Facts about Bible Translations,
Inerrancy And Threats To the
Authentic Gospel (Pt. 1)
Rock of Offence Special Commentary
The following is a special insert included
on certain commentaries dealing with the
misunderstood subject of Bible Translations
and the topic of Inerrancy. It will repeat
some things already addressed in other
studies, but may also provide answers to
some questions not previously covered.
*****************************************************
This is Part 1 of a two-part Bible study.
Click on the link below to continue.
Part 2
*****************************************************
The goal of this study is to address certain problems that have plagued the Christian Church since its birth in the first century. Some of these issues carry dangerous unintended and eternal consequences. Easy access to the Holy Scriptures is something that most modern-day believers take for granted. We sometimes forget that the early first century church didn’t have a printed copy of the Bible to study. This valuable privilege wasn’t available for nearly 1400 years.
Somewhere around the early 1300’s, God began to call some heroic individuals to bring an end to the oppressive and corrupt religious system that existed at the time. A major part of the plan involved translating the original ancient languages of Scripture into the common languages of the people. This allowed the public, for the first time, to understand the Holy Scriptures without interference from the corrupt ecclesiastical system of the day. The effort involved men such as John Wycliff (1380), William Tyndale (1516), Martin Luther (1530) and Johannes Gugenberg (1450). Tyndale translated the first New Testament Bible into English. Outraged by this act, the Bishop of London made an unsuccessful attempt to confiscate and destroy all copies of his work. Tyndale was eventually arrested and executed. What was his crime? He threatened the religious power structure of the day - by giving the public the ability to understand the Scriptures for themselves. Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press in 1450. The first book printed on Gutenburg's new invention was the Latin Bible. Later, the first English Bibles were illegally printed, which was an act that also carried the death penalty.
Having access to a printed copy of the Scriptures was one of the contributions of the Protestant Reformation and the invention of the printing press. Today, it’s common for households to have many Bibles of various different translations. With the invention of the personal computer, we can now have all these resources literally at our fingertips. Yet, we tend to forget that God chose to preserve His Word in the ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages. These are the original Biblical languages used in the historical manuscripts, which are the source of the Holy Scriptures.
An Unpopular Truth
What we call the “Holy Bible” today is actually a translation into the various modern languages of these ancient language texts (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic). Thanks to the efforts of modern-day translators, the Bible is now available in nearly every language. What we are about to say is rejected by many fundamentalists and “King James only” adherents (I used to be one years ago). The accuracy of these translations depends on how closely they match, word for word, the original Biblical languages. Unfortunately, this accuracy is dependent upon the knowledge of the scholars performing the translation - and the ability of the ‘target language’ to capture and transmit the correct meaning. For example, the English language is not accurate enough to perfectly accomplish this task. Some translators (or the translation committee/team) would slightly bias their work to favor their own theological views in cases where the text of the manuscripts was unclear. As highly educated religious scholars, many are convinced their personal view is the correct one. Others properly kept to a strict and painful literal word-for-word translation. Some translations, such as the King James, New King James, and the Amplified are better than others, in our opinion. There is also an emotional ongoing debate about the original historical source documents. Some insist that the Textus Receptus, which means “Received Text” in Latin, is more accurate than other available documents (The original King James Version uses this text). However, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are also used in various Bible translations. Some translators use these documents because they are older - and for this reason they think its age means that it’s more accurate. In this area we agree with the “King James Only” group who insists, “older does not always mean better” – and agree that the Textus Receptus is the most accuarate.
Contrary to popular opinion, all translations fall short (regardless of how accurate they claim to be) because the knowledge of the translators and the target language is never perfect. Also, the temptation to subtly bias or generalize the text when it is unclear is usually something that can’t be avoided.
The more 'English Friendly'
a translation becomes, the
futher away it moves from
the true meaning of the
original languages.
A Few Examples
It is commonly believed that Jesus spoke in Aramaic (a Hebrew dialect). In many teachings, He used something called “Jewish idioms” to accurately illustrate a particular spiritual truth in the everyday language of the people. These “idioms” are similar to what we often call “slang”. They were phrases connected to Jewish customs of the time … and anyone in Christ’s first century audience would immediately understand their meanings. Yet, these phrases and comments might make little or no sense to those of us living today, especially in the west. When translated, these idioms can lose their true meaning and lead readers to wrongly interpret the text.
A Major Bible Translation
Problem:
The Same Word Can Have
More Than One Application
Depending On Its Context
EXAMPLE #1:
According to some Bible scholars, the word “church” (as used in our English Bibles) carries at least 7 different meanings and applications when studied according to its original Greek and Hebrew roots. Yet, in most Bible translations only the word “church” is used. Little information (except for the content of the surrounding text) is found to explain its intended meaning. This weakness alone has led to much confusion and many wrong and hurtful teachings. The problem extends to the book of Revelation, where Jesus is speaking to the seven "churches". Much of our understanding about end-time events depends on understanding the various ways our Bible translations use the word "church". Taking a closer look at this fascinating subject is well worth the effort. Due to the complexity of the topic, it is not our goal to examine the various meanings of the word “church” in this study.
EXAMPLE #2:
The word ‘salvation’ has at least three distinct definitions and applications that must never be mixed together. Yet, most Bible translators use the same English word “salvation” in each case. One common misapplication occurs over the words of the apostle Paul who writes; “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). A vast majority of Christians think that this means “salvation or eternal life” can only be obtained by “fearfully working it out” through religious service, acquiring Christ-like character or through “sinless living”. The fear and trembling (and sometimes irrational religious panic) associated with losing salvation (when we fail to properly ‘work it out’) - is a tragic, yet common belief in many churches.
However, it was the Apostle
Paul who warned that
salvation (God's unmerited
and undeserved gift of
eternal life) is not obtained
this way after the cross.
As a result, the word “salvation” as used in Philippians 2:12 is not describing the same kind of "salvation" connected with God's gift of eternal life (Read Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 6:23, Titus 3:5-7). Once again, in the Holy Scriptures there are three different applications of the word ‘salvation’ that must never be mixed together. Ignoring this important rule of context continues to cause great confusion and leads many astray in their faith.
Additional information is available
at the following link.
SOZO: The Three-Fold Salvation
of God
EXAMPLE #3:
The popular denominational beliefs of Fundamentalism, Reformed theology and Calvinism redefine the New Testament word “Grace”. When ministers teach about God’s Grace, they don’t always tell you the kind of grace they embrace. The word “grace” carries two different definitions. Paul used the word in his epistles as “the unmerited and undeserved favor of God”, when describing the way eternal life is received. But, in the dictionary and in some Bible text, grace can also mean “Divine enablement”. Some preachers do a deceptive “bait and switch” - and replace the word Grace (as God's “unmerited and undeserved favor”) with the "Divine enablement" type of grace, when describing how eternal life (salvation) is received.
This effectively redefines
the entire New Covenant
salvation program of Christ
and perverts it into
"a different (or false)
gospel" based on merit
and good works.
Additional information is available
at the following link.
Exposing the Error of Redefining
God's Grace
EXAMPLE #4:
Understanding the identity of "the elect", which is a term that is used throughout the Bible. It is applied to two major yet different groups; Israel and the New Testament Church. Replacement theology and its countless variants attempt to permanently erase Israel from the Bible. They claim that God has eternally rejected the entire nation for crucifying their Messiah.
Additional information is available HERE.
As a result, these preachers and theologians insist that God has "replaced" Israel (or the Jews) with the New Testament Church, which has now become "the new Israel". Nowhere does the Bible teach that God has forsaken (permanently rejected) Israel – and nowhere does the Bible call the Church; ‘the new Israel”. In order to combat a first century version of this unbiblical man-made teaching (or what is often called "replacement theology"), the apostle Paul warned the Church at Rome;
“I say then, hath God cast away his people (The Jews)? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew.” (Romans 11:1-2)
Yet, many attempt to change the text of the Bible to make it agree with their theology. As a result, whenever Israel (or the Jews) is mentioned in Scripture - they are often replaced with the word ‘Church’ - or considered to be synonymous with the Church.
Making the assumption that
when God speaks to Israel
in the Old Testament ...
that He's also saying the
same thing to Christians
living after the cross
under the New Testament (or
New Covenant), is an error
made by a vast majority of
church leaders and their
followers.
This erroneous method of interpreting Scripture has been around since the days of Saint Paul. It's not something new. However, for the last 600 years or so, foundational church doctrine has been subtly modified to accommodate this popular belief (and error). The kind of spiritual arrogance that deliberately alters the Biblical text is shocking - and does not originate with our Heavenly Father. It’s vitally important to discern when this practice is in operation – because it also corrupts the grace-based principles governing Christ's salvation. Yet, millions of professing Christians live under this misleading, yet mainstream theology and considers it to be "fundamental (and foundational) Christian truth".
Contrary to this dominant man-made theology, the Bible recognizes two distinct covenant groups; Israel (under the Law of Moses)
and the New Testament Church (under the New Covenant of Christ). As a result, it keeps these radically different spiritual programs separated. Saint Paul refers to this separation as; "rightly dividing the Word’ (2 Timothy 2:15). The failure to approach the Bible with this "rightly divided" understanding guarantees that dangerous misconceptions and heresies will result when attempting to comprehend the redemptive program of Christ.
During any study of Bible prophecy and the events taking place around the Second Coming of Christ, we often see the word "elect" in Scripture. Jesus used this term in His famous sermon in Matthew 24. Saint John used this same term in the book of Revelation. When speaking about the Church, the apostle Paul used the word ‘elect’ in his Epistles. It simply means "a people that belongs to God". Yet, there are two groups of people in the Bible who "belong to God" - not just one. As a result, in the canon of Scripture there are two different applications of the word "elect" that exist after the cross.
FIRST:
There is ‘the elect of Israel as
the people of God’ under the Law
of Moses ...
SECOND:
There is ‘the elect of the Church
as the sons of God’ under the New
Covenant of Christ
(John 3:1-2, Galatians 4:4-5,
John 1:11-13, Romans 8:15-19).
Both of these groups clearly “belong to God” but should never be mixed together into one group, which is the error found in Reformed Theology and its countless variants. Unfortunately, the Bible translators use the same term - 'the elect' - to describe both groups. This misleads readers into thinking that 'the elect' represents only one group in the Bible.
This weakness in various Bible translations has led to disastrous misinterpretations of Bible prophecy. Rules governing Biblical context demand that these two different groups which operates under two different covenants (the Old Testament Mosaic covenant - and the new covenant of Jesus Christ) must never be mixed together (or merged).
Each group was called by God for a different purpose. The purpose for the "elect of the Church" wasn't revealed until after the cross. As we constantly repeat throughout our writings; this is why Paul commanded his disciple Timothy to "rightly (or correctly) divide God's Word" (2 Timothy 2:15). Various preachers who embrace Reformed or Replacement theology (and thier countless variants) refuse to ‘rightly divide’ Scripture. They subtly remove Israel from God's overall program, replacing her with the Church as "the new Israel". This effectively destroys the dual meaning of the word ‘elect’ found in Scripture and replaces it with only one meaning; ‘the elect as the new Israel’.
This is a false man-made religious
ideology where the Church of Jesus
Christ is said to ‘replace’ the
original ‘nation of Israel’ in
Scripture.
Additional information is available
at the following link:
Avoiding the Error of Replacement
Theology
When you take this corrupt man-made definition and apply it to Bible prophecy, the Church (or what is incorrectly called ‘the new Israel’) now becomes ‘the elect’ that Saint John said will go through the tribulation period recorded in the book of Revelation. Yet, John was writing about ‘the elect of Israel’ along with those who would believe on Christ during the Tribulation - after ‘the elect of the Church’ is removed, to meet Christ in the air ... in what is often referred to as the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-55). Scripture declares that Israel’s salvation (along with some of those who previously rejected Christ during the ‘Age of Grace’) occurs during the Tribulation – or what the prophet Daniel refers to as; “The Time of Jacobs Trouble”. In Scripture, the name ‘Jacob’ refers only to Israel ... not the Church. It is not 'the time of the Church's trouble' - as many wrongly teach. This is a period of time that God has uniquely designed to bring the Jewish people back into relationship with Himself (as He promised in Romans 11:1-2, Romans 11:11-21 and Romans 11:25-26). God did not design the Tribulation for Christ’s blood-bought believing Church, which is already saved - and requires no such persuasion.
The apostle Paul comforted the Thessalonian believers by teaching that the Church (also called the body of Christ) would not go through any of the tribulation judgments. The Thessalonians along with all believers today are members of the body of Christ - or the Church. Paul taught that the Church is God’s elect, or those redeemed (purchased by Christ’s blood) at the cross. Yet, in this unique instance - the elect are exempt from the future Tribulation judgments which are sent upon the remaining inhabitants of the earth who rejected Christ’s freely offered redemption.
Additional information is available HERE.
Contrary to many popular Bible teachings, Paul respects and obeys the context of Scripture by keeping the covenant programs of both Israel and the Church separated – and calls this separation “rightly dividing the Word” in 2 Timothy 2:15.
In order to walk in truth, we
must first learn to study and
interpret the Bible in the
way Paul instructs.
More information about the nature of the Church
can be obtained at the following links:
Who Is The Bride of Christ?
A Warning About Violating Biblical Context
If we fail to understand these
various translation weaknesses
and the different way words are
used in our Bible, we can easily
be led astray in our faith.
The Question of Inerrancy
The threat to the ‘truth of Scripture’ motivated scholarly men like Dr. James Strong and Dr. Robert Young to devote their whole life creating an exhaustive concordance of the Bible, including an indexed Greek to English and Hebrew to English dictionary. If the threat wasn’t real, the sacrificial work of these men was a horrible waste of human resources. As the various Bible translations became popular, both Dr. Strong and Dr. Young (and other Bible Scholars) feared that the church would start to accept the translations AS INERRANT - or a perfect match to the original languages. This would lead to an unhealthy and unwise dependency upon the translations that could result in erroneous doctrines and teachings. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we’re seeing today. These older Biblical scholars knew that the translations (including the King James Version) had various weaknesses.
Yet, the Holy Scriptures,
which are preserved in
their original languages
are inerrant.
This is why they labored to produce a cross-referencing resource that bridged this gap. They tirelessly worked night and day (without the help of computers) because they knew that the authenticity of the believer's faith could be at risk if they failed. However, despite their best efforts, what they feared came to pass anyway.
For these reasons, we believe
The Holy Scriptures are inerrant
only in their original languages
and not in their various
translations.
*****************************************************
This is Part 1 of a two-part Bible study.
Click on the link below to continue.
Part 2
*****************************************************
Return To Home Page
|