BOOK REVIEW - "A HERMENEUTIC OF IMAGINATION: UNLOCKING SCRIPTURE'S FULL POTENTIAL" BY KNUT M. HEIM WITH JEFFREY S. OETTER

 Being an artist, this title caught my attention. I have written a novel (unpublished) that's a mystery set at an apologetics conference, a lot of songs (likewise, unpublished), and studied creative writing, ceramics, drawing, and art theory and design at a community college. One thing that I thought would be powerful is reading certain books of the Bible as a dramatic reading, such as the debate between God and Israel in Malachi or Paul's farewell letter to his beloved student Timothy. Additionally, I am a Bible college graduate including a class on Biblical Interpretation, a.k.a. hermeneutics.

"A Hermeneutic of Imagination: Unlocking Scripture's Full Potentiel" by Knut M. Heim with Jeffrey R. Oetter deals with the subject on a strong, scholarly level. Chapter themes include figurative language (e.g. ambiguous language and the use of metaphors), expression of emotion, and humor in the Sacred writings. The authors then turn to topics like translations and their impact on imagination and how academic theology fits in.

One example of how thinking imaginatlitively used in the conclusion is Psalms 23:2. We often picture our Good Shepherd comfortably keeping an eye in a peaceful pasture, with a calm brook flowing nearby. However, a nice open pasture might have predators looking for an opportunity, and a sheep may not be able to swim to shore with his fleece wet in quiet but deep water.

I recommend most book's I've read. This one is in a middle category, not commending it, not dondemning it. The authors are more theologically liberal than I am. For example, the translations mentioned are the New Revised Standard Version, the Good News Bible, and the Contemporary English Version, while I'm most familiar both with personal reading and the translation of choice by the authors I read are the KJV, the NKJV, the New International Version, the New Americaln Standard, the English Standard Bible, and the Christian Standard Bible.

Another indication of a worldview/churchview of Scripture is an encouragement to be familiar with feminist and womanist criticism. "Womanist" is a new term for me. The authors state that feminism is white, Western, hetrosexual, Christian, and middle-class, while Womanism deals with the views of women of more varied background.

My last criticism is revealed in the title. To me, the way to "unlock Scripture's full potential" is not based on human thinking (or imagination) but in avoiding any theology that asks "Yea, hath God said" as the serpent did to deceive Eve.

Again, I'm neither recommending or condemning this book. There are some useful thoughts here, and I'm glad I read this book. But I have concerns. If you want a challenge, go for this book.

WHICH TRANSLATION DO YOU READ? AN ARTIST'S LOOK AT TRANSLATIONS.

 Q. How many English translations of Scripture are there?

How many shouted out, "Too many!"

I'm not going to disagree. But allow me to share my thoughts.

First, let's fly to Fullerton, California of almost 60 years back. I forget when I received it, but I was given a Revised Standard Version from the Disciples of Christ church I attended. I was curious on what "Revised Standard Version" meant, both as individual words and as a combination. I wasn't aware what a translation was, nor was I aware there were any others.

Then, I moved to Skull Valley, and there received a Christian Life New Testament and Psalms, King James Version from Skull Valley Community Church, which was followed by the Gideons visiting the school I attended, where I got another KJV, this time New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs. 

I'm not sure if it's when I moved from Skull Valley to Prescott and attended a Free Methodist Church, or if it was sometime later, but I then received a Bible that did not use "Bible" in the title, but rather was titled "Good News For Modern Man." I eventually figured out it was a Bible (make that New Testament), and that it had interesting stick figure illustrations. I wasn't aware the real name for the translation was "Today's English Version" (TEV).

Another move, another treanslation. I spent most of Junior High and all of High School in Cottonwood, Arizona, and while there I received first the Living New Testament (titled "Reach Out) and then the whole Bible (or "The Way").  I also picked up a Spanish version of "Good News for Modern Man."

After graduating high school, I spent a year at community college, and mostly studied art and writing, but also took a class on "Literature of the Bible." There were a lot of new things I never heard of (e.g. JEPD method, 2nd Isaiah), but what makes this part of the story is that I received yet another translation, this one being "The New English Bible."

Allow me to interject a thought. I still wasn't clear that the Bible was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I didn't really know what the differences between them, let alone if those differences had any affect on theology.

Hallelujah! I started going to Southwestern Conservative Baptist Church. My first sememster included a class titled "Doctrine of Scripture and God," and learned how off the JEPD method was. I learned that the Living Bible was not a translation but a paraphrase. I got introduced to more Bible translations: The pastor of the church I attended did a series on the 23rd Psalm, each week dealing with half a verse, and he selected a different version each week where the translation brought something out of the text for the week. By the way, that Pastor could be called "King James Only. 

When I started, I never heard of the New American Standard or the New International Version, which were fairly recent. In my first year, the New King James Version came out (my KJV Only pastor, unlike most KJV Onlys, had no problem with the NKJV - his concern was more textual than keeping the Thees and Thous). I saw parallel Bibles, and I saw the "New Testament from 26 Translations," which gave the text in the KJV and then shared variations from the other translations.

At this point, though, I looked at translations as an artist. I liked having a lot, so I can compare them. But then I discovered that for the most part, what the text says in Translation A is what it says most of the time in Translations B-Z. As I matured, I realized that's the way it should be. If it was paraphrases, that would be a different story, but translating done right basically agrees.

But why are there so many translations? And how do I find which one to use? 

I'm thankful to Dr. Dennis Wretlind, who taught a class on Biblical Criticism, where I learned about inspiration, canonicity, textual criticism, translations, and Bible tools. On the translation, he gave 5 things to look for.

1. Number of translators. Some are done by a committee, to make sure they have the translation correct. Others are translated by one person (e.g. Ken Taylor's Living Bible). 
2. Text used. This is more an issue for New Testaments. There are two major types of texts - those that resemble the Textus Receptus used for the King James, and those which are based on two nearly complete Greek texts dating from the 300's. The former have more texts, the latter are closer to the original. Most translators take the latter. Reality? No major and no minor doctrine is affected by thse differences.
3. Type of translation. There are formal (word for word) equivalents like the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB. Others are dynamic (thought for thought) eqivalents. A verse to find the difference is Luke 9:44. Formal equivalents say, "Let these words sink into year ears." Dynamic equiavelents are more like "Listen carefully to what I'm saying." Both say the same, but one is more like how we talk today. There are also paraphrases, which the author is putting the text into his own words.
4. Modernity of text. The biggest complaint against the KJV is that me and thou speakest not in the manner our fathers didst speak in sixteen hundred and eleven.
5. Theology of translation. The Geneva Bible was an English version that come out before the King James, but a lot of church leaders felt it was too Calvinistic. More of an issue was when modernism crept into the Church in the 1800's, which is when the number of translations equipped. One example of a verse affected is Isaiah 7:14 - the King James says, "The virgtn shall conceive. The Revised Standard and others read "The young woman shall conceive." There claim is that "young woman" is a more accurate to the text, claiming there was no Hebrew word which meant virgin. The counter is that the original audience saw "young woman" and "virgin" as one and the same. It may sound like it's a textual issue, but belief in the Virgin Birth was all over this.

So now I've focused on a handful of translations when I'm studying: the New King James Version (my go to for almost 45 years), the Legacy Standard Bible, the Christian Standard Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible, and the Jubilee Bible 2000, translated into English and Spanish by a missionary to Columbia, whose goal was to go back to the reformation era.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Hope you were blessed and that it gave you something to think about.

BOOK REVIEW - "GOOD NEWS GOING BAD: A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A MODERN MISSIONS MELTDOWN" BY DR. JIM BAUGH

 

What is the purpose of missions? Isn't it to be a witness to Christ from home to the furthest parts of the world (Acts 1:8), to make disciples of all nations and teaching them to do all Jesus commanded? Then why would missionaries water down uncomfortable teachings of Christ to appeal to those who reject Christianity?

Jim Baugh's insightful book, "Good News Going Bad: A Critical Evaluation of a Modern Missions Meltdown," focuses on what is called "The Insider Movement." The theory is that if Christians blend in with the major belief of the region, they would be more accepting of Christianity. This book focuses on outreach to Muslims, but also mentions sometimes the practice is used to reach Hindus. 

Baugh deals with several aspects of missionaries avoiding calling Jesus the Son of God or the crucifixion and resurrection because those elements of the story would be offensive to Muslims. He also ends each chapter with a story how a Muslim comes to Christ. He gives an example by asking how we'd answer one who asks what we think of Mohammed, an answer that would either open or close a door for further conversation. I love his answer, but you'll have to read it to find out what it is!

While this focuses on the mission field, Baugh does allude to the fact that there are similar practices in general, where we're more worried about being popular than proclaiming the truth of the Gospel. One thing that is true in modern American Christianity that is sometimes mistakenly taught on the mission field is a churchless Christianity, in spite of the author of Hebrews telling us not to forsake the assembly of us together (Hebrews 10:24-25).

I highly recommend this book. It doesn't hurt that it was written by a college classmate.

SATURDAY CONTROVERSIES - IS THERE ONLY ONE TRUE BIBLE? (PART 3)

Years ago, I taught a small Sunday School class. There were four of us. We were going through books of the Bible, and each of us had a different Bible version: A King James, a New King James, a New Living Translation, and a New American Standard. One of us referred to his translation as "The One True Bible." Which one was that?

The last couple of weeks I dealt with issues relating to Theology Proper (the Doctrine of God), and am moving into Bibliology (want to guess what that means?). There are controversies dealing with the Bible, and most of them deal with questioning the authority of Scripture, such as inerrancy. To be honest, I believe these show a desire to follow the word of fallible men than the infallible God. Thus, since I'm focusing on disputes between those who have a strong Bibliology, I won't be dealing with those areas.

Another set of disagreements fall into hermeneutics (i.e. Biblical interpretation). I thought of focusing on it here and decided not to; there are debates that are rooted in hermeneutics, and I'll deal with some of those later.

This leaves one area of division, and that is Bible translations and versions. And for the most part, in spite of the staggering number of English versions, there isn't a lot of division there. Except for those who believe there's one true Bible. By the way, I'm not talking about my classmate who used that term to describe his NASB! No, the version that has that claim is the King James - many KJV Onlies don't accept the New King James.

Let's start with an important fact, and that's the texts we have. In looking at ancient manuscripts, two things looked at are the number of texts and the time between the writing of the work and its oldest existing manuscript. The New Testament is the strongest in both categories. Now, hold on to that thought for a minute.

History time. When Erasmus did his manuscript around 1500 AD, shortly after the printing press came out, he used half a dozen complete manuscripts (technically, a fragment can be counted as a manuscript, up to the complete work). The Textus Receptus' had about 10. Now, we have thousands - last I knew, it was 4500.In the 1800s, they discovered a pair of complete texts dating to the 300's. That sounds like a long time, but that is not at all long for ancient manuscripts. 

Of course, with handwritten copies, variations of the texts are given. And there were differences between the manuscripts Erasmus and the Textus Receptus used and the 300 year ones found later. So should we go with the texts that were most common, or the ones closest to the originals? 

There are two main reasons for those believing the King James is the one true Bible. No, let me rephrase it. One reason is because the believe the TR text better represents the original manuscripts than translations based on the older texts. The other reason is really an excuse - it's simply tradition. (By the way, the Geneva Bible is an English translation predating the KJV, and there were others as well).

At this point, let me mention two different types of translations - I'm not counting paraphrases, which is putting the text in one's own words and doesn't need any Greek texts as you would for a translation. Those two forms are formal (word for word) equivalent and dynamic (thought for thought). One way you can tell which one you're using is look at Luke 9:44a - 

• "Let these words sink down into your ears..." NKJV
• "Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you..." NIV

You'll notice that there is no difference in meaning, but we are more apt to talk like the Dynamic Equivalent NIV than the Formal Equivalent NKJV.

Let's go back to my Sunday School class. The person reading the KJV would struggle reading it. Well, he was excited when his wife bought him a NIV for Christmas, which he was able to read easier. But three weeks later, he was back to his KJV. Why? Because he could follow when I read from the NKJV or the other guy read from "the One True Bible" aka NASB. Those all were formal equivalents.

This blog is long enough, so let me focus on two arguments for the KJV Only view. One is that all translations since the KJV are copywritten, and thus that shows profit motive. Well, no. Another reason for copyrights is to make sure someone doesn't release a version without changing words and meanings. And when I look at the NKJV and the NIV, I see the copyright item allows churches to use it with certain reasonable considerations without charging anything.

The other is the complaint that the Greek texts used for the NASB, NIV, and most other translations take Christ's blood out in Colossians 1:14. Really? True, some translations don't have the blood in Colossians but do in the parallel passage Ephesians 1:7. I learned that when there are parallel passages, the different alternative is preferred. After all, we're more apt to make the two passages match than to make them different.

I will close with this observation. I've mentioned that the dates and the number of manuscripts set the Bible apart from all other ancient writings. Another is the amount of agreement. No major doctrine and no minor doctrine is affected by the textual variations. It might affect the meaning of a verse, but when you look at the whole of Scripture, you'll see that they fit together.