The usual question here then might be, “but what about all of the different versions” of what is written? We will quickly show that “versions don’t really matter” as long as you take the time to read the language of the version you already have (except “The Message” translation). Textual variants across all translations do not upset the overall framework and counsel of the text (except “The Message” translation). Textual criticism can be extremely enlightening, but that is a different subject. Assuming the shepherd of the flock has read the whole Bible, their personal understanding of the overall context should not be heavily altered from one version to another. This of course is only true if one does not build doctrine from a small handful of verses, and takes the entirety of the Scripture into consideration. As the Scripture says, “the scripture cannot be broken”(5). Of course Scripture can easily be misinterpreted, but this is a man-thing swirling in subjectivity and influence. Most any reader is likely to make the same personal good and bad interpretations, regardless of translation, because of experience and opinion that leads to bias. While a good translation is highly valuable, translation in this age is definitely not the issue, even in the midst of translation bias, which is yet another subject in itself. Why? Many don’t even read their Bible in this age, and if they do it seems like much ado is superficially made to prove the predetermined point of view—interpretation bias.
Well-read or not, we live in a scripturally illiterate age, thereby making the translation argument weak and relatively moot. So let us apply the idea to any translation the reader chooses. First we will seek the interpretation of the mind, and then we will go to the Scripture and see if your interpretation yields that same answer. Afterwards you can compare other versions and see what matters. This is a very simple exercise that should easily define any problem churches think they have as somewhat secondary, for followers of The Word are going to be mostly ineffective “period” if they lack understanding of the core concepts. Therefore let us start with something simple.
In the spirit of the introduction, we shall begin this meek exercise with a straightforward easy question any Shepherd should know: “Why did God say David couldn’t build the temple?”
Write Your Answer Here: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Now let’s consider the question for the layperson. That’s church language for the student, or disciple, or member, who is not classified as a teacher, or deacon, or elder, or pastor—the so-called underling. Technically it means amateur and isn’t even necessarily a nice term under most circumstances (nor scripturally accurate), but this is common at church. Yet if it’s true that the Shepherd should be ahead of the sheep on the subject, then we must consider whether the laity (untrained or unprofessional) should also know the answer to this question: Why did God say David couldn’t build the temple? How many years of being a Christian would a Pastor expect (or guess) should go by before the average attending member might know the answer to this simple question? Remember this is just a thinking exercise to get acclimated to what is the right spirit in truth, and love. This is especially related to dealing with the congregation, and questions one might have about their faith or the Bible. "How many years before a Christian should know the answer to the question: 'Why did God say David couldn’t build the temple'?
Write Your Answer Here: ____________________________________________________________________________________________
That should be good enough to prime the starter. Now let’s check your answer against an informal survey the author took over a number of years among the Shepherds and Sheep. Then we will consider what the Scripture has to say on the matter. Later you can return to this page and compare your answer to the field.
Chapter 1
Squaring the Question
The primary question is: “Why did God say David couldn’t build the temple”? Over the course of several years this question was posed by the author to those familiar with the Scripture. Most of the people surveyed were either a known and active Pastor, including top leaders of denominations, or active church-attending seasoned Christians. A third category is familiar with the Scripture but not necessarily Christians, like those practicing Judaism, and familiar with the Tanakh. The question was never asked to a new Christian or new believer for the survey. The inquiry was always posed neutrally without adding anything else, and always the same exact wording. The point of the simple line of the question is stretched across the landscape concerning David, and the beginnings of transitioning from a tabernacle to a temple, in hopes of shedding light on the angle of something that has been lost through the ages. This is a spiritual measurement of modern Scriptural literacy that is wholly connected to prophecy.
There were no rules given on how to answer the question, and it was always asked in a friendly format. If they wanted to open their Bible, or go on the internet, or ask a friend, they were free to do so, never being instructed otherwise, or induced in any way. Most people answered the question instantly without hesitation, and made no effort to look anything up, or ask for help. Some used the internet to answer. Others are unknown as to their method because they received the question via a text message, although some of those revealed they used the internet by sending back a link.
Let’s look at the list of the answers given:
Almost everyone said “He was a man of war, or he had blood on his hands; or both”. This answer was highly unanimous.
A rare few said “I don’t know” or “I can’t remember.”
Even fewer had a little bit more of an elaborate answer about the Lord wanting a man of peace, but still usually deferred that David was not the man of peace because of blood on his hands. So this answer could easily be sub-categorized in the first group.
There was barely anything that could be categorized as other, or miscellaneous, as the longer answers always came down to “I don’t know” or “David was a man of war with blood on his hands”.
Hands down, the overwhelming majority of answers were so fast and specific that the writer encourages the reader to ask any long-term Christian or trained Pastor this question with the highest probability of one of these answers: He had blood on his hands/man of war (some adding the “man of peace” portion), or I don’t know. It really is an interesting test to conduct, especially given the truth. As you will see in the progression of this book how very important this understanding is, you can then appreciate the author would personally pay $1,000 for an auditorium filled with Pastors to ask them this question under the following simple rules of engagement: a) They aren’t set-up to understand the question before it is asked; b) that the room is filled with at least 300 ordained ministers from Mainstream Christian denominations; c) they would all complete a survey and sign a waiver knowing that we will be filming a documentary; d) the $1,000 would go to a ministry of their choice classified by James the Brother of Jesus as pure religion (6); and e) the author reserves the right to limit this to a single event, or offer the $1,000 more than once at the sole discretion of the author.
It would be interesting to see if a group setting would yield a different result than common apathy? This is proposed because one main side-effect that surfaced during the informal survey was the apparent lack of interest the majority seemed to have as to the purpose of the question. Not that the idea is highly unusual, but just being asked this question out of nowhere, with no context, seems like it might have gathered some interest as to the point, especially since many treated it as if the truth of the matter was an immediate foregone conclusion. Although people usually didn’t further inquire, they were mostly always kind. Though very slight, some were a bit aloof; appearing as though they thought the question was a tad novice invoking some mild scoffing. Only once did someone get really angry, and noticeably! This particular person fancied himself a proud scholar, having written several books