THE SCRIPTURES - II

WBS.013

FUNDAMENTALS OF DISCIPLESHIP

THE SCRIPTURES - II

2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of Elohim, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17  That the man of Elohim may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

“I believe the Bible is the divinely inspired, infallible Word of God from Genesis to Revelation, from cover to cover.  I even believe the leather is genuine.”  (Quoted by many preachers and teachers through the years)

Christendom, as a whole, believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of their Creator.  You hear it proclaimed in one way or another every Sunday morning.  You hear it constantly declared on religious broadcasting networks, both on radio and television; but is what they are saying true?  Do they even know what it is they are saying?  For example, I have a book in my study called, 26 Translations of the New Testament.  It goes through the entire New Testament, verse by verse, and any variations found in the translation of each verse are provided.  Many verses of the New Testament are translated differently in more than a dozen of the 26 versions. Some verses are translated so differently as to appear not to be the same verse at all.  Which one is the “divinely inspired” version? 

“I believe only in the King James Version of the Bible. It is the ‘authorized version.’”

This is another commonly heard quote of Christians showing their loyalty to the KJV translation; but what would they say if they were German, or Russian, or Spanish.  The KJV was written in English.  Which one is the divinely inspired version for the people who speak and read German or Russian or Spanish, etc.? What would they say if they knew the KJV originally was published with the Apocrypha, 15 books nestled in between the Old and New Testaments, that were later deemed to be without divine inspiration?  What would they say if they knew the Book of Yaqob was changed to James just to please the King of England?  What would they say if they knew words were deliberately mistranslated in order not to rock the boat of contemporary Christian practice and belief?  What would they say if they knew the KJV deliberately concealed the name of IAUE 6,300+ times, replacing His name with the name of a pagan deity? Would it still be regarded as the one and only, the true divinely inspired Word of Elohim?  Also, who “authorized” the King of England to “authorize” the translation? 

The fact is that it is only the “original” autographs (the actual original writings of Scripture) that were divinely inspired.  The moment that you translate them to another language, you are no longer dealing with the words that the Holy Spirit inspired men to write.  With any translation, you are dealing with men’s best effort (and we have no way of determining even that it is their best effort) to render the original manuscripts as faithfully as possible in the new language.

The Old Testament Scriptures were faithfully passed down from generation to generation by sophers who copied the Hebrew manuscripts with meticulous care.  The Hebrews even had laws that governed the manner in which they copied them.  When a copy was completed, the characters were counted from front to back, and back to front.  They had to end up with the exact number of characters; and the middle character had to be the exact one.  This way, they could be assured of having an exact copy.  If they found even one error, the entire scroll was destroyed, and they started over from the beginning.  Such was (and is) the Hebrew’s reverence for the sacredness of the writings that comprised the Scripture.  The problem, however, is two-fold.  The obvious one is, most of the world does not read, write or speak Hebrew; thus making access to the Scriptures in their original language an impossibility.  The second problem is, even the Jews ceased reading, writing and speaking Hebrew for many years.  When the language was restored into contemporary use, there was a loss of some vocabulary and the definitions of some words were unknown or uncertain.  So, even using the Hebrew manuscripts, there is a question as to what was in the mind of a Hebrew reading them 2,000 years ago versus one reading them, today.

The New Testament, as we know it, today, is derived from an assimilation of thousands of separate Greek manuscripts, none of which are “original” autographs.  Many of the manuscripts have slight variations from one to the next.  Many manuscripts are just of a single book or of parts of a book.  Collectively, they are overlaid from Matthew to Revelation in multiple overlapping layers; and scholars have established their best “guess” at what the original manuscripts must have said based on interpolating the pieces of manuscripts available.  From this final Greek rendering, translations have been made into all other languages.  The history of the New Testament documents in no way mimics the meticulous care of the Old Testament documents.  Additionally, there is considerable scholarship to support the notion that the New Testament books were not actually written in Greek, but rather in Hebrew; but there are no Hebrew manuscripts available, today, to be used as a source for translating into other languages.

I am not trying to paint a picture of despair.  IAUE works all things according to the counsel of His will.  If He wanted us to have the original autographs of the books that comprise the Scripture, He surely would have made them available.  Knowing man, they would probably have become holy relics and worshipped by the ignorant masses. Translations are necessary.  Not many Germans, Russians, Spaniards or English speaking westerners, for example, read Hebrew or Greek.  What I am saying is that there are inescapable problems associated with translating anything from one language to the next; and that is not just Scripture, but anything. 

When the name of the Messiah was transliterated from Hebrew to Greek, the Greek language did not have the capability of rendering either the “Y” or the “SH” dipthong.  Instead of Yahushua, we ended up with “Iesous.”  This is clearly not the same name.  The name of our Master has been lost in the translation.  Aside from alphabet limitations, there are vocabulary limitations.  Consider the following story from the Gospel of John (actually, it’s the Gospel of “Yohannes”).

John 21:15  So when they had dined, Yahushua saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Master; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16  He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Master; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Master, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Yahushua saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

This is generally how every English translation renders this passage of Scripture.  Because of the limitations of the English vocabulary, it is impossible to see what anyone reading a Greek version of this can readily see.  The first two times that the Master asks Peter if he loves him, in the Greek, it uses the word “agape” for “love.”  Agape is a selfless love that seeks only the best for others.  It is wholly devoted to their well-being. Peter’s response the first two times is, “Yes, Master, you know that I ‘phileo’ you.” Phileo is referred to as “brotherly love,” the kind of love a person has for a friend.   Peter does not acknowledge having agape love for Yahushua. The third time, however, the Master asks Peter if he even has “phileo” love for him.  Yahushua challenged Peter if he even loved him as a person, as a friend.  This transaction cannot be seen in any English translation of the Scriptures.  Understanding this, can we say that any English translation is divinely inspired?

I have taught Bible studies in many different States in the USA and in Germany.  There always came a point in each of these study groups that I would take the Bible I was using and literally toss it across the front of the room with the same callousness and disregard that one might discard an old phone book that was out of date and worthless.  There were always spontaneous gasps from among those in attendance, reacting as though I had desecrated something holy and sacred.  I would always tell them that it was just a book, one I could replace tomorrow by going down to the nearest book store.  There is nothing holy about the translation of the Scriptures that is printed and sold commercially to millions of people every year.  We do not gild our bibles in gold and preserve a dedicated and revered place for it to sit in our homes like a shrine.  No, they sit on our coffee tables or our bookshelves unread for the most part.  Those who do actually read and study the Scriptures carry it with them wherever they go.  It gets used and worn, and the pages get torn, and the verses that are special to us get underlined or highlighted; and eventually it wears out and we replace it with another copy.  Instinctively, we recognize the importance of the Scriptures.  We acknowledge how important the message and words are that is contained within them; but we do not handle the book, itself, as though it was the divinely inspired inerrant word of the living Elohim. 

Subconsciously for many, quite consciously for others, we understand that there are differences in the renderings of various translations.  We even have a preference of one over the other.  I know many believers who embrace the King James Version over all others.  I know some who will read only the New American Standard Version.  Still there are others who are devoted to the New International Version.  Though these three versions are extremely similar in content, they also are quite different in their word-for-word renderings of the same Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which are relied upon as the anchor of their translation.  Which one is divinely inspired?  None of them.  Which one is the best translation?  Who can tell?  What standard determines what makes one better than the other?  Even the King James Version has a “New” King James Version, that seeks to remove much of the Elizabethan English and bring the vocabulary of the 1600’s into the modern English usage.  Which one of these two is the better?

In our last post, I challenged you to determine for yourself whether or not the Scriptures were the divinely inspired word of IAUE.  Without that certain conviction based on personal evidence and experience, our faith cannot truly regard the Scriptures as an anchor; and our lives will constantly fluctuate between reliance upon the spirit and reliance upon the flesh.  We cannot have faith in the Scriptures because someone else believes it to be divinely inspired. 

In this post, it is my sincere desire that you recognize that divine inspiration may be ascribed only to the original writings; and much of that inspiration related to the culture and time at which the writing was given.  The historical attitudes and cultures that were present at the time the Scriptures were given cannot be reproduced in a modern translation.  All translations suffer loss from whatever language is being translated.  Does this mean that we cannot rely on our bibles?  Absolutely, not; but it does mean we need to learn a more effective way of relating to them.

John 5:39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40  And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Reading the Scriptures as an end unto itself will only bring us to a wrong place in our lives.  In this passage we see that the most religious people of the day studied the Hebrew Scriptures and completely missed their divinely inspired purpose.

We must acknowledge that whatever translation we are using is an attempt to bring to our native language the words that were divinely inspired.  No other “book” on earth can make this claim.  No other book can represent that it is as close as man can come to hearing the words of Elohim as He originally delivered them.  With confidence we can relate to the Scriptures in whatever version or translation we possess to provide a venue within which we can begin a discussion with the actual author of the original writings; and listen to Him explain to us what we are reading and what He intended to be understood.  Though He could meet and speak with us through any literary work, the Scriptures are dedicated to this objective.  We can absolutely expect to meet with the Holy Spirit every time we open the Scriptures to find Him there.