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.

 

SUNDAY PSALMS PART 36 OF 48: PSALM 119:153-160

Child Evangelism Fellowship Headquarters, Warrenton, MO

153   Consider my affliction and deliver me,
        For I do not forget Your law.
154   Plead my cause and redeem me;
        Revive me according to Your word.
155   Salvation is far from the wicked,
        For they do not seek Your statutes.
156   Great are Your tender mercies, O LORD;
        Revive me according to Your judgments.
157   Many are my persecutors and my enemies,
        Yet I do not turn from Your testimonies.
158   I see the treacherous, and am disgusted,
        Because they do not keep Your word.
159   Consider how I love Your precepts;
        Revive me, O LORD, according to Your lovingkindness.
160   The entirety of Your word is truth,
        And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.
                Psalm 119:153-160, New King James Version

As you'd expect me to say, I absolutely love this section. Allow me to give two reasons.

1. The emphasis on revival. Yes, you probably noticed several appeals in this Psalm to "Revive me according to Your Word or something similar. Verses 33-40 have two. This section has three. Verse 154 asks God to revive us according to His Word; verse 156 asks for revival according to God's judgments (or justice), and verse 159 asks for Him to revive us according to His lovingkindness. We all need to be revived in all three.
2. I also love the concluding verse. What do you think it means to say "The entirety of Your word is truth?" I think it means that the entirety of God's Word is truth. That means Genesis to Revelation. It goes on to add that His righteous judgments endures forever. Now, how long is forever?  Yet I hear people who think our culture knows more than God. :'( I have one friend who believes in the four Gospels, period. Should I take his word or God's Word that all Scripture is truth and endures forever?
   

 

 

CANONICAL FALSE GOSPELS?

Semper Reformanda - Always Reforming. Courtesy of James Lawson.

AUTHOR'S NOTE - I wrote this a few years ago as a Facebook note. I've decided to make this my Reformation Day post for the year. So, Happy Reformation Day!

 Just when you think you've heard everything.

In an internet group, someone was claiming the Letter of James was a false gospel and that the half-brother of Jesus was the organizer of the Judaizers Paul condemned when writing to the Galatians. The person making that claim was asked if he was implying that James' letter shouldn't be included in Scripture.

No, he insisted James belonged in the Canon of Scripture so we'd know what his false teaching looked like.

If he stopped at James being a Judaizer and his Epistle being a false gospel, I would think he's wrong and outside the mainstream, but he's not the first to have problems with James and the apparent conflict with Paul's grace theology. The church leaders deciding on the canon dealt with the same question. Martin Luther called that book "An epistle of straw" (though he later changed his mind). Les Feldick believes Christian theology should be based on Paul, and that James and the other general epistles were written for Jews, not the Church. Calling James a false gospel is a step further, but I would consider that an error.

The idea that a false gospel could be canonical, however, is what I consider a very dangerous idea that must be defeated. Allow me to give three reasons why.

1. It leads to confusion.

If God wanted James in there as a false gospel so we'd see the error, have we missed others? The Jesus Seminar suggested we should add the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas - maybe that should be to show the error of Gnosticism. Many consider Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Prosperity Gospel to be false teaching - should they be included as well so we can see what the error looks like?

Let's go a step further. Protestants and Jews do not accept the deutero-canonical books (aka the Catholic apocrypha) because they don't feel they pass the test of being canonical. If we allow false gospels in, what right do we have to exclude these writings?

Now, there are false statements in Scripture. For example, the false prophecy of Hananiah in Jeremiah's day, or the errant theology of Job's friends. But in both cases, these errors are in context with the error being refuted. Let me add another refuted false teaching - that of the Judaizers, which Paul deals with in his letter to the Galatians. (Which calls to question the need for a book of Judazing teaching, as James is proposed of being, since the heresy is dealt with already in Scripture.)

This leads to why this view is dangerous. If a book that is strictly false teaching is included in Scripture without refutation, someone might assume its inclusion is an endorsement, and that false gospel is treated as God's truth. And if the person calling James a false gospel is correct, this has happened, because a near-unaminous majority of believers are convinced James is just as much the true word of God as the rest of the Biblical authors.

Furthermore, who decides which books are God's Word and which are false Gospels? My friend seems to consider himself that sort of authority, since most people don't agree with him. But someone else might differ. I had one friend who didn't think Esther needed to be in Scripture, and another who thought there were missing books that needed to be added to the Bible's 66 but when his Bible came out, he left out Song of Solomon.

2. It undermines the authority of Scripture.

A common myth is that the Catholic Church picked the books that fit its political view and omitted other equally worthy books. Not so. The process of Canonization determined on a basis of certain qualifications which books were included and which weren't. There were books that missed one of the qualificatons that were discussed before being included. For example, the question about who wrote Hebrews. Or Esther not mentioning the name of God. Or Jude including quotes from apocryphal books.

By the way, where did the word "canon" come from? One view is that it is taken from the Hebrew word qaneh, which means a cane or measuring stick. Thus, Scripture is a guide if something is consistent with God's Wrod or if it isn't. This was one of the tests - does a book contradict with other Scripture? Case in point is whether James' "Faith Without Works Is Dead" is countering Paul's emphasis on justification by faith. With careful study, though, there is no contradiction between James and Paul.

Furthermore, Scripture talks about itself as being true and having come directly from God, such as Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 8:20, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:21. Including a false gospel as Canon would invalidate these verses, and if we take the next step, we'll see the biggest danger of canonical false gospels.

3. It attacks the character of God.

I will state that I sincerely doubt the person claiming James is a canonical false gospel would imagine he's doing this, but this argument unknowingly does so. Let me explain why I feel so strongly.

As stated before, the Bible is God's Word, spoken by God. Scripture also says God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). A false gospel is a lie. If a false gospel is canonical, then God is inspiring the author to write a lie. Thus, there are only three conclusions:

1) James is a false gospel and also canonical, which means God isnpired a lie and the Bible, which states He cannot lie, is worthless and not to be trusted;

2) James is a false gospel, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be canonical, or

3) James is canonical, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be a false gospel.

What is the reason for this theory of canonical false gospels? I consider it similar to those who say the Bible is corrupted, who claim the Bible is not sufficient, or that passages that have a clear literal meaning don't really mean what they say. The reason is that the person has a belief that is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.

Let's look at those who think the Bible is corrupted. None ever produce proof of an uncorrupted Bible (at least until they show up to revive the uncorrupted Scripture, they claim). New Agers claim it's corrupted because the original Bible (they claim) agrees with them on reincarnation. Muslims say the uncorrupted Scripture contains prophecies of Mohammed. The House of Yahweh claims Catholics corrupted Scripture by adding in verses about the Trinity and Sunday Worship. In other words, it's always subjective. Of course, those making the claim cannot be wrong, and they don't have the guts to say the Bible's wrong, so they all blame those evil Catholics - even though they don't agree with each other's reasons for the Bible being corrupted.

The bottom line is we need to trust the Bible to be right 100% of the time, to trust the Word of God and not of men. There is no false gospel in the Canon.

BOOK REVIEW: Another Gospel by Alisa Childers

 

 How would you respond if your faith is challenged by those you trust to help you defend it? Alisa Childers had that experience, which she describes in her book Another Gospel?: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity. In this, she points out the differences between Progressive Christianity and what she terms as Historic Christianity.

What would you consider essentials in the Christian faith? The sacrificial death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? The inerrancy and authoritativeness of Scripture? Eternal blessing of those who obey God and eternal condemnation of those who reject His salvation? Childers tells how each of these "non-negotiables" are up for debate in Progressive Christianity. She mentions how phrases such as "the inspiration of the Bible" are redefined.

Why should a person continue in the faith of the last 2000 years instead of being open to new ideas? What evidence is there for traditional Christianity? Childers gives details of her research and how the beliefs she had from youth were confirmed, allowing her to be stronger in the faith.

Alisa Childers was a member of the group Zoe Girl. Her father,
Chuck Girard, also had a solo career and was a member of the Jesus music pioneer band Love Song. 

Have you had your faith challenged? Where would you turn to for the purpose of strengthening your faith?