days (Acts 2:17). James 5:3 warns the rich that they are hoarding wealth in the last days, when they should be helping the poor. We are currently living in the end times, cash or no cash.

2. The conditions described in Revelation 13:17 existed in the first century, without a cashless society. In Asia Minor (the area of the seven churches to whom the book is addressed), if a tradesman wanted to practice his craft, he would have to be a member of a trade guild. Each guild had a patron deity, and, in order to be a member of the guild, the tradesman would have to participate in worship of the deity. If a Christian tradesman refused to worship the deity and join the guild, he was prohibited from practicing his trade and thus unable to earn a living, effectively preventing him from buying and selling. This is the background of Revelation 13:17. In modern communist countries, Christians have sometimes been blackballed. The authorities make it clear that no one is allowed to buy or sell to Christians, nor is anyone allowed to help them with donations. If Christian parents are incarcerated, no one is allowed to help their children. Other groups have been persecuted in this way, too; a cashless society is not needed to keep certain people from doing business.

3. Even in a cashless society, there will always be ways around the system. Barter of goods and services and the black market will always exist. Revelation 13:17 does not require that the beast maintain absolute control over every single transaction, only that the official policy forbids these transactions, making them illegal and punishable and therefore more difficult.

In the final analysis, a cashless society may make it easier for a totalitarian government to control its citizens. This is a fact of human existence and not necessarily linked to the “end times.” A cashless society is not an indicator that the Lord’s return is imminent, because believers of all ages have been warned and encouraged that the Lord may return at any time. This was true when no one had even imagined electronic transactions. The most that can be said is that every day that passes brings us one day closer to the Lord’s return.

IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT GOD ANSWERS PRAYER?

Countless stories could be cited of diseases cured, exams passed, repentance and forgiveness granted, relationships restored, hungry children fed, bills paid and lives and souls saved through the efficacy of prayer. So, yes, there is plenty of evidence that God answers prayer. Most of the evidence is anecdotal and personal, however, and that bothers many who think of “evidence” only as that which is observable, measureable, and reproducible.

Scripture clearly teaches that prayers are answered. James 5:16 states that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Jesus taught His disciples that “if you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). First John 3:22 echoes this truth, saying that we “receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.”

Scripture, moreover, is replete with stories of answered prayer. Elijah’s prayer for fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:12), Hezekiah’s prayer for deliverance (2 Kings 19:19), and the apostles’ prayer for boldness (Acts 4:29) are just three examples. Since these accounts were written by eyewitnesses to the events, they constitute clear evidence of answered prayer. One might, of course, counter that Scripture does not present observable evidence in the “scientific” sense. However, no statement of Scripture has ever been conclusively disproved, so there is no reason to doubt its testimony. In fact, labeling some kinds of evidence as “scientific” and other kinds as “non-scientific” is a fuzzy and artificial distinction at best. Such a distinction can only be made a priori, i.e., prior to the evaluation of the data. In other words, the choice to evaluate the efficacy of prayer only in light of observable evidence is not a choice motivated by the data but by prior philosophical commitments. When this arbitrary restriction is relaxed, the biblical data speaks clearly for itself.

Occasionally, a group of researchers will conduct a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer. Their findings are usually that prayer has no effect (or possibly even a negative effect) on, for instance, the average recovery time of people in medical care. How are we to understand the results of studies such as these? Are there any biblical reasons for unanswered prayer?

Psalm 66:18 says, “If I regard wickedness in my heart, the Lord will not hear” (NASB). Likewise, 1 John 5:15 qualifies our receiving “anything we ask” with our obedience to God’s commands. James notes that “when you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives” (4:3). So, a couple reasons for unanswered prayer are unconfessed sin and wrong motivations.

Another reason for unanswered prayer is lack of faith: “When you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord” (James 1:6-7). Hebrews 11:6 also identifies faith as a necessary condition for a relationship with God, something always mediated by prayer in the name of Christ: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Faith, then, is necessary for answered prayer.

Finally, some critics of Christianity make the case that, since Jesus instructs His disciples to “ask whatever you wish,” all prayers should be answered. However, such criticisms completely ignore the conditions to the promise in the first part of the verse: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you.” This is clearly a prescription for praying within the will of God; in other words, genuine prayer which God always answers is, in fact, that sort which requests, explicitly or implicitly, that God’s will be accomplished. The will of the petitioner is secondary. Jesus Himself prayed this way in Gethsemane (Luke 22:42). The humble prayer of faith allows that the prayer may be answered with a “no”; anyone not offering such a prayer—anyone who demands to be answered—has no right to expect an answer.

Another reason why so many studies report the inefficacy of prayer is that it is impossible to eliminate the variables associated with the spiritual condition of those praying (is the petitioner even a believer?), the motivation for which they offer the prayer (is it to provide evidence or because the Holy Spirit has moved them to pray?), the way in which they offer their prayer (are they praying a formulaic expression or intentionally bringing requests to God?), and so on.

Even if all such lurking variables could be eliminated, one overarching problem would remain: if prayer could be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. We cannot “discover” God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.

Does God answer prayer? Ask any believer, and you will know the answer. Every changed life of every believer is proof positive that God answers prayer.

DOES GOD REQUIRE CHRISTIANS TO KEEP THE SABBATH?

 In Colossians 2:16-17, the apostle Paul declares, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Similarly, Romans 14:5 states, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” These Scriptures make it clear that, for the Christian, Sabbath-keeping is a matter of spiritual freedom, not a command from God. Sabbath-keeping is an issue on which God’s Word instructs us not to judge each other. Sabbath-keeping is a matter about which each Christian needs to be fully convinced in his/her own mind.

In the early chapters of the book of Acts, the first Christians were predominantly Jews. When Gentiles began to receive the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, the Jewish Christians had a dilemma. What aspects of the Mosaic Law and Jewish tradition should Gentile Christians be instructed to obey? The apostles met and discussed the issue in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). The decision was, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20). Sabbath-keeping was not one of the commands the apostles felt was necessary to force on Gentile believers. It is inconceivable that the apostles would neglect to include Sabbath-keeping if it was God’s command for Christians to observe the Sabbath day.

A common error in the Sabbath-keeping debate is the concept that the Sabbath was the day of worship. Groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists hold that God requires the church service to be held on Saturday, the Sabbath day. That is not what the Sabbath command was. The Sabbath command was to do no work on the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11). Yes, Jews in Old Testament, New Testament, and modern times use Saturday as the day of worship, but that is not the essence of the Sabbath command. In the book of Acts, whenever a meeting is said to be on the Sabbath, it is a meeting of Jews and/or Gentile converts to Judaism, not Christians.

When did the early Christians meet? Acts 2:46-47 gives us the answer, “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” If there was a day that Christians met regularly, it was the first day of the week (our Sunday), not the Sabbath day (our Saturday) (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). In honor of Christ’s resurrection on Sunday, the early Christians observed Sunday not as the “Christian Sabbath” but as a day to especially worship Jesus Christ.

Is there anything wrong with worshiping on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath? Absolutely not! We should worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday! Many churches today have both Saturday and Sunday services. There is freedom in Christ (Romans 8:21; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:1). Should a Christian practice Sabbath-keeping, that is, not working on Saturdays? If a Christian feels led to do so, absolutely, yes (Romans 14:5). However, those who choose to practice Sabbath-keeping should not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16). Further, those who do not keep the Sabbath should avoid being a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 8:9) to those who do keep the Sabbath. Galatians 5:13-15 sums up the whole issue: “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

Does the Bible say what is the proper age for marriage?

The Bible does not specify any particular age requirement for a person to be married; rather, it speaks in general terms of marriage being for those who are “grown up” (see Ruth 1:12–13). Both the language and culture of the Bible strongly support the idea that puberty, at bare minimum, is a condition that must be met before becoming someone’s spouse. This fits with the historical purpose of marriage, which has always been about conceiving and rearing children. Scriptural evidence indicates that those too young for childbearing are not candidates for marriage, though there is no explicit age given in the Bible.

It is reasonable to look at the practices of ancient Judaism for cultural considerations on the proper age for marriage. According to tradition, boys were not considered “men,” and therefore not marriageable, until the age of 13. Girls were not considered “women” until age 12. These ages more or less correspond to the onset of puberty. While those ages might seem too young to us, they are not unusual ages for getting married, historically. It has only been within the last century or so that the average age of getting married has drifted into the late twenties and early thirties.

It’s also important to recall that maturity—often used as a benchmark for allowing sexuality and marriage—is highly cultural. In modern Western countries, people are not generally expected to be self-sufficient until they are nearly in their twenties, or even later. For most of human history, however, people were expected to “grow up” much sooner. The age of getting married was normally young, as everyone was expected to mature socially and emotionally more quickly than today.

The Hebrew language also supports the idea that puberty is a requirement for a legitimate marriage. Ezekiel 16 contains a metaphor for God’s relationship to Israel. In this passage, God cares for Israel, pictured as an orphaned girl in various stages of development. The Lord first sees her birth, then watches her grow up: “You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown. . . . Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you” (verses 7–8). In this illustration, it’s only after the girl arrives at physical maturity, sometime after (not during) puberty when she is “old enough to love,” that she is ready for marriage. Other translations say the girl “grew tall and came of age” (NET) and “grew up, matured, and became a young woman” (GWT).

Hebrew, as English, uses different words for younger and older members of either sex. Naˈar refers to young men, while yeled refers to boys age 12 or younger. For females, naˈarah means “a marriageable woman,” while yaldah refers to a girl 11 or younger—too young for marriage. Once again, these words and definitions seem to enforce the idea that the onset of puberty is a requirement for marriage. Before that time, a boy or girl is not of an age to be married.

The New Testament has even less to say about the age of getting married. Still, there are clues in New Testament Greek similar to those in Hebrew. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:36 uses the word hyperakmos in reference to a female. In this case, it’s a young woman who’s engaged to be married. Hyperakmos is translated as “past her youth” (NASB), past “the flower of her age” (KJV), or “past marriageable age” (CSB). The word literally means “ripe,” a common euphemism in many cultures for describing a woman’s capability for bearing children. Paul’s inclusion of the word definitely indicates that the marriageable age was sometime after puberty, when a woman is fully grown. But Scripture nowhere sets a definitive marriageable age: physical maturity is a must, but when a girl reaches maturity can vary. The 12-year-old in Mark 5:41–42 is still a “little girl” and obviously not ready for marriage.

As with many other issues, the proper age for getting married has a cultural component that the Bible does not specifically override. What constitutes a proper marriage age can vary from culture to culture and still fall within the bounds of scripturally proper conduct. The bottom line is that pedophilia and child marriages are unacceptable. A person must be fully grown to be married; he or she must be physically mature enough for sexuality and child-bearing. Beyond that, the Bible does not specify a minimum age for marriage.

Is it wise for Christian teens to be dating?

To properly discuss teen dating, we need to clarify the term dating. To some today, the word dating has become synonymous with sleeping together. Defined that way, no Christian teen or anyone else of any age should be “dating,” since under no conditions is it ever right for unmarried persons to have sex with each other. For the purposes of this article, we will define dating as “meeting socially with someone of the opposite gender to spend time together and get to know him or her.” Dating can be casual or serious; it can lead to romance or to both individuals going their separate ways.

In considering the wisdom of Christian teens dating, we need to establish the purpose of dating. Dating is a fairly recent Western idea, evolving from the earlier practice of courtship. The purpose of courtship was to determine whether a boy and a girl liked each other enough to consider marriage. Courtship involved the whole family and always involved a chaperone. In a day when marriage occurred earlier, often in the late teen years, courtship worked well as a means of selecting a life partner.

In today’s culture, most teenagers are not mature enough to consider marriage. Secondary education opportunities, financial limitations, and extended adolescence actually work against the idea of early marriage; therefore, dating sets teenagers up for a tremendous amount of emotional, physical, and psychological stress before they are old enough to handle it. If marriage is not an option for many years, then why date? There is little possibility of a good outcome. If the romance is unrequited, teenagers must deal with broken hearts, rejection issues, and distractions at a time when they need to be focused on their education and growing up. If the romance is mutual, what are two teenagers to do? Two sixteen-year-olds “in love,” but who can’t marry for several more years, are in danger of crossing sexual boundaries and creating more heartaches and deeper problems.

When evaluating the wisdom of teenage dating, we should consider how many of society’s ills have links to teen dating and sexual experimentation: abortion, single parenthood, poverty, STD’s, suicide, low-income wage earners, AIDS, rape, and school drop-out rates. How many of those problems might be greatly reduced if teenagers delayed romantic involvement until they were out of secondary school?

When Christian teens are grounded in moral values and see dating as a way to learn about the opposite sex, the danger diminishes. Through dating, they can discover characteristics in others that they like and dislike, gathering information for the time when they will select a spouse. They keep their dating relationships causal and involve friends and family in their times together. They limit physical displays of affection and have clear boundaries on such activity. They have an open, honest relationship with their parents, and the parents know their teens can be trusted. When all those factors are in place, Christian teens may be able to navigate the dating years without collateral damage to their bodies and souls.

As Christian parents determine how wise it is for their teens to be dating, they should consider the culture in which their teens live: pornography exposure is at epidemic proportions, cultural boundaries are nearly obsolete, and peer pressure and expectations pull teenagers away from biblical values. Is it wise or reasonable to subject impressionable teenagers to the adult situations that one-on-one dating creates? We as adults find it difficult to maintain godly standards when emotions are involved, so why would we assume inexperienced and vulnerable children have the strength and wisdom to do so? Teens are children, after all, and they need to be protected from situations beyond their understanding and self-control.

As Christians, our goals are different from the world’s goals (1 Peter 2:11), and our life choices should be different. We cannot allow our decisions to be shaped by a world that mocks biblical values. Our children are precious gifts entrusted to us by their Creator (Psalm 127:3). God holds us responsible for how well we instill His truth, represent His heart, and protect our children from the enemy (Ephesians 6:4; Deuteronomy 6:6–7). Until our teens have internalized the lessons we’ve taught them and are making sound decisions on their own, we should be careful about letting them date one-on-one.

So is it wise for Christian teens to be dating? All things considered, the wisest course is to raise children with the understanding of the purpose of dating and with the conviction that delaying romance until marriage is an option will save them a mountain of heartaches. Succumbing to outside pressures, teenage petulance, or naiveté is no way to raise children. Wise Christian parents accept that, while their values may not always be appreciated, they are best for their children. Teenagers who gladly accept the counsel of their parents will bypass many of the pitfalls that ensnare their peers.

WHAT IS THE MOST ACCURATE BIBLE TRANSLATION?

Choosing the most accurate translation is difficult because it is somewhat like asking, “What is the best brand of truck?” It depends on what you plan to do with it and what criteria you are using to evaluate it. Each translation of the Bible follows certain translation principles that will affect the final work. Some translations try to be “literal,” aiming for an exact, word-for-word correspondence as much as possible. Others try to be “dynamic,” or “thought-for-thought,” providing the overall meaning of the text in modern language, not necessarily providing word-for-word correspondence. One translation might be better for study, and another might be better for public reading. Someone reading on a fifth-grade level might prefer a translation different from what a college student is reading.

Translation is not an exact science. There is often no perfect one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages. Additionally, every language has idioms and figures of speech—notoriously hard to translate—as well as historical and cultural factors that may affect the connotation of words in ways that cannot be translated.

An example in English will help illustrate. If you have a friend who is involved in a live theatre production, and you want to wish her well, you might say, “Break a leg,” an idiom that, in the theater world, replaces saying, “Good luck” (which is considered bad luck to say). If you translate the idiom literally, the readers may get the wrong impression if they do not understand the cultural hijinks behind the phrase. In this case, translating break a leg as “good luck” might be better. A third option might be to leave the expression intact but include an explanatory footnote about what is actually meant.

As our example shows, the most literal translation may not be the most accurate. The more a translation tries to express the original meaning in contemporary language, the more subjective interpretation is introduced. Further, readability can become an issue. A very accurate “literal” translation would be very unreadable. An Interlinear New Testament gives the Greek text on one line and, under it, the approximate English word for each Greek word. If you simply read the English words, you are left, in most cases, with a confusing jumble of words. It is very literal but practically meaningless. As the translation becomes more readable in English, it will become less literal.

Most translations are on a continuum between being “literal” (staying as close to the original words and literary structure as possible) and “dynamic” (communicating the meaning of the passage in a way that the modern reader will understand, even if extra words are introduced that are not in the original text). There are dozens of English translations to choose from. The best ones are done by teams of competent evangelical scholars and reviewed by others. No single individual has all the skills necessary today to produce a good translation. Below are some of the most prominent and best translations:

The King James Version is the most important book in the English language, having shaped the way English was spoken for hundreds of years. Many people grew up with the King James Version and still love the style and beauty of the translation. Someone once quipped, “The King James Version is as beautiful as Shakespeare and just as simple.” For some people, the Elizabethan English might be a challenge, but there is nothing wrong with accepting a challenge. The New King James Version is a more readable version of the King James, removing many of the archaic terms and modernizing the syntax. Both the KJV and the NKJV are “literal” translations.

The New American Standard Bible stays as close as possible to the literal reading of the original text, preserving the literary structure, while still being readable in English. The NASB was very popular with serious Bible students for 20–30 years, from the 1980s to the early 2000s. However, some felt that it was difficult to read, especially for more casual or beginning readers who were not interested in “studying” the Bible. The English Standard Version has since filled the place of the NASB as a “literal” but readable translation. It seems to have replaced the NASB for many who prefer a translation on the “literal” end of the continuum.

The New International Version is a “dynamic” translation. The translators’ concern was communicating the meaning in a way that is easily readable in English, even if it meant a departure from the original wording. The NIV has been very successful and is currently the most popular modern English version. The New Living Translation is by far the most “dynamic” of the most popular modern translations. When first released, the NLT sold very well, and for at time it looked as though it might overtake the NIV as the most popular dynamic translation. In recent years the NLT has faded while the NIV’s sales remain strong.

The New English Translation or NET Bible is an internet-based version, although it is also available in book form. The NET contains extensive notes on the translation. While other modern versions may undergo a major revision every decade or so, the NET Bible is continually updated and revised as needed.

For rapid reading of the text, a more dynamic translation such as the NLT or the NIV might be helpful. For more precise study, a more literal version such as the NASB, ESV, or NET would be preferable. When studying a passage, a good practice is to read it in several versions, both literal and dynamic. If there are places where the various translations seem to go in different directions, then more study is necessary to determine what issues of translation and interpretation are in play. Of course, consulting the original languages would be advantageous at that point, but for those who are not able to do so, the NET Bible and critical commentaries are a good option. Good commentaries will not simply tell the reader what the text means but explain the evidence for the various options and why the one chosen by the commentator is best. One should avoid interpretations or points of doctrine that are based on a single translation of a single word or phrase. One must also resist the tendency to “shop” for a translation that supports his preferred interpretation of a passage.

The Message by Eugene Peterson and The Living Bible by Kenneth Taylor are rather free renderings of the original text as the authors understood it. The MSG and the TLB are the works of individuals, not committees, so there is far more room for error and personal bias. They are closer to personal paraphrases than to translations. Anyone who is reading either one of these would do well to keep in mind that the words express what a single man understood the text to mean. We recommend choosing one of the other translations, above, for one’s primary Bible.

The New Revised Standard Version is the most popular version among non-evangelical Bible scholars. Evangelicals tend to stay away from this translation, as the translation team included many who were not committed to the authority of the biblical text. However, they were competent scholars in the biblical languages.

In the final analysis, the choice of the “most accurate” translation will be a subjective decision. For study, we recommend the NASB, ESV, and NET, and we also recommend comparison with the NIV or NLT. We also have no problem recommending the KJV or NKJV, but comparing it with other versions helps identify points of tension in need of further research. For variety, one might choose a different translation each year to read through, noting anything that sounds different or seems to give a different meaning to a text.

Every translation done in good faith by competent scholars can be considered accurate and authoritative. At the same time, human scholarship is imperfect; also, translations need to be updated over time as the English language changes.

Did God give Israel the Promised Land for all time (Deuteronomy 4:40)?

In Deuteronomy 4:40 the Lord gave the Israelites this command: “Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time.” Does this mean God gave Israel the Promised Land in perpetuity?

This passage contains a conditional offer. Israel would have the Promised Land as they kept God’s “decrees and commands.” The Israelites had to obey God’s statutes in order to remain in the land. History reveals that the Israelites often disobeyed, resulting in temporary times of exile from their land.

However, the end of this passage notes that God is giving Israel the Promised Land “for all time.” The Hebrew phrase translated “for all time” is a general statement, likely in reference to God’s original promise of a land to Abraham in Genesis 12.

There are both a conditional and unconditional aspect to God’s promise. God offered blessings within the Promised Land conditionally, related to the Israelites’ obedience. Yet God also made an unconditional vow that Israel would have the Promised Land “for all time.”

How long is “for all time”? In the book of Revelation, we see Israel as a central focus. In the end times, Israel faces many difficulties, yet that tribulation concludes with the Messiah reigning from His throne in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. The book concludes with a new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem. The promise of Deuteronomy 4:40 is a far-seeing promise, extending to the end of this world’s existence and even into the time of the new earth.

Many other passages of Scripture support the fact that Israel will possess the Promised Land forever. For example, God spoke to Isaac in Genesis 26:3, saying, “Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham.” The Lord also spoke to Jacob in Genesis 28:13–14 with similar words: “There above it stood the Lord, and he said: ‘I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring.’” See also Psalm 132:14; Isaiah 14;1; and Zechariah 2:3–5, 10–13.

Some have suggested that, because of God’s promises to Israel concerning the Promised Land, Christians should support the modern nation of Israel without reservation. Christians have many reasons to support the people of Israel, but this does not mean Christians must agree with every political decision made by the modern Israeli government. Instead, the focus is on God’s spiritual restoration of Israel (Romans 11:26) and the enduring promise to His chosen people.

Should Israel be building settlements in the occupied territories?

 In December 2016 the Security Council of the United Nations passed a resolution that condemns Israel for its building of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. However, the resolution was nothing but a formal statement of what most nations in the world already believed about the settlements. The United Nations has passed similar resolutions against Israel as far back as 1979. The difference is that these resolutions did not carry the authority of the Security Council. Prior to 2016, the United States had always vetoed any Security Council resolutions against Israel. Israel and its relationship to its neighbors and the West Bank (and Gaza) is a complicated issue. Here is a brief history:

Israel became a sovereign nation in 1948 when the United Nations officially recognized its existence. Immediately, Israel’s neighbors attacked the new nation, seeking to destroy it before it could be established. This conflict became known as the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, and Israel defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. After fighting ended, the nation of Israel stayed within the borders designated for it by the United Nations in 1948. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq attacked again, with additional help from other Arab nations. In what became known as the Six-Day War, Israel again defeated the attackers. After this conflict, however, Israel seized control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (from Jordan), the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza (from Egypt), and the Golan Heights (from Syria). Ever since, Israel’s occupation of those territories has been a matter of international debate. Israel gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in 1979 as part of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, but it still retains control of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights.

Israel has been building settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank since 1972, although the building of settlements has been greatly expanded in recent years. The Palestinians in the West Bank have protested loudly, claiming those lands belong to them. However, Israel was attacked by its neighboring countries at the behest of the Palestinians. There is a universally understood concept that, if you attack a nation and lose, there are consequences. The attacks on Israel in 1948 and 1967, the countless intifadas, the acts of terrorism, the kidnappings, etc., have all been unprovoked. Israel has never been the military aggressor against its neighbors. When a nation seizes territory from the nations that attacked it, the action is normally seen as a justifiable way for that nation to solidify its defense. In any situation not involving Israel, there would be universal recognition of the nation’s right to control the seized territories.

For some reason, when the situation involves Israel, the international community has always been on the side of the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors. Why is this? Latent and overt anti-Semitism? The tremendous influence of the Arab nations due to their control of the oil market? Compassion for the Palestinians? It is likely a combination of those and other factors. But none of those factors change the history. Israel suffered an unprovoked attack and occupied those territories in order to better defend itself from future attacks.

Biblically speaking, Israel has every right to possess, occupy, and build homes in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and far more. All of those territories are well within the borders of the land that God promised to the nation of Israel. Israel currently possesses a fraction of the land the Word of God declares belongs to it (see Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4). Unless the Palestinians are descendants of the tribes of Israel (which is possible), they have absolutely no biblical claim to live on those lands. Whatever the case, they have no biblical basis for preventing the nation of Israel from occupying and building homes in those territories.

Myself and the answerscroll.blogspot.com is decidedly and unashamedly pro-Israel. I do not claim Israel is entirely guiltless in the conflict with the Palestinians. However, whatever crimes Israel has committed are outweighed by the terrorism, crimes, and military attacks perpetuated against it by the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. The failure or refusal of the United Nations to recognize this is amazing and distressing. There is no adequate explanation for the sheer blindness of the United Nations toward the reality of the Israel-Palestinian conflict other than satanic deception.

What is the difference between Israel and Palestine?

The region where Israel is currently located was referred to as “Palestine” at least as early as the 5th century BC. Writings from such men as Aristotle, Herodotus, and Plutarch all refer to the land in this area as “Palestine.” This term is believed to come from Masoretic Hebrew biblical texts. Some scholars think that the word Palestine means “land of the Philistines”—the region definitely included the place where the Philistines lived in Canaan—but there is no consensus on that meaning.

The main difference between Israel and Palestine is that Israel is a nation, and Palestine is a geographical region. Palestine has not been, nor is it currently, a nation. The nation of Israel should be distinguished from the land region of Palestine. Before the kingdom of Israel existed, the region was called “Canaan.” The region delineated as “Canaan” or, later, “Palestine” is not necessarily the same as the boundaries for Israel described in the Bible.

After the exodus, God brought the descendants of Israel/Jacob into the land He had promised to Abraham (Genesis 15:17–21; Joshua 1:1–9). Based upon the dimensions of the land found in the Abrahamic Covenant, Israel’s land promise remains yet to be fulfilled; even at the peak of the Davidic kingdom, the territory occupied by Israel did not match the promise. So we have good reason to think the land promise must be literally fulfilled in the future. The land that Abraham’s descendants will one day occupy may rightly be called “Israel” because it is their rightful inheritance.

The word Palestine only occurs one time in the Bible, and only in the King James Version, in Joel 3:4. (Palestina is found in Isaiah 14:29 and 31 in the KJV.) The Hebrew word Pelesheth means “the land of wanders” or “strangers.” That word is found in Exodus 15:14; Psalm 60:8; 83:7; 87:4; and 108:9. It is usually translated “Philistia” and typically refers to a region on the southern border of Syria to the south and west of Canaan.

The name of the region of Palestine has varied throughout history. Prior to AD 135, the Romans called the land “Judea and Galilee.” That changed when Emperor Hadrian brutally suppressed the Jewish Resistance movement and occupied Judea. The Romans began calling the land “Syria Palaestina” after two of Israel’s historic enemies (Syria and Philistia); Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on Israel’s temple mount, made Jerusalem a Roman colony, and renamed the city “Aelia Capitalina.” For centuries afterward, the land of Israel was called “Palestine,” following the lead of the Romans, and the term Palestine entered our lexicon—the name became so common that respected Bible commentators have used it (e.g., McGee, Pentecost, Chafer, and Ryrie), and some Bible translations use the term (see the section heading for Joshua 11 in the NASB). Prior to their national independence in 1948, Jewish groups adopted the “Palestine” label for themselves: the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was originally called the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, and the original name for the Jerusalem Post was the Palestine Post. Both of those entities were founded in the 1930s.

Today, the word Palestine is still used to designate a land region, but it has also taken on political connotations. Considering the context of the term is important, since Palestine is a label often used by propagandists who refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Maps published with the nation of Israel labelled as “Palestine” are blatant attacks on the legitimacy of Israel as a modern nation.