Could the church reformers have "dropped the ball?"

[Annointed1980]

Let me first begin by simply stating: I in NO WAY, shape or form, question "The Holy Bible," as to its being an inspired work of God, or even as John wrote in the original Greek text, "GOD-breathed."

The thing that I am questioning here is this: as I progress further and further through seminary, I am finding more and more questions arise, especially as we get more in depth with the original context, audience, and language used in the scriptures. The more I study, the more I find vast errs in (especially but not limited to) modern translations of "The Bible," namely the NLT and NIV versions, which aren't even considered acceptable for seminary classes.

In yesterday's main lecture we focused on the belief of canonicity. This is a belief pushed by the church which requires its attending members to have faith in the fact that the current incarnation of The Bible, is in fact and in whole the ONLY works, inspired in truth, by God, and the faith that the "Holy forefather's of the church were guided solely by the hand of the Holy Spirit in their selection," of the 66 books presented today as the Word of God. It is that latter half I am having trouble with. It seems whenever MAN puts his hands into that which is GOD's, things get messed up. Knowing that even as far back as the KJV and St. Joseph's Version, which greatly predate the NIV and NLT (and which these newer versions are re-translated from), there were great inaccuracies already present.

I happened to inherit 2 intriguing Bibles from family members that have passed on. One was from my great grandmother Min, who left me a St. Joseph's Version of the Bible, printed in 1896, translated in 1568, and it contains a 73 book canon which included Tobit, Judith, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, Songs, Esdras, and Baruch. Then there is my granduncle Paul's King James Bible, that has 70 books in its canon which included the book of Enoch, 1st & 2nd Maccabees, and Gospel of Mary. The above mentioned books are from the Apocrypha, Vulgate, Pseudopigrapha, Protocanonical, Septuagint, and other Deuterocanonical scriptures that were later removed from the Bible, most typically circa 1960's, as a whole, but appeared in whole or in part in many "Bibles" up until that point.

My major questioning of this act comes from the concept that many (and various) quotes and teachings used in New Testament scriptures that cite passages from the Book of Enoch (more than other noncanonical texts). Things like:

Matthew 5:5 - Enoch 5:7, 6:9
Matthew 19:28 - Enoch 105:26, 108:12
Matthew 19:29 - Enoch 40:9
Matthew 26:24 - Enoch 38:2

Luke 6:24 - Enoch 93:7, 94:8
Luke 16:26 - Enoch 22:9-12

John 4:14 - Enoch 48:1
John 5:22 - Enoch 68:39, 69:27
John 12:36 - Enoch 105:25, 108:11
John 14:1 - Enoch 45:3

Jude 1:14-15 - Enoch 1:9, 2:1

Also various quotes from Paul in his letters... Not to mention many other noncanonical quotes throughout the NT, as well as many other teachings, verses, or ideas that are cited in the Bible from some noncanonical teachings, as well as citation of books no longer present (allegedly destroyed, lost/missing) from the Bible. Like:

The Book of Jasher: referenced in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18

The Book of the Wars of the Lord is referenced at Numbers 21:14.

The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah are mentioned in the Books of Kings (1 Kings 14:19, 14:29). They are said to tell of events during the reigns of Kings Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah, respectively. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is again mentioned in 1 Kings 16:20 regarding King Zimri, and throughout 1 and 2 Kings.

The Book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer is mentioned in the book of 2nd Chronicles. (2 Chronicles 9:29, 12:15, 13:22). Iddo was a prophet who lived during the reign of kings Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijah. Zechariah was also the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1, Zechariah 1:1)

One of the other BIG things I have noticed is that in Isaiah 14, you have an ancient Hebrew text, but then suddenly there appears some lines of Latin in the mix. Isaiah was alleged to have been written 740-687BC when Latin wasn't recorded in use until the 1st-2nd centuries AD (CE). How can this escape scrutiny?

When the untouched Hebrew text is read it speaks of a Babylonian King Halel ben Shahah (who obviously God had found favor in but then he fell from grace because of his interactions with pagan gods and lawlessness and began persecuting God's people, thus the morning star reference, to say something bright in the sky but not the brightest, and fades with the light of day) but then in Latin (from translation rendered by St. Jerome) it refers to Venus, being Luicfer, and translated as the devil being cast out of heaven. Talk about a little confusion.

Some of these texts have been destroyed by the church altogether as blasphemies, but under what authority? They claim God's, but does this mean that the clouds parted and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and commanded the forefathers to do this? If so, why was it not written about? Where are the witnesses to this event?

SO... My question, does anyone else out there suffer from the doubt, NOT that the Holy Spirit guided wrong, but that maybe another spirit could have intervened with the reformists and forefathers to alter the scriptures? (This in no way should detract from the divinity of the Word as a whole; but from the erroneous scribblings of lesser educated men in perilous times.)

I mean are they not human after all? They are not prophesied about in the Bible anywhere, so it wasn't like some predestined Biblical plan or anything. People seem to accept this due to tradition, but then those same people ridicule the Mormons with the Prophet Joe Smith story. I mean is this any different really? It is the adding to or taking away from God's Holy Word is it not?

It would seem, as this is taught in seminary, that the church leaders are all educated in this, therefore they know, but yet it is not taught from the pulpit. Why?

I do NOT in any way mean to mislead, but I encourage everyone to seek the wisdom and guidance of God when reading the Word of God. The Holy Spirit IS the great translator, and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit is with us all, lets not take this for granted!

Is it wrong for me to question the translations rendered by our church forefathers, if my intention is to truly discover the Word of God?

It seems that the church demands that I accept, in faith, that their translations are correct no matter how far from the original text they may be. Personally, I fear I cannot accept this. Just as I cannot accept the idea of someone today, deleting and rewriting the words of Jesus, 2 thousand years after they were spoken, as if that person was there and claims, "no he didn't say that."

Does anyone here think I should "throw in the towel," on my desire to become a pastor, when I cannot accept the most basic of church "faith" requirements? I mean I believe everyone deserves the truth, and if we cannot receive the truth about God in the place that SHOULD be a beacon of that truth, then where does that leave me?

I have abundant Faith in God, Faith in Jesus' sacrifice, Faith in God's Holy Spirit, Faith in God's Holy Word, Faith in God's Commands, but I lack faith in the modern incarnation of the church, and to the accuracy of its "translations," rendered to God's Holy Word... Does that make me a fail case for a pastor?

 

[Annointed1980]

Before anyone throws me 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," let me say "this I know," but isn't this meant to represent the untouched original writings of the author, not the watered down, re-re-retranslated variations of modern Bibles?

Revelation 22:18-19 - "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Does this apply to only Revelations [Apocalypsis] or the ENTIRE Bible? Since this was obviously God's choice for closing and the OT and NT were obviously predestined to be one)

 

[JacobBecomesIsrael2]

First let me commend you for questioning all these issues you present. To answer your direct question, no you absolutely were not wrong to question what was done, what has been done and what is being done with scripture over the centuries and today. We need more courageous, wise thinkers to be doing exactly that.

As proof of my response, let me ask "Did the first century church including the Apostles even have a book called a bible?"

No. They did not. And yet they were saved! All of this discussion must always, imo, be put in the context of what HE, the Lord, was intending from the beginning of Genesis to our stories today - to provide a way of our salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!

I'm not saying that the canonicity (is that really a word?) is not important it certainly is. We cannot tolerate heretical teachings for sure!

And I believe further that the emergent (rebellion against scripture) church we see today where the bible is being blithely ignored to our peril makes it clear that the question of what is scripture is even more important that ever.

I think that it is vitally important that everyone learn scripture very well so they can fend off the attacks of our enemy Satan and his minions. And so we can exhort our brothers and sisters in the Lord and so we can effectively carry out our overriding (commanded by Jesus) mission here on Earth - to make disciples of all men.

However, let us not forget that the first century church only had the scrolls of the prophets to prove who Jesus was and no one book called the bible. So I have no problem personally with us adding a book that is provably inspired by the Holy Spirit - the test for which should be that it agrees totally with the rest of scripture and adds something significant to already existing scripture.

And if there is existing scripture that is contradictory - as I and my friend have confirmed exists today in the bible as it exists in the translations i've seen - then I have no problem with at least examining and suggesting a remedy to this situation.

Personally, I would love it if a group outside of the politics that to me always causes the translation problems would objectively look at all available documents and if it is consistent with other scripture and translate it into a super-bible.

Is it really going to damage someone's faith if they have to think for themselves how the bible came into being the bible in the first place?

All in all, I think the Lord did not just have Jesus sit down and write "The Holy Book" for us to know exactly what scripture is because I believe it is the wrestling with scripture, and fighting for the truth - this process we must go through to understand it - that is also very important.

If you have to fight your whole life to have a well-rounded understanding of scripture, will that not be of more value to you than if you had the Lord give it to you in one mind dump after you accepted Jesus as Lord?

I think if that were the way of it, most people would just rejoice at such a wonderful "understanding" but then when the reality of living it sets in, when we are tested, we will fall away.

This is why the Seeker Sensitive, Self-Help methods of doing church are so damaging. They always pump people up with how great they can be only to let them down because of reality that it IS hard work, life is very difficult, people will still sin against us, we still stumble.

That stuff never works long-range. So I believe the Lord makes it so we HAVE to work hard every day to gleen a little morsel of understanding for today to keep us actively involved in pursuing him. I think he honestly tells us up front that this "way" of Jesus is not easy here on Earth.

So we must fight for the truth - even against those who would purposely mistranslate certain scriptures in some translations.

Well God bless you as you wrestle with all these issues!

Hope i've helped!

 

[Trax]

Let me first begin by simply stating: I in NO WAY, shape or form, question "The Holy Bible," as to its being an inspired work of God, or even as John wrote in the original Greek text, "GOD-breathed."

The thing that I am questioning here is this: as I progress further and further through seminary, I am finding more and more questions arise, especially as we get more in depth with the original context, audience, and language used in the scriptures. The more I study, the more I find vast errs in (especially but not limited to) modern translations of "The Bible," namely the NLT and NIV versions, which aren't even considered acceptable for seminary classes.

Luk 21:33 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
If God can not present you with a good translation, what kind of God is He?
I will agree with this, that some English versions aren't that great. The NIV
being one. But when you get into the mind set of "did God really say this?"
What mind set are you displaying? (Gen 3:1)

You have a couple options:
1. Learn Hebrew and Greek
2. Learn another language, such as Spanish and use a Spanish translation
3. Go with an English translation that you seem best

You need to keep in mind also, there are churches around the world, where no one has
a Bible at all. There have been many times when I knew the word of God, before I
even read it in the Bible. You need to have faith in Him to get you what you need.
If you rely only on your own IQ, to find the perfect translation, you'll be like a dog
chasing his tail. And even if you do find the best, most perfect translation, it will not
benefit you at all, without first relying on God and His wisdom.

 

[Annointed1980]

To JacobBecomesIsrael2:

Yes you did help and thank you for your "out-of-the-box," answer. I have really been struggling with this in my seminary class, and it seems everyone looks at me like an idiot sometimes. I mean, the reformers used scriptures from books that were noncanonical to confirm canonical teachings and scriptures, their are things being quoted, referenced, and cited in noncanonical books within the canonical scriptures.

I look at it like this: If I were a member on a deciding jury in a court, and this was presented, and the info I am scrutinizing is this; does it make sense to use noncanonical scripture to authenticate canonical scripture but then deem the noncanonical work as "uninspired, or unrelated," make any sense? To me it simply does not. Now have I read the entire book of Enoch yet, no. I haven't. I plan to but haven't yet. Can i assert that it is/is not inspired word. No absolutely not, and I do not feel God has appointed me with said authority over His word. However, do I feel that gives another the right say it is or isn't a good/important thing to read? No, I think that anything connected would be important.

I am surprised that the book of Ester is considered canonical, since it is more a story than a authoritative work of God. Sure you can understand how God is moving behind the scenes of the story, but, there is no official decrees of the Lord or much divinity in the tale at all. It shows that God can command the heart and use the least likely person to achieve His goal (a haremite to save a nation), but other than that, it seems more a tale. The most intriguing thing about it is that is has some verifiable history in it.

Oh yeah and canonicity is a word lol!

Canonicity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I come across those every seminar in seminary, "is that even a word?" LOL!

 

[DesertJoe]

God bless you. Sometimes we do forget God's sovereignty? In the questions man asks about what comprises canon of scripture, have we forgotten the old adage "Man rules but God overrules"? I am not stating that we should not seek out God's truth, but at the same time, do we truly believe that God in His sovereignty would not give us all His word, and also preserve it as He intended over the centuries?

 

[Annointed1980]

But when you get into the mind set of "did God really say this?"
What mind set are you displaying? (Gen 3:1)

First off, thanks for your response Trax; the thing I question is this really... NOT "did God really say this," in reference to the scriptures themselves, but did he give those commands to those beginning around AD1400 and on into the 1960's to alter the Bible? I mean seriously, I can jump on a soapbox in the middle of a city and blaspheme that God commanded me to remove half this book, and change around this one, etc. (I wouldn't do that but just saying) Does that REALLY mean GOD commanded me to do so? No absolutely not and anyone that doesn't question this is foolish.

I am not saying discern the Bible with human IQ either, but through a little common sense, the Holy Spirit, and prayer, you can develop many good scriptural reading habits. I understand that there are "mysteries of God we cannot comprehend." I just believe that "truth cannot be concealed," and "all things hidden will reveal themselves in due time."

I mean even I admire the faith of one that can say, I am sure that the Holy Spirit moved the hands and hearts of every man in the Protestant, Lutheran, Anglican, Magisterial, Radical, Anabaptist, Sacralism, and "Second Front" reformations that molded the texts commonly referred to as the Bible today.

To me it just seems like there were "to many cooks in the kitchen," and thus all the contradictions in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Arminianism, Wesleyan-Arminianism, Lapsarianism, Hellenism, Universalism, Futurism, Preterism, Neo-orthodoxy, Calvinism, Four-Point Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Neo-Calvinism, then you also have division between the various church sects, like Universal Methodist (everyone goes to heaven just say Jesus, he fixes all) and Arminianist Methodism (You must accept Jesus, be baptized, read your Bible and pray regularly [minimum of 1-2 times daily], learn God's laws, keep God's laws, repent daily, atone for sin through good deeds, make disciples, etc), as you can see in the contrast, BOTH CANNOT BE RIGHT!

I guess my point is, there can only be ONE series of inspired books authored by God to be collected as a be-all-end-all Bible. You can't say one is inspired and another not when you contrast them and they contrast one another...

I feel this is the issue with the division of Christianity as a whole. Some say Jesus has come while others say He is coming. Some believe Jesus abolished the law, others say that He enforced it. Some say Jesus IS GOD others say He is part of GOD and others say is the Son of God separate from GOD. Some believe being "saved" is the only thing needed, others say "saved and baptized," while yet others say "saved, baptized, constant repentance, and acceptance and adherence to the Law of God."

I mean, give anyone a scripture and there are many teachings that translate it different. The base languages help, but some of these philosophies, which have been incorporated (one or another) into EVERY churches doctrines, creeds, and confessions alter the way that church teaches scripture!

I feel the scripture should be the thing guiding the doctrines, creeds, and confessions, not vice versa. For that to be true, we need to reexamine the scriptures and find which really are the right ones, not take some 600 year old dead English guy's word for it just because it is easier and more convenient that way!

Case and point, there TRULY can only be ONE TRUTH of GOD. If that were not true, then GOD would not be absolute. The scriptures indicate HE IS absolute. Therefore (though I am sure it MAY be applied infinitely for good cause) it's core meaning, what it points to, what it is saying, can only be ONE message. I just feel as "Followers of Christ" we should care about this a little.

Oh and for the record:

אני לומד עברית

και στη συνέχεια, επίσης, η ελληνική

I am also learning some Assyrian/Chaldean to translate the Aramaic scriptures. (I don not have a character pack on my computer. LOL!

(Hopefully you can better understand my mindset now friend.)

 

[Annointed1980]

God bless you. Sometimes we do forget God's sovereignty? In the questions man asks about what comprises canon of scripture, have we forgotten the old adage "Man rules but God overrules"? I am not stating that we should not seek out God's truth, but at the same time, do we truly believe that God in His sovereignty would not give us all His word, and also preserve it as He intended over the centuries?

Thank you DesertJoe, and I agree. Ironically, the Book of Enoch and many, Vulgate, Apocrypha, Protocanonical, Pseudopigraphal, and Deuterocanonical scriptures have survived even until now, and even more than centuries but some for several millennia! That is also a question I thought of myself, I do find that it is interesting, that though not in the Bible itself, these scrolls still exist! Many have survived fires, wars, floods, and more and yet still they are! Most historical records for those ages penned by kings haven't survived such things!

Okay let me recompose myself, I get excited and now I feel like I am selling them. LOL! I just feel that people of our time, being a bit more educationally advanced, need to reexamine the "ancient text," in original language and grammatical usage, and scrutinize what we have currently, called the Bible for translation errors, and for missing texts, to insure accuracy of scriptural meaning. How can we have "the Truth," if the truth varies in definition from person to person?

 

[Trax]

(Hopefully you can better understand my mindset now friend.)

You can spent your life, trying to figure out which tires to put on your car. Until you
decide, you go no where. You asked the question, in your orginal post of "should
i throw in the towel?" A lot of people are getting saved with the materials you can
easily get also. There is a time coming where you'll have to make a decision, and get those
tires and start rolling. Its good you want to get the right tires.

 

[violakat]

Here's another thought, do the books that survive, line up and agree in everything, or is there one, (not referring to personal mistakes people make in translating) that disagrees with everything else. If one book disagrees with 7 other books, then it causes conflict within the Bible.

Now, does it mean that everyone translates things the same way? No. Sometimes people take a passage, read it, and see things differently then others. That's why we have so many different denominations. And so much disagreement on what should or should not be included in the Bible.

I think there's nothing wrong with reading the books from the Apocrypha, but you should carefully study it and see how it lines up with the rest of the scripture. Also, some of the books that have supposedly survived centuries are in contention as to whether they are the original or fakes, such as the Book of Enoch. Yes, we know there really was a Book of Enoch, after all, the Bible does mention it. Yet some people believe that the current one is not the original, due to some supposed conflicts. (I do not say one way or another, since I have never bothered to do the research on it, and in fact have only recently heard about the Book of Enoch.)