Defining the Word – A Critical Book Review

Discuss this article.

Last year, Mike Sproul published these words, “Reading an original KJV 1611 is nearly impossible for a twenty-first century American. Reading Wycliffe or Tyndale is nearly impossible. Thomas Nelson has now published a book [King James Word Book (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994) by Ronad Bridges and Luther A. Weigle] that lists hundreds of archaic words and phrases in the OKJV. This book will surprise readers with the numerous phrases in the OKJV that they thought they understood, but really did not. For example, I have been reared to listen to the KJV, memorize the KJV, preach from the KJV, and earned a B.A., M. Div., and D. Min., in schools that only use the KJV; yet I did not know the meaning of certain words in my translation. If I did not know these idiomatic expressions of archaic words, how could the modern ‘ploughboy’ know them?”1

I laughed because of my similar background to Sproul, minus the Doctor of Ministry; yet regarding his observation, I agree wholeheartedly. Skeptical? Then take the test. As a sampling from a larger pot, define the following thirty two words: affording, ague, alamoth, amerce, beeves, besom, blains, bolled, broided, bruit, caul, cauls, chamois, collop, cotes, draught house, earing, flowers (her), fuller, habergeon, hough, maw, mincing, muffler, ouches, parbar, polled, selvedge, sith, wen, wimples, and withs. Perhaps you have read the King James Version all your life; but if you miss the accurate meaning of 19 of these words, you flunk the test. And if it’s any comfort, I felt myself reduced to a religious acolyte.

There have been plans offered to those confused by archaic words and yet restricted in their consciences to consult modern-day Bible translations. One modus operandi among certain folks in the KJVO community has been little dictionary supplements tucked right inside the cover of their KJV Bibles. I remember an independent Baptist pastor in my region of the country handing out “The King James Bible Companion” (over 500 archaic words defined) by David W. Daniels. Chick Publications2 in Ontario, California, wrote on the back of the little booklet, “Rather than taking the time to learn the definitions of archaic King James words, many Christians simply buy a modern version of the Bible. This is a big mistake.” David has a motto: “It takes only a single generation to make a word archaic … and a single generation of Bible readers can bring it back it use.”

Paul Chappell recommended in one of his latest email devotions (April 26, 2006), “Take a dictionary in one hand, and a concordance in the other, and dig into the Word of God.” Amen. But I also recommend to the people in serious study to have two more things on the table – a good interlinear encompassing both the Old and the New Testaments and several other Bible translations.3 With that as a basis, it then becomes a profitable exercise to read and discern what people write in Bible paraphrases, Bible stories, and most of all, Bible sermons.

Saying all this in introduction, what seems to be the solution for getting the whole new generation of LDS young people to read their KJV Bibles? Most would cry they are not scriptorians. Biblical illiteracy is epidemic. With iPods, laptops, and booming LDS movie media, how interested are the young people of generation x, y, and z in sitting down and wading through the thee’s and thou’s of the major and minor prophets? I am really surprised when Dr. Kent P. Jackson, professor of ancient scripture at BYU-Utah, suggests the helpfulness of modern translations4 when reading Isaiah. Doesn’t this create conflict or uneasy tension within the LDS community?

In the LDS community, John A. Tvedtnes is seeking to encourage more KJV reading with his latest, slim book for the laicized masses, Defining the Word: Understanding the History and Language of the Bible (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2006).

Wham! Tvedtnes hits the readers at the very beginning with a bold Brigham Young quote (from the J. of D.): “We read in the Bible, you recollect, that every man shall be judged according to his works; but it is almost impossible; or, I will say, it is a considerable task and quite a labour to get a community to understand these words as they read; when, in reality, to those that understand them, it is as plain to them as it is for this congregation to count how many fingers I am now holding up before you.”

But then softly, the author pursues in the introduction, “Modern readers often find it difficult to read the King James version (KJV) of the Bible. Many of its words no longer mean what they meant four centuries ago. The purpose of this book is to introduce readers to the language of the KJV in a way that will enable them to better understand both the history of the translation and some of the more difficult words and grammatical forms it uses.”

John breaks the book down into eight chapters:

Chapter 1 - History of the English Bible

Concerning the Septuagint, John writes, “As the Jews were scattered to other countries in the eastern Mediterranean basin, it became desirable to make the Old Testament available in Greek, so a translation known as the Septuagint was produced some time between the third and first centuries B.C. Because the New Testament was written in Greek, it became natural for the earliest Christians to use the Septuagint Old Testament, the Greek version most quoted in the New Testament” 5 (5).

There is discussion of Alfred’s Anglo-Saxon gloss, “the oldest English Bible from the dark ages that has been preserved to our time” (6), Richard Rolle’s English translation from the Latin, Wycliffe’s Bible6 , and Tyndale’s Bible7 . Tvedtnes observes, “Tyndale’s Bible introduced new words and phrases into the English language, including the divine name Jehovah, the term Passover for the Jewish spring holy day, scapegoat, and, more famously, atonement. Though the underlying Hebrew word derives from a verb meaning ‘to cover,’ Tyndale, wanting to give the idea of a reconciliation with God, invented the term atonement in the sense of ‘union,’ at + one + ment, with the verbal form atone, ‘to unite.’ New phrases introduced into English by Tyndale include ‘the powers the be’ (Romans 13:1), ‘my brother’s keeper’ (Genesis 4:9), ‘the salt of the earth’ (Matthew 5:13), and ‘a law unto themselves’ (Romans 2:14)” (10).

The author also describes Coverdale’s Bible, the Bibles of Matthew and Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. Accurately, Tvedtnes notes this about Geneva’s Bible version, “In Elizabeth’s day, it was embraced by the Puritans but was not appointed to be read in churches because it was too fundamentalistic. The Geneva version was the Bible carried to America by the Puritan pilgrims. It remained the official bible in Scotland long after the introduction of the King James Bible, despite the fact that James had been king of Scotland before he also became king of England” (13). Then Tdvedtnes continues with an abbreviated synopsis of the Bishops’ Bible and the Douai Bible, claiming, “Many Latin terms borrowed by the Douai from the Vulgate thereafter became English words. English biblical and ecclesiastical terms that derive from the Vulgate include: acquisition, adulterate, advent, allegory, communion, congregation, conversion, discipline, dispensation, election, elements, eternity, evangelize, glory, grace, justification, penance, propitiation, sacrament, salvation, sanctification, scripture, spirit, verity, and victim. In some cases, mistakes made by St. Jerome during his translation of the Bible into Latin were perpetuated in the English, such as his use of ‘firmament’ (denoting something solid) instead of ‘expanse’ in Genesis 1:6-8 (where the atmosphere is meant); and ‘horns’8 in place of ‘rays (of light)’ in Exodus34:29-30, 35, where KJV has ‘shone.’ The Douai New Testament of 1582 had an influence on the later King James Version, mostly because of Protestant writings against it” (15-16).

The chapter concludes with the author describing the translators and process involved in the monumental work of the King James Version of the Bible. And here is one highlight for critique. John explains in his description of Dr. Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson, “Bilson wrote the summaries at the head of each chapter, while Smith is believed to have written the preface. ‘The Translators to the Readers,’ which appeared only in the first edition (1611).” And then in endnote number sixteen, Tvedtnes declares this about Bilson’s chapter head summaries, “In so doing, Bishop Bilson occasionally made mistakes, which were often the result of his theological bias. For example, the heading for Acts 7 speaks of the choice of seven ‘deacons’ for the early Christian church. Since none of the men are termed ‘deacons’ in the text, this was merely a guess based on the kinds of work to which they were assigned, using standards of the Church of England. However, since we later find one of the seven, Philip, preaching, baptizing, and performing miracles (Acts 8:5-13, 26-40) and another, Stephen, seeing the Father and the Son in vision (Acts 7:55-56), it is clear that they were priests or elders, not deacons. The chapter headings for the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Bible were specially prepared for that edition and are not the one prepared for the 1611 edition” (20). Yet the Holy Spirit brought seven men to serve (diakonein) tables. To connect deacons with diakonein is exegesis and hardly theological bias.

Chapter 2 – King James Language

At the very beginning of this chapter, John squeezes in a couple sentences in support of why the church still uses Scripture in a language that is archaic. “It is a common misconception that the KJV was written in the language spoken in Jacobean England … Indeed, the King James translators often reverted to Tyndale’s wording in preference to that of later Bibles known in their time. A recent study indicates that upwards of eighty percent of the King James Bible comes from Tyndale’s verbiage. What this means is that the language of the KJV was already archaic when it was published” (21).

John contends, “As the English language evolved, the KJV and other early English translations (the 1582 Douai version for the Catholics and the 1560 Geneva Bible for the Puritans) set the standard for what was considered to be the language of the scriptures” (22). And then in his argument, he proceeds, “It is very possible that because the KJV Bible set the standard for scriptural language that Joseph Smith used its style in his translation of the Book of Mormon, the books of Abraham and Moses, and portions of the Doctrine and Covenants.” He further illustrates this with King Jamesisms in a couple examples: 1) Robert Henry Charles’ work, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) and 2) Theodore H. Gaster’s The Dead Sea Scriptures (New York, Anchor Doubleday, 1956). Basically, John would defend that Joseph Smith did not plagiarize; only translating into King James language rather than “contemporary nineteenth-century English” because this would the standard of English that the common people would accept as Scripture. But what John sees as Smith’s devotion in inspired translation, I see as marvelously creative, marketing deception.

With all the questions that might arise from people within the organization over why the LDS church continues to use the Authorized Version, John asserts, “Perhaps one of the best reasons for retaining the KJV is that we would otherwise lose the close connection between the Bible and other LDS scriptures. Using a modern translation would make it more difficult to see when the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are citing a Bible passage. It would also obscure the correspondence between the Bible and the books of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price” (27). It is unmistakably clear. Chiefly, the LDS hierarchy uses the KJV as a means to substantiate the language of Joseph Smith’s literary works. KJV exploitation at its best.

In this chapter, John describes revisions of the KJV9 and all the various KJV printer errors through past history: The Great Hee Bible and the Great She Bible, the Printers Bible, the Fool Bible, the Adulterer’s Bible, the Unrighteous Bible, the Vinegar Bible, the Murderer’s Bible, the Dagger Bible, the Wife Hater’s Bible, and the Rebekah Bible. Even as late as 1979, Cambridge press printed a KJV for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that spelled the Israelite leader in Exodus 17:13, “Josuha.”

Chapter 3 – Understanding the KJV

Though defending the language of the KJV because it does “perpetuate the language of Tyndale and even of Wycliffe” and “helps remind us that the Bible is, after all, a very ancient text that has been cherished by untold millions over the centuries,” the author in this chapter tries “to help readers understand the KJV as it would have been understood by earlier generations.” I do commend the author for explaining the pronoun usage, the verbal forms, and transliteration of names. I wonder how many people who actually read the KJV understand the reasons for the various spellings. Sometimes there is a different spelling just because of different committees involved in the translation commissioned by King James. For instance, “The Hebrew name Yesha’yah is variously transliterated Isaiah (most frequently), Jesaiah (I Chronicles 3:21; Nehemiah 11:7), and Jeshaiah (I Chronicles 25:3, 15; 26:25; Ezra 8:7, 19). To complicate things still further, the New Testament uses the form Esaias, based on the Greek transliteration of the same name” (3). Overall, Tvedtnes lists over 40 different names to show comparison.

Chapter 4 – KJV Words Whose Meaning Has Changed

One hundred and eighteen words are put forward for interaction with their definitions10 , multiple KJV cross references, early English context, and if they have French borrowing, etc. And he makes this disclaimer, “The scriptural references do not always list all occurrences of the word in the KJV, nor is the KJV text always an accurate rendition of the underlying Hebrew and Greek text” (44).

But in the beginning of this particular chapter, I find shallow his trying to remove the allegations or questions regarding anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, first seriously discussed by Gleason Archer. Listen to this.

“Moving to the KJV, we note that the Hebrew word nehoshet, referring to copper and copper alloys, is only once translated copper (Ezra 8:27), while the usual term used by the KJV translators was brass. In modern parlance, brass refers to a copper-zinc alloy that was developed in the sixteenth century A.D., but to earlier generations it referred to any copper alloy. Archaeological discoveries in Israel and in neighboring countries have disclosed that the most common copper alloy in use anciently included tin. It was the Greeks and Romans who first added zinc, lead, and silver to bronze. Consequently, when we read the term brass in the KJV, we should generally understand it to mean “bronze,” though it may occasionally refer to copper alone.

“In some passages, the KJV speaks of a “bow of steel” (2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34). In each case the Hebrew term rendered “steel’ is nehoshet, which, as has already been noted, really refers to copper and copper alloys. The same word is also rendered ‘steel’ in Jeremiah15:12. Clearly, the KJV word does not refer to the iron-carbon alloy that we call ‘steel’ in our day. Rather, it refers to something that is hard, a meaning reflected in our verb “to steel,’ which means ‘to harden.’ In both KJV English and in the English of Joseph Smith’s day, the noun ‘steel’ could refer to any hard metal.”

Yet despite all the sophistication, it is apparent that where the KJV uses an anachronism, the Book of Mormon follows the same humorous course. When quoting the KJV in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith did not thoroughly understand Hebrew or Greek manuscripts like the KJV translators or perhaps John A. Tvedtnes.

Chapter 5 – Spelling Variations

There is only one word that I care to point out among the almost 40 selected examples like agone, bewray, broid, ensample, holpen, milch, sope, taches, wine fat, etc. John defines endue: “(Genesis 30:20 is the same as endow (Exodus 22:16) and usually denotes the brideprice paid to a man’s intended father-in-law, though it can also denote any gift, especially from God (2 Chronicles 2:12-13; James 3:13). Compare Luke 24:49 with D&C 38:32, 38; 43:16; 95:8; 105:11-12, 18, 33; 110:9” (70). And then in an endnote to the word, John follows up with this, “Christ told his apostles to remain in Jerusalem until they would be ‘endowed with power from on high,’ after which they could go to all nations to preach. This endowment came when the Holy Ghost fell on them, manifested by a strong wind and tongues of fire, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). The same manifestations occurred during the dedication of the Kirtland Temple in March 1836 (D&C 109:35-41; History of the Church 2:376, 428), and only after this time were the Twelve sent overseas to preach” (73).

Though the chapter is primarily focused on spelling variations, the connection of Kirtland phenomena with Jerusalem phenomena is overbearing to the book of Acts. Where in the KJV is there even a hint that there will be a future Pentecost? Is the Pentecost in Acts intended to be repeatable? Don’t the Scriptures teach their own sufficiency? If the experience is repeatable, will there be another such phenomena needed if apostasy infiltrates and overcomes the modern-day Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Chapter 6 – Different Renderings of Hebrew and Greek Words

The author discusses different English translations like soul or creature for the Hebrew word, nephesh11 . He questions whether cormorant is the right translation in Isaiah 34:11 and Zephaniah 2:14 in contrast to Leviticus 11:17 and Deuteronomy 14:17. He points out English idioms like “God forbid” and “God save the king.” He briefly notes sometimes ambiguity in the KJV English text and also instances of Hebrew idioms (Job 19:20 - “I am escaped by the skin of my teeth.”)

But what fascinates me the most is this statement: “The Hebrew words elah and elon are variously rendered ‘oak, terebinth, ash, teil, etc.,’ in the KJV.” Certainly, who would ever mind when KJV Scripture uses a colorful array of English words for elon, or even something generic like “trees”? But a man with the first name of Elon and the last name of Wood might display a little more interest to the detail than others.

Chapter 7 – Later Misunderstandings of Original Intent

The popular expression “help mate” does not describe “help meet” in Genesis. Mathew 5:29-30 is not to be taken literally. And the author then talks about the proper understanding of metaphors.

Then he delves into Hebrew and Greek words transliterated in the KJV. As an immersionist, John writes, “Sometimes, the KJV translators were unaware of the meaning of a word in the original Hebrew and Greek text, so they merely transliterated the foreign word rather than translating it into English. A good example is the word baptize, from the Greek word meaning ‘dip’ or ‘immerse.’ Because immersion had been discontinued for centuries in western Christianity, the translators avoided using the real meaning of the word and used instead the Greek term, thus obscuring its meaning. (This is a feature of other Bible translations as well, including those made into other European languages.)” (81)

He lists over 40 transliterated words like Maranatha, bdellium, cab, cherubim, chrysoprasus, ephah, gopher, jacinth, leviathan, Passover (but notes Easter in Acts 12:4), urim and thummim, etc.

He places some of the creatures, named by the translators, cockatrice, dragon, satyr, and unicorn in the category of “mythological and unknown creatures in the KJV”.

John declares, “Isaiah 3:18-24 lists various items of clothing and jewelry worn anciently but whose meaning was lost over time. In this case, the KJV translators applied terms know for women’s apparel in their day but many unknown in our modern society” (87). It can be illustrated likewise with “military and leadership titles” as well: serjeant, lieutenant, sheriff, duke, and prince.

For all the discussion in this chapter, orthodox Christians have little to disagree. But it is the paragraph on page 89 that reveals the huge chasm between Mormon orthodoxy and fundamental Christianity. How wide is the divide? This paragraph expresses the arrogance of LDS interpretation on the biblical presentation of the very nature of God. “There are Old Testament passages that have God speaking in the plural, as if someone else were with Him: ‘Let us make man in our image’ (italics added; Genesis 1:26). ‘The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil’ (italics added; Genesis 3:22, confirming the truth Satan mingled with a lie in verse 5). Those who argue that this is a ‘plural of majesty’ seem totally unaware of biblical usage, since this kind of plural, used in reference to European monarchs, is unknown in the Bible. Indeed, throughout the Old Testament, God, as well as the king, is addressed as ‘thou’ (from the Hebrew second person masculine singular pronoun), and always speaks of himself as ‘I’ rather than ‘we,’ while verbs and adjectives associated with God are in the singular rather than the plural form in the Hebrew original” (89).

God, three Person plural, is a singular Being, infinitely beyond any comparison to an earthly European monarch. And the “plural of majesty” rebukes us from ever creating a divine monarch that is only elevated above our own corporeal, finite existence. As God opened the eyes of the king of England to commission an English translation, may the eyes of Tvedtnes be opened to the “plural of majesty”, the God of all galaxies and universes, known and unknown, and Who knows of no other god. This is the God to be worshipped.


The author concludes, “From the time of its first printing in the 1611, the KJV has been the major Bible for speakers of English. Over the past two centuries, it has been the official English language Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Readers acquainted with the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare (who was nearly a contemporary of King James) are undoubtedly more comfortable with the language of the KJV than those who read only modern books. Those who read the KJV Bible regularly can also become acquainted with its language. While this present book is designed to help people better understand the older English found in the KJV, its lessons will be most useful to those who turn to the Bible often. Because there are many ‘King Jamesisms’ in the other standard works of the Church (often quoting KJV), it will be of assistance in reading and understanding them as well.”

And now, here is a final word from the “living prophet” and joint agreement of the top hierarchy of the LDS church: “While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We encourage all members to have their own copies of the complete standard works and to use them prayerfully in regular personal and family study, and in Church meetings and assignments.” – First Presidency policy statement, Ensign, August 1992

End of story. No more debate. At least not in public.

In contrast, I am glad to be an independent Baptist.


Yet here is something to agree upon. “The preface to the 1611 edition of the King James version of the Bible is enlightening, for it deals with translation issues that some modern Christians ignore, believing that God guided the entire process, thus leaving the KJV text inerrant. The preface also gives insights into the history behind the KJV and notes some doctrinal issues” (93)

The author then provides in the appendix the entirety of the preface to the 1611 edition.

But he also says, “It is regrettable that the preface is no longer published with the KJV itself, except for a large, expensive pulpit Bible that has been in print since 1821. It was included as an appendix in the 1935 edition, which marked the 400th anniversary of Coverdale’s Bible.”

This book reviewer has two wide-margin Cambridge Bibles possessing full prefaces. These remarkable Bibles are due to the influence of Dr. Mark Minnick in Greenville, S.C. on Cambridge University Press. Look him up sometime.

1God’s Word Preserved: A Defense of Historic Separatist Definitions and Beliefs (Tempe: Whetstone Precepts Press, 2005)

2Some Independent Baptist preachers in the area pass out Chick tracts. But sorry, personally, I can hardly stomach some of the tracts. I don’t blame the young LDS for finding the caricatures on some of the tracts highly offensive.

3Scrutinizing over wording in various translations has been valuable for me. Take for instance the word, “adamant” in Ezekiel 3:9. In today’s English, I know this means, “not giving in.” But the KJV translators insert words like “diamond” and “briars” for the Hebrew word, shamir, elsewhere. The NASV introduces “emery”. What does that mean? The margin word, “corundum”, didn’t help me much either. But some of the ladies in my church questioned, “Todd, haven’t you heard of an emery board for ladies’ nails?” Laughing, I thought an “emery” forehead is a perfect example of a forehead to match any “stiff of forehead.” That is “adamant.” And I also give thanks to the ESV for translating a little closer to the Hebrew idioms of Ezekiel 3:7 in the text than leaving it in the margin (KJV or NASV).

4Lost Tribes & Lost Days (SLC: Deseret Book Company, 2005). Jackson writes, “In my view the best modern English translation of the Bible is the New International Version (NIV). This translation was made by a committee of scholars whose belief in the inspiration of the Bible is apparent throughout their work. It is translated in a beautiful literary style that is at the same time very reliable and accurate linguistically. And it expresses an impressive sense of faith, dignity, devotion, and reverence for the things of God.”

5 On page 27, John comments that the N.T. passages which quote the Septuagint, “reflect an earlier stage of the Greek language and sometimes do not accurately render the Hebrew original.”

6He compares Wycliffe’s Psalm 22 with the Authorized Version. “The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing schal faile to me; in the place of pasture there he hath set me. He nurschide me on the water of refreischyng; he conuertide my soule. He ledde me forth on the pathis of riytfulnesse; for his name. For whi thouy Y schal go in the myddis of schadewe of deeth; Y schal not drede yuels, for thou art with me. Thi yerde and thi staf; tho han coumfortid me. Thou hast maad redi a boord in my siyt; ayens hem that troblen me. Thou hast maad fat myn heed with oyle; and my cuppe, fillinge greetli, is ful cleer. And thi merci schal sue me; in alle the daies of my lijf. And that Y dwelle in the hows of the Lord; in to the lengthe of daies.”

Endnote #9 states, “The opening verse (Genesis 1:1) of the Wycliffe Bible illustrates one of the problems of translation with theological bias. It reads, ‘In the first made God of nought heaven and earth.’ The words ‘of nought’ are not in the Hebrew original. They do, however, reflect the theology of Roman Catholic Europe of the fourteenth century. The synod held at Oxford in 1408 banned study using the Wycliffe Bible” (19-20). Theological bias? I could write a whole paper discussing how the doctrine of “eternal intelligence” is proven to be the theological bias or forceful intrusion in light of KJV scripture rather than “ex nihilo creation.” The two doctrines are sourced in two beliefs that radically diverge on the nature of God Himself.

7In literary circles, LDS people look to Tyndale as a hero, though interpreted through their hermeneutics and view of church history.

8I will never forget seeing the horns on the magnificent sculpture of Moses in Italy.

9As a sidenote, John mentions the NKJV but notes that it “has met mixed reviews.” Reading under the lines, I am interpreting this to mean that the NKJV does nothing to advance Mormon theology. And then he also talks about the apocrypha, “The Bible purchased by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in October 1829 included the Apocrypha. During his revision of the Bible, the prophet Joseph inquired about these books and received the revelation known as D&C 91” (29)
10Assuming that John practices total abstinence from alcohol in requirement for being “temple worthy”, I find it interesting that he does admit the liquor of Song of Solomon 7:2 “refers to an alcoholic beverage” (58).

11The KJV translators use soul for nephesh in Ezekiel 3. Presently, I have been wrestling over whether this chapter presents the prophet as a gospel watchman or not? Are the consequences only physical for the wicked and righteous?

1420 reads

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.