Heaven and Paradise

In my Sunday School class we're doing a study on Heaven, a subject not often delved deeply into. It's definitely a good topic of study, and I would guess that many people do not know much about the place. However, I have noticed a few things in the class that just don't sit right with me. First, the teacher is using the Message as his main teaching text. That is not, in my opinion, a trustworthy, or even a valid, Bible translation. Several times during this study I have seen discrepancies between the verses the teacher projects on the screen, and the verses in my Bible. The second disturbing thing is that the teacher openly claims to not understand Revelations. This might be ok if he were teaching on another topic, but Heaven shows up a lot in Revelations, and we have been looking at many passages from this book. Thirdly, he has put forth the ideas that 1) Paradise may be the literal Garden of Eden; 2) Paradise and Heaven are different places; 3) There is a place called "Intermediate Heaven" where the saved are right now. Let's look at these three ideas a little more in-depth. The first idea will be discussed below, and the second and third in subsequent posts.

1) Paradise as the literal Garden of Eden. The teacher of the class tried to bring forth compelling argument to show that Paradise and the Garden of Eden are the same; that it was lifted from the earth. He based this idea on the Bible's lack of mention of said Garden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve; on the principle that things on Earth are a shadow of things in Heaven; that there is a Tree of Life in Heaven. We do see the Tree of Life mentioned 4 times in Revelations - 2:7, 22:2, 22:14, and 22:19. In 2:7 we read that it is in "the Paradise of God." Is there only 1 Tree of life? Revelations 22:2 mentions the Tree of life being on both sides of the river coming from the throne of God. From this passage it sounds like there are at least two of them. We also see that at least some things on Earth are a shadow of their Heavenly counterpart. The Temple comes to mind. In Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 8:5, 10:1, we read that the Law, the daily sacrifices, and the Temple are shadows of things to come. In Hebrews 9:11 we read of the "greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands," the tabernacle in Heaven. But where in the Bible do we read that the Garden of Eden was a shadow of anything? I haven't found that passage yet. While it is true that the Garden is not mentioned after the expulsion of Adam and Eve, we can pretty easily deduce its fate. In Genesis 6, 7, 8, we read of the flood in the time of Noah. Do not be deceived by liberal theologians and those who accept evolutionary ideas - this was a worldwide flood. The water covered the highest (at the time) peaks to a depth of at least 20 feet, and the water level stayed there for 150 days. Read Genesis 7:18 - 24, and you will find phrases such as, "all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered," and, "and the mountains were covered," and, "All flesh that moved on the earth perished," and, "and all mankind," and, "all that was on the dry land, all ^(S)in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died," and, "every living thing that was upon the face of the land." All means all, not some, not regionally, not locally, ALL! If the Garden of Eden was on Earth, it was destroyed in the flood along with everything else. Some have postulated that the Garden was in the area of Mesopotamia, mainly because of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates mentioned in Genesis 2:14. Remember that the whole surface of the Earth was destroyed. The rivers we call Tigris and Euphrates today are not the same rivers that were called by those names in Genesis 2.

Is Paradise the literal Garden of Eden? I do not believe so. Eden was destroyed in the flood during Noah's time. Eden is never called a shadow of a more perfect Heavenly garden. Indeed, the things that the Bible calls shadows of Heavenly counterparts are related to the Temple, sacrifices, and the Law. There appears to be more than one Tree of Life. I know that God is sovereign and omnipotent, and He has the power to lift Eden from the Earth, but to teach this is, I believe, conjecture and speculation, and I do not believe there is any Biblical evidence for such an idea.

-Mark-
-Christian Researcher-
-June 23, 2006-

One True Translation?

In my research, I have encountered some groups who claim that the 1611 King James Bible is the only valid Bible translation. I even read a statement on one website that said the 1611 King James is the "exact Words of God". My first reaction to such a statment is, "Does that mean that God speaks 1611 King James english? Wasn't the Bible written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?" Our God is above all language and nationality and time, and the Gospel message transcends all language and nationality and time. In my opinion, people who focus too much on language are focusing on the wrong thing.

Why do some people insist that the 1611 King James is the only valid Bible translation? Is it because it sounds more authoritative and formal? (What some people apparently foreget, or do not understand,is that in 1611, the KJV was written in the common language of the day.) Is it because it's old, and therefore not corrupt like all modern things? Is it because of tradition? Do some people assume that the older a translation is the more pure it is? If that is the case, why stop at 1611? Why not go back to the Geneva Bible of 1560? Why not go back to Tyndale's New Testament, or the Great Bible? The Geneva was the Bible of the reformers, and it was the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America. In fact, neither the Pilgrims, nor the reformers of the day would have liked the KJV: they would have considered it a corruption of the Geneva Bible, on which it is largely based.

If the 1611 King James is the only valid Bible translation, what does that mean for people who don't read or speak English? Does this mean that they cannot hear God's Word in their language? I am reminded of what a missinary to Russia said in my church, "People ask me what version of the Bible the Russians use. I tell them that they use the Russian version. Then these people ask me which one? The Russian version. There is no King James or NIV in Russian. There is THE Russian version." In other words, there was only one Russian version of the Bible when this missionary spoke in our church. We Enlgish speakers are blessed to have many different versions of the Bible. Many other languages do not have this choice available to them. This blessing also brings with it grave responsibility. We must be careful that the Bible we read is a valid, accurate translation of God's Word.

Today there are a lot of English Bibles, and more are added as time goes by. It's true that there are some really poor Bible translations out there, and there are some that are really good. There was a new translation released recently called the SMS Version. It is intended for mobile phone and messaging services. Here's a quote from Genesis 1:1, "In da Bginnin God cre8d da heavens & da earth." Hmmm... One tranlation that gets a lot of publicity is the Message. I advise you to steer clear of this one, and steer clear of those who quote, or teach, from it, as It seems to have been written for the liberal preachers and the feel-good easy-believeism of our day.

Right now I'm using the Holman Christian Standard Bible as my main Bible. It was well researched and it is in modern language. The messages of the Bible are not watered-down or distorted. As far asI can tell, and my research shows, it is a good, valid, modern English Bible. I also like the New American Standard, and I use a King James, too. I like the King James, but I am against the idea that it is the only valid Bible translation. I tend to stay away from the NIV, but I don't really have anything against it - I just don't prefer it. I tend to prefer Bibles that are more formal inlanguage. On my PDA I have several versions of the Bible, including: The ASV, Rotherham, Darby (considered by many to be one of the most accurate English translations), MKJV, Douay Rheims, The Literal Version, JPS 1917, Young's Literal Translation, and part of the Geneva Bible. It is handy to have all of these available for comparison.

So what's my message in all of this? Choose your Bible carefully.There are a lot of good Bible translations available to us today. When in doubt, go with a trusted, respected translation of the Bible. And remember Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating as far as to divide soul, spirit, joints, and marrow; it is a judge of the ideas and thoughts of the heart."

-Mark -
- Christian Researcher-
-June 5, 2006-

A good resource on the Web for Bible translations is www.Biblegateway.com. They have Bibles in many languages and translations. However, they do not have the Geneva Bible.
TheGeneva can be found at www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html.