Cultural Shift
Once you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, you will never be moved again. Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 3 (1992 edition)
Relationship – No, you won’t find this “verse” in the Bible. It is a citation from the 1992 copyright edition of Oswald Chambers’ famous devotional. But it isn’t what Chambers actually wrote! When Chambers first penned these words, he wrote, “Once you get into personal contact with Jesus Christ, . . .” The 1935 original has been “updated” for our contemporary culture. In just 60 years, Chambers’ idea of “get into personal contact” was changed to “have a personal relationship.” The text was altered to fit evangelical presuppositions. But no one bothered to mention it.
Why do we care about some editor altering the original text of Chambers’ devotional? After all, it was altered so that it would be easier to read. A good motive, right? The problem isn’t the motive. The problem is accuracy. There are subtle differences between “get into personal contact” and “have a personal relationship.” For one thing, the first is an action; the second a possession. The first implies continued effort; the second implies steady state. One fits the evangelical theology of the permanence of salvation. The other carries some uncomfortable implications. But even this isn’t the real problem. The real problem is the clear contemporary example of the willingness of publishers and editors to change the text in order to meet the assumed needs of the reader. The reason why we investigate this obvious example is this: if it took only 60 years for the evangelical community to alter the text of one of its great heroes of the faith, what do you suppose happened to the biblical text over 2000 years? What are the consequences of changing the text to meet the assumed intellectual levels of the readers as opposed to insisting that the readers meet the intellectual milieu of the author? The alteration of Chambers’ material is but a single clear example of the tendency among Christians to be comfortable with communicating the meaning rather than insisting on accurately transmitting the message. And as we must know by now, meaning is subject to the culture.
Do you read Shakespeare in the original? Probably not. Chaucer? Unlikely. Even the King James Bible no longer reads the same as the 1611 version. Language changes. Meanings change. “Gay” doesn’t mean “exuberant” anymore. This begs the question: Do you read Paul as he wrote it? Or James? Or Isaiah, Jeremiah, Moses? If Oswald Chambers’ material can be altered to fit the new meanings, what do you suppose translators of Scripture do? Why do we need 52 versions of the English Bible? Are there really 52 different messages?
We are on a quest. That quest is to understand what Scripture says according to the language, culture and paradigms of the authors. That’s why we dig behind the translations. We want to know what God said, not what the translation committee thought we should absorb. That’s why reading Scripture isn’t quite so easy anymore.
Topical Index: Chambers, translation, relationship
Hi SKip, Just wondering if you have a favorite English translation, that you would recommend as being most accurate and closest to the original. OR Spanish for that matter. We read English usually but also Spanish. Working on our Hebrew but it will still be a long time before we can actually read the scriptures in their original text. In His Love, Linda K. Morales Puerto Rico
See my last comment on “What’s the Word?”
Then add this:
Some English translations have clear theological bias. For example, the NIV clearly contains a “once saved, always saved” and “sinful nature – depravity of man” theological bias (notice how it translates sarx in Romans). Fo this reason, I don’t usually use the NIV. Of course, once you are aware of the bias, then you just compensate for it. THe NASB, which I usually use out of habit, has a replacement theology bias. However, I like it because it is closer to word-for-word translation. OF course, that means it often misses idioms (which the NIV usually catches). The NKJV seems OK (same issues as the NASB). The standard KJV is sometimes the more accurate, but you must always check it against the original. However, as I said in the opening comment, no English or Spanish (or any translation into an Indo-European language) translation shares the same middle-Eastern worldview or the architecture of the letters like Hebrew, so you are always leaving something out.
Thanks, Skip.
Skip, what is your opinion of the ESV version? I see a lot of people I respect using it and it’s one version I don’t have, except on my computer, and I was considering buying one.
Keep it on your computer and put the money into At God’s Table 🙂 That way you will have insight into even the ESV bias
Thanks for the advice. I have just about worn out the Bible I have used the most for the past few years. Maybe I’ll just start carrying one of the versions I have on the shelf that I have used for reference. Just curious what you see as the ESV bias?
Amen, thank you Skip!
~ to understand what Scripture says according to the language, culture and paradigms of the authors ~
Close, but not quite. Who wrote the Book? Whose Book is it anyway? ~ What do the scriptures say? – Is our Bible a history book only? ~ Study the scriptures..~ Why? So we may say- that was then..- this is now? No!. The scriptures, the Word of God, (including the Torah) stand. The Word of God is the anvil that will wear out the hammers. The Word of God was here before you and I arrived on the scene and it will be here long after we are no longer a memory.. The Word of God (the scriptures state) abides/remains forever.
We have in our formerly sin-stained hands a Book. It is the Book God wrote- and His words, (according to His words) abide forever.
Every relationship, even with a banker or a barber, begins with a contact. I remember how I met my wife.. “Hey baby, hey!”- or my wife and I were happy for twenty-three years and then we met! Yes, you have to meet someone or Someone for any relationship to begin. We..-you and I dear reader, perhaps have never met “face-to-face,” and yet I know you (only) through your words. This is the way I “know” Jesus (who is the) Christ. I’ve never met Him face-to-face, but one day I assure you- I will. I will meet the Man with the nail-scarred hands- and I will guarantee you this- I won’t be standing when I do.. – I will be face down and at His feet. Any crowns I might be wearing (what a foreign concept!) will be given to Him “on that day.” – And yes, there will be a Day. There will be the wedding supper of the Lamb, just as sure as I am now breathing in and out.
I can speak for no one but my self. I wish I could, but no. Every one of us.- each of us will give account of himself or herself on the day of judgment. (ps- I am not the Judge- and neither are you dear friend..) – There is only ONE who will judge each man and every man on that Day. That Day is sooner today than it was yesterday and it is on its way for every man. How does “any man” know this? ~ It is written! ~ It is recorded in a Book, the Book God wrote. ~ And just as it is appointed to the children of men to die once, and after their deaths the judgment ~(Hebrews 9.27) ~ For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad ~ (2 Corinthians 5:10)
What did our Savior say? (we do pay attention to His words, -right?) ~ Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words (Who’s words?) shall not pass away ~ (Matthew 24.35) ~ And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times ~ (Psalm 12.6) ~ As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in Him ~ (Psalm 12.6) Shall we continue? Is this trip necessary? -Is there more?
~ The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes ~ (Psalm 19:8)
~ They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. ~ (Psalm 19:10)
Is there more? ~ “We” do err,-not knowing the scriptures- nor the power of God ~ BTW..- how did God create this world, anyway? uhh.. by speaking? (the word of the LORD) and how “in the end of days”-will the world be destroyed? uhh.. is there a sword that proceeds out of His mouth? the Sword of the LORD which is the word of God? When Yeshua spoke these words in response to the soldiers query- “Are you the Christ?”- and He answered ~I AM~ do you remember what happened next? Was this moment- a glimpse of glory? They were “blown away!” – and picking themselves up off the ground!-
Now, let us “attempt” to answer this question: ~ Who is this King of glory? ~ He is The “I AM!”
Skip, this is why I’m so glad I found your work. When I first discovered that translators not only added words to our Bibles that changed the meaning, added or deleted words to fit their theological assumptions, and inconsistently translated the same word even thought the context was the same, it was very disturbing to me. Ever since I, along with many other people, have been on a quest to discover the true meaning of the Scriptures. By that I don’t mean some hidden gnostic knowledge. I mean trying to learn, as best we can, how the original audience would have understood what was said and how it has been understood down through history (especially by the Jewish community), instead of reading our modern western mindset back into the text. Thanks so much for what you are doing.
Mel, you took the words right out of my mouth. I thank G_d my search was lead here.
Peace 🙂
Isn’t that why Our Heavenly Father Gave Us Holy Spirit as is stated in John 14 verses 15-17 & 26.How about John 16 verses 7-15. I have just read these in the 1611 copy of The King James original which I have and by the way also contains the APOCRYPHA books!!!!
These Apocrypha Books were only deleted in 1885!!!
Strange! Perhaps!
Would be interesting to see WHY they were deleted in 1885. As for giving us the Holy Spirit, I am reminded on a comment by Dr. Cheryl Durham:
“Many Gentile Christians believe that being “in Christ” is also about exemption from formal education because, in their minds, “the Law” is already written on their hearts. This is a “Gnostic” view of faith as it sees the Holy Spirit as a personal spirit guide who transmits individual messages similar to a channel or medium in occultist practices. This type of believer has only to perceive or feel within him/herself what he/she believes is the Holy Spirit’s presence. This person’s perception is often self-confirmed by an internal feeling of calm or peace. The peaceful feeling is an affirmation that whatever the receiving person is thinking is the will of God. Taking this rationale to its logical end, the ability to discern the will of God internally and individually removes the necessity of Torah teachers for those “in Christ”; neither do they need a contextual understanding of the Bible. I have often heard people claim, “The Holy Spirit tells me everything I need to know.”
Further investigation provides a different timeline.
See
http://sdebeaubien.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/the-removal-of-the-apocrypha-from-the-protestant-bible/
Great quote.
I think over half of my fellow church members would agree,… if I changed the word ‘Torah’, to the word ‘Bible’.
On the Apocrapha being removed, here is a quote from the website greatsite.com under their English Bible History:
“Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.”
OK, so who removed them and why?
I know this is lengthy but I think it’s interesting to discover. I found this article by Charisse Van Horn who is a free lance writer for examiner.com:
The origins of the Bible are a fascinating subject complete with transcribed stories that survived for thousands of years. The early church did not have a complete Bible as we find today in churches, but rather had letters, Scriptures from the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible, and writings that were recorded from those who had walked with Jesus, those who experienced Pentecost, and those shaping early church history. Numerous councils were held to determine the age and authenticity of the writings, and whether the council believed the books or writings were divinely inspired. The truth is that there was no set time where one complete Canon of Scripture can be claimed to have been given or received.
It wasn’t until the Council of Trent, led by Roman Catholic Council members under the leadership of Pope Paul III from 1545 until 1563 that the books of the Catholic Bible were determined, along with much of the dogma, creeds, and rules adhered to in Catholicism. It is also important to understand that many denominations have set the matter of Biblical canon as closed. This means that the belief is that there is all the divine written inspiration needed and received and the Bible is not going to be expanded. For example, if archaeology was to unearth volumes of books buried under the earth for the past 2,000 years that appeared to be penned by Jesus Christ, the books would not be included in today’s Biblical canon because it was established through various church authorities that Biblical canon is now complete. In the year 1880, the American Bible Society took a vote and decided that the 15 books of the Apocrypha should be removed and in 1885, the King James Version Bibles printed under the auspices of the Archbishop of Canterbury did not include the Apocrypha. Though many in the Protestant denomination may not give the Apocrypha much thought, others question as to whether “authorities” made the right call in removing the books.
According to historical standards and archaeological records, it is fair to say that the canons of the Eastern Orthodox Christian churches and the Ethiopian Christian churches contain the most books that are true to their original forms. There is no historical proof to back the “King James Only” movement that has caused many to not only ignore much of the written records discovered through archaeology, but to insist that the King James Version is in its complete form and other canons have “added” books. The truth is that the King James Version and other modern day, Protestant Bibles have removed approximately 150,000 words of Apocrypha because in 1880, they were deemed uninspired.
Also on biblestudy.com:
Protestant Reformers like Martin Luther doubted the canonicity* of the Apocrypha*, but when Luther prepared his translation of the Bible into German, he did not remove the Apocrypha; he simply moved those books to an appendix. This tradition continues in many European bibles.
The English were the first group of people to remove the Apocrypha altogether. In 1599, an edition of the Geneva Bible was published without the Apocrypha. In 1615, during the reign of King James the First, George Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, declared the penalty for printing a Bible without the Apocrypha to be a year in prison! But over the next three centuries the growing influence of Puritans and Presbyterians over the populace, the government, and the British and Foreign Bible Society led to a strong tradition of printing bibles containing only 66 books.
The situation today reflects this bifurcation. The bibles used by many European Protestants, as well as the Anglican Church, still include the Apocrypha. Most other English-speaking Protestant churches have bibles without the Apocrypha.
Interesting notes on the Apocrypha. However, some of what he says about the earlier versions are not entirely accurate. For the best scholarship on this subject, see Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon.
biblos.com has been a great help to me
“Once you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, you will never be moved again.”
Hmmm
That sure does sound good to me, but completely alien as well
When I worked at Cisco, I used to think president John Chambers had Christ-like qualities
I found him to be extremely charismatic and inspiring and always went to see him when he spoke
I didn’t have a personal relationship with “Chambers”
But after every all hands meeting, he would meet with people to have a beer and field questions
Usually only a handful of people would show up, but I always did, for over five years
Then after they had moved me to the service provider division, I encountered a “first”
Although I had been moved more than most and been through many reorgs at Cisco
This group was the first one that did not have extraordinarily impressive VPs
In fact they struck me as though they didn’t know what they were doing
Then a funny thing happened
At the next meeting, standing about 10 feet from JC as I always did
He turned to me and asked me if I had a question (I had never asked one before)
I had drunk a couple of beers and was pretty relaxed but it sort of surprised me
So as John took a swig of his beer, I asked him what he thought of the service provider reorg
And to my surprise, he literally choked on his beer, then looked me in the eye and said
I got to get home to my wife
Obviously I was in a state of shock and felt terrible for asking the question in public
But shortly thereafter John brought in a new SVP named Cliff Meltzer
Who knew exactly how to transform the division in very short order
A grand master of the game
Then they moved me out of the company
Much to my disappointment
“We are on a quest. That quest is to understand what Scripture says according to the language, culture and paradigms of the authors. That’s why we dig behind the translations. We want to know what God said, not what the translation committee thought we should absorb. That’s why reading Scripture isn’t quite so easy anymore.”
Here is an example of the translation of the idea of “FISH” in representation of “Christians” today, you know, “we are fishermen’ go out and catch em and let G-d clean em”
If you study the Alef-Beit, you will discover that the letter/word “Nun” means “fish”,”kingdom” and “heir to the throne”, or “The Messiah”. In a book titled “The Alef-Beit” Jewish Thought Revealed through the Hebrew Letters by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, he writes “The consciousness of fall is the reflection of the egoless state of the fish, in its natural medium of water, when forced to reveal itself on dry land. This is like the experience of a hidden tzadik when forced from Above to reveal himself for the good of Israel and the world. We find this exemplified in the life and teachings of the Ba’al Shem Tov, and so will be epitomized in the life of Mashiach. Ultmately, the “destiny” of Mashiach and his generation is to assume the level of sea on earth, to experience, paqradoxically, selfless-selfconsciousness, as said in the verse of Isaiah with which the Rambam concludes his Code of Jewish Law(whose final section, The Laws of Kings, culminates with the description of the coming of Mashiach); “FOR THE EARTH WILL BE FILLED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF G-D, LIKE WATERS COVER THE SEA.”
Now, you can see a totally different meaning to the “fish symbol” that we use. Every Torah Observant Jew knows the meaning of NUN, and now, we do too, because of the earth being filled with the knowledge of G-d…..TORAH
Skip, I think the paradigm shift has begun!
Thanks for that “pictograph” Robin…it speaks volumes.