Jeff…

VERY good stuff here!!! By far the best book I have read on this subject has been F.F. Bruce’s book called “The Canon of Scripture”. I have also read most of Bart Ehrman’s books, however, he has renounced his faith and considers himself a Non-Christian. He is very liberal, “bible” scholar at UNC Chapel Hill… So if you desire a different perspective read him.

I have wrestle with this issue and have the very same questions you do. Perhaps coming from a different angle. I came to faith in a church that taught that the King James Bible was the only “perfect” bible, that it was advanced revelation, superior to the Hebrew/Greek translations, and that all other translations are Satanic perversions. So having that beat into my head for 10 years is a hard one to let go of at times.

I believe in God’s preservation of the scriptures. There is an element of faith, I suppose, that God has had his hand in preserving the scriptures through out history. I don’t have any issue with that. Studying this issue has put a desire in my to learn Greek and Hebrew so that I can read it for myself. This is one reason I signed up for seminary… but that was short lived.

I am also not so naive to think that some bible “scholars”, “translators”, and publishing houses have pure motives when they release “modern” bible. I am sure many see big $$$ when the put out a “new” or “up to date” translation.

There is much to talk discuss on this topic, however, time does not permit… more later…

Eric M. (ericgmorgan.com)

I forgot to include these links… John Piper teaching a 5 part Seminary Class on “Why we Believe the Bible”. Lots of good info. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for the lessons)

Eric M. (ericgmorgan.com)

Eric, thanks for the links. I will definitely listen to Mr. Piper’s classes when I get a few moments.

Sometimes I feel like people are looking at me like… “How could you ever question such a thing!” when I make the nearly exact same statement. I believe in His word and it’s perfection, I am just curious about the canonization of the bible. After all we all know how fallible man is right? I, like you it would seem, tend to question a lot of things! :) I used to feel guilty but now I realize it is how I grow. It is not a question to disprove but rather to prove it. Anyway, it was cool to see other people asking the same questions. Thanks for the info on finding answers to both of ya. I have wanted to study/research this with other people for years.

Holli

Holli, someone who criticizes you for questioning doctrine is afraid of the answer to your question. Thanks for the feedback.

Oh yes, I would agree. Unfortunately, I think there are more people afraid to be curious because of that reason. I simply do not know any other way to grow and learn if I do not ask the questions.

Holli

Jeff - the first book referenced on your research website is a good read - the author basically took the same approach you did and outlined his findings… “The Case For Christ”. Have you read that?

I struggle with the fact that I don’t question it. My personality is so laid back that if the issue ever comes up in my head I’ll ponder on it for a couple seconds then end up thinking “whatever” shrugging my shoulders and doing another load of laundry (although my husband might disagree with the whole ’whether I actually do the laundry thing’) Shouldn’t I care more about the origins of the most important tome ever written?

I did read “Case for Christ” years ago but have not studied it further since then. I will definitely hit the librarian for the aforementioned books.

Paula, I will admit, if something is difficult for me to grasp, I do the same thing. I just shrug my shoulders and say, well it is not for me to undertand at this time. I will get back to that one later! :)I also didn’t mean to imply people that don’t question are afraid of the answers. I really was speaking on people in my life, be it friends or family that sometimes just don’t “get me” and seem shocked by my questions. I am looking forward to reading the books to and having people to discuss it with!

Holli

Look how much the English language has changed in the last 500 years.

Middle English Wyclif:

Compared to modern NASB:

Ok. So that’s getting pretty close to a 1:1 translation. But Middle English to modern English isn’t near a big of a jump as Greek to English.

I have wondered how much this has affected all the translations of the Bible as we know it today. Of course, the original copies aren’t changing. But even if we all could understand the languages of the original texts and even if we had the context of the culture at that time, we still wouldn’t 100% agree on the meanings of the passages. (I believe this is one major reason why there are so many different Christian denominations today.)

Right now, I believe that God is somehow performing a miracle and preserving his words. If God can send his word through multiple human authors through many centuries in an age when print and copy was rare, then he’s probably got the foresight to purchase the X,000-year bumper-to-bumper warranty on his Word. It’s one of those things that I just accept and move on because there are other fish to fry. This is coming from a guy who, up until a few years ago, would never lay a Bible face down or set anything on top of a Bible.

Ultimately, I believe that we stay in tune with God by seeking his Truth; which can be obtained in other ways than just a Bible. By seeking the face of God _through_ use of the recorded texts we can know more about God and his plan regardless if the text is written on a $100 study Bible or a $0.01 tract and regardless of the translation. It’s the Speaker of those words that has the power. The capital dubya Word from John 1.

I think if we get hung up on translations, then we are probably leaning more on our own understanding (i.e., comprehension of the passages) instead of putting faith in the Author (not the recorder or the editor) of the words.

Am I being a little too heretical with some of the things I have said? Please call me out if so.

Good discussion, Jeff.

What do others think?

EA: I like the ’tude, especially the bumper-to-bumper warranty comment. It didn’t make me LOL like an idiot, but I did smirk.

Paula: At some level we all trust other people’s research and insight. You know something better than anyone else at Sojourn. And for those Sojourners that know you, they would trust your research and insight into that topic. We really do absorb alot of information on faith in this information age. Just because the information is right at our finger tips these days, does not make it any more truthful than information appropriately preserved through the ages.

Jeff: I think it’s sweet that you posed this question and have done some homework. Several months ago a gal in our Journey Group mentioned her use of a Greek Bible. What a sweet idea to read the word of God penned by man in their original language. That’s way cooler than old-timey throw-back jersey’s on your favorite sports team.

- Rich

Rich Sturmfels
Diesel Does It

I can somewhat buy the bumper-to-bumper warranty idea, but only because I’m a Christian and I know what God has done in my own life. That is what gives me the faith to have believed the Bible is the Word of God before I began researching this.

Were I to pick up the Bible for the very first time then that wouldn’t suffice, because strictly speaking that is circular reasoning. That assumption holds that the Bible is the infallible Word of God because the Bible says it is the infallible Word of God. Whoa! To play devil’s advocate here, using the same reasoning, what keeps the user manual of my Samsung T509 cell phone from declaring it is the infallible Word of God and then, following the same reasoning, me believing it.

Perhaps the tangible effects of the Bible on our lives is the single greatest testament to its authenticity.

Were one to ignore his previous experience as a Christian and approach the topic objectively, he might require as a prerequisite for his absolute belief in the modern Bible as the Word of God that

1. The original texts of the Bible show convincingly, but not necessarily concretely, that they are God-inspired. This could be accomplished by fulfilled prophecies and coherency of content over thousands of years.

2. The original God-inspired texts have been canonized properly. This means that only God-inspired texts have been included, and that few, if any, God-inspired texts are excluded.

3. The translation of the modern Bible in question is accurate.

4. If the previous three prerequisites are met then the objective examiner would believe our modern Bible is the Word of God.

That is essentially my goal, to see if the Bible can prove its authenticity to an objective examiner. Either fortunately or unfortunately for my thought experiment, I don’t know which, I have a foregone conclusion. As I mentioned, what Christ has done in my life is a powerful testament to the authenticity of the Bible. However, were that experience absent would I arrive at the same conclusion. The question is relevant because those who do not follow Christ, by definition, do not have this experience, and will be placed in the scenario of belief or disbelief.

EA, I agree that getting hung up on minor translational differences is not productive. However, I think we must ensure that we are reading accurate translations, because while we should ultimately rely on the Author for our understanding, that may not get me very far when I’m staring at a Greek New Testament. The same holds for an inaccurate translation from the Greek.

Cultural and linguistic context are absolutely, positively crucial in understanding the words of a person that doesn’t live in your time and region. For example, whenever I would try to converse with someone in Arabic (either my teacher as an exercise or an Iraqi just for the intrigue of it) and they would ask me how I was doing I would reply, “Jayid, al hum dil Allah” That’s a horrible transcription, but transcription is really a joke anyway, so just roll with it. A completely accurate modern English translation of what I said is, “Good, praise be to Allah.” Now I ask you, do you think I really meant that I am doing well and Allah is to be praised for it? No. That’s simply a widely understood and used cultural phrase. Atheists speaking modern standard Arabic would be equally likely to use that phrase. Furthermore, if it was a native Iraqi I might follow up with “Schlonek?” which literally means “What’s your color?” In context it means, “How’s it going?”

So if you read the translation “Good, praise be to Allah. What’s your color?” in a book about me, and keep in mind that translation is accurate, what kind of incorrect assumptions could you make? How many more incorrect assumptions would you make if it were translated incorrectly? I think translation is crucial, else I could just try to read a braille Bible (I can’t read braille) and have faith that God will make me understand.

I may be comparing apples to oranges there, but I think you can see the cause for my concern.

@Jeff: The FF Bruce book, “The Canon of Scripture,” that Eric Morgan mentioned is the one we talked about a few weeks ago. It is an exhaustive study of this subject. I have a copy ready for you to check out when you are ready.

@All:We are dealing with one subject which will lead us to another. This first important topic is on the authenticity, historicity and reliability of the scriptures. Note that when we talk about the infallibility of Scripture we are speaking about the original autographs, not current versions. This does not mean we cannot trust current translations, but we do not declare them to be without error. Even so, the errors of orthodox translations (not including New World Translation and others) are in minor issues, not in comprehensive doctrine. Scholarly research of the canon and its reliability leads one to see its credibility. Those who would denounce the bible, should denounce all ancient works of western civilization. Without exception, they all have far less evidence of credibility than the bible. Many do not do the research. They stake their positions on faith (either for or against the bible).

The other place this leads us is the importance of good hermeneutics (interpretation of Scripture). This is where we look at WHO said WHAT to WHOM in WHAT CONTEXT. Then we bridge the gap between the original listeners and us today. From there we discern what is prescriptive and what descriptive.

If we do the research we will trust the bible as both sacred text and historical literature.

David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog

Check out this conference that will be in Louisville on 24-27May. It is called the New Attitude conference. The keynote is John Piper but it has other trusted teachers like C.J. Mahaney and Mark Dever. Look at what they say the focus is:

“This year at Na 08 we’ll rediscover the well-worn pages of our Bibles. We’ll spend time considering the certainty, sufficiency, and relevance of God’s word – that it may become to us a joy and our delight.”

Promo video below.

David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog

“Note that when we talk about the infallibility of Scripture we are speaking about the original autographs, not current versions. This does not mean we cannot trust current translations, but we do not declare them to be without error. Even so, the errors of orthodox translations (not including New World Translation and others) are in minor issues, not in comprehensive doctrine.”

DT thanks for articulating this… this is the very issue I find myself struggling with from time to time. Piper has a very good section on this in his seminary lesson. I have started reading through Grudem’s info on on this in “Systematic Theology”.

NOTE… I had a whole paper written below, but as I read through it is sound very argumentative and angry, though not my intention. This subject is a big deal to me and I have lots of emotion wrapped up in. Perhaps this is one of those conversations we can hash through at the Nook over a cold beer… Theology Pub style.

Eric M. (ericgmorgan.com)

Here is a link to Systematic Theology Lessons by Wayne Grudem and he teaches through his Book on Systematic Theology. The lessons on the scriptures are at the bottom of the page.

Eric M. (ericgmorgan.com)

Grudem rocks. He is one of Sojourn’s adjunct profs like Tim Keller, John Piper and Mark Driscoll. Buy his Systematic Theology book yesterday.

David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog

I agree that this issue can lead to other issues and debates and could become personal.

Mark Driscoll on “How did we get the English Bible?”

Driscoll on “The scripture is the highest authority”

Note that there are several chapters on these videos. Hit the forward button on the video menu. “General Revelation” is chapter 4. “English Bible” is chapter 6. I think I remembered that right…

Good work, EA.

David Thew
Sojourn Pastor
Thewblog

I’ve been reading the very first part of the book I linked to above, The Text of the New Testament. I have just begun to scratch the surface, but I have learned some interesting things.

First, it appears that when you translate a historical work you generally gather all the manuscripts you can find, with emphasis on manuscripts that are as close to the date of actual publication as possible, and start translating. You consult multiple manuscripts on each verse and when manuscripts disagree on wording you consult more manuscripts until you find a consensus that is authoritative.

Second, which is slightly disappointing, is that the bumper-to-bumper warranty EA spoke of doesn’t appear to have been in effect during the 350 years from the early 1500s to the late 1800s. This is when the widely accepted version of the New Testament was based on the “Textus Receptus,” a Greek translation by a fellow named Erasmus.

Unfortunately, Erasmus didn’t exactly do a crack-up job. Pasted from

http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html
————————————–

Erasmus, having little time to prepare his edition, could only examine manuscripts which came to hand. His haste was so great, in fact, that he did not even write new copies for the printer; rather, he took existing manuscripts, corrected them, and submitted those to the printer. (Erasmus’s corrections are still visible in the manuscript)

Nor were the manuscripts which came to hand particularly valuable. For his basic text he chose 2e, 2ap, and 1r. In addition, he was able to consult 1eap, 4ap, and 7p. Of these, only 1eap had a text independent of the Byzantine tradition – and Erasmus used it relatively little due to the supposed “corruption” of its text. Erasmus also consulted the Vulgate, but only from a few late manuscripts.

Even those who favour the Byzantine text cannot be overly impressed with Erasmus’s choice of manuscripts; they are all rather late.

Thus it will be conceded by all reputable scholars – even those who favour the Byzantine text – that the Textus Receptus, in all its various forms, has no textual authority whatsoever. Were it not for the fact that it has been in use for so long as a basis for collations, it could be mercifully forgotten. What a tragedy, then, that it was the Bible of Protestant Christendom for close to four centuries!

—————————–

Erasmus also didn’t have any original manuscripts for a particular section of Revelation, and simply used an existing Latin translation from his library. This apparently introduced wording that was significantly different than original manuscripts. Erasmus had access to less than 10 manuscripts, while most translations consult 10s or even 100s of manuscripts. As the link points out, it’s pretty upsetting that this was the accepted Bible for almost four centuries and the King James Version (a still widely accepted translation) was based off the Textus Receptus.

The good news is that later translations appear to be extremely accurate and complete. I haven’t got to this part yet, but I’m anxious to read more. I have every reason to think that the NAS/NIV and other versions available today have excellent textual authority.

Bottom line: I think this is excellent evidence that the original penned works of the Bible (ie Romans as Paul wrote it down) are God-inspired, but any old translation is not. Even with the increased textual authority of modern translations, I don’t know if I think the NAS version I read from has every single comma and pronoun placed correctly. Almost any translation (even Textus Receptus) seems to be good enough to present the message of Christ, but I am now even more skeptical of basing large theological tenets on a single verse.

Agreed for sure. I think pretty much anyone can find a Bible verse to support whatever their theology is (e.g. you aren’t supposed to worship with instruments [Apostolic Christian Church], grace is insufficient for salvation [Mormon]). I think the key is taking the Bible as a whole to understand the character of God and then seeing how *a* verse fits into what God has revealed to us about Himself.

Rich Sturmfels
Diesel Does It