Original Languages

Obviously, if you're paying attention, we have access to a lot of English translations, it's almost embarrassing when you think about parts of the world where it's difficult to get a Bible in print.

How many Bibles do you have?  I recently reorganized my bookshelves in my basement and found that all of my Bibles would not fit on one shelf.

So, I want to say a brief word about which translations I think are most helpful, but first I want to reinforce the principle of the priority of the original languages.

English is very often ambiguous in many areas.  As an example, if I use the word "whom" it might not be clear if I were referring to a man or a woman, or even a pet etc. The context of the sentence would give me clues, but ultimately the word itself doesn't give me a clue.  The beauty of Greek is that pronouns possess gender (like many other languages) so it's just more precise.  There is also more detail in tense than in English, not just past, present, and future.  And I could go on and on.  I just want to drive the point home that English is good for covering ground quickly,  but theological decisions should always be decided on the basis of the original languages.

This brings up another question, "which original languages?"

In the Old Testament (OT), that's usually Hebrew and sometimes Aramaic.  However, there is a Greek translation of the OT that is quite good.  It's called the Septuagint and is essentially the Bible that the Apostles used. So while the Hebrew (Aramaic) text is the most "authoritative" I believe the Septuagint is very close behind.

As for the New Testament (NT), it was originally written in Greek. There have always been people who propose that parts of it were originally written in Aramaic, or that Jesus' teaching was really in Aramaic so an Aramaic translation would be more reliable, but this is not the case. The Aramaic texts that the most popular "Aramaic New Testaments" are built off of come from 1,200 years after Jesus. The NT was written in Greek under the direction of the Apostles, thus the Greek New Testament is the inspired Word of God, not Latin or Aramaic, or the King James.

But which Greek NT?

We do not have a "first edition" of the NT.  In other words, all we have are copies of copies of the original Greek NT.  There are basically two competing views regarding the best method of determining what the original words of the NT were.

The first approach is usually referred to as the "Majority Text" and basically refers to the text the the King James and New King James are built upon.  The basic view here is that if there are different readings of the same passage of the Bible, the reading that is in the majority is considered to be right.

"Hold on" you may be saying "you mean there's a difference?"

There's not really a big difference, usually it's a difference in spelling, or the addition (or subtraction) of a word here or there.  This occurs especially in the gospels or where an author is quoting a familiar passage, it is very easy for someone who is copying the NT to add words that they remember from another gospel like Matthew while the are copying Mark even though Mark didn't originally have it in there.

So here's the bottom line, even though there are differences in letters and words, for the most part, both kinds of Greek texts say essentially the same thing, and there are not major doctrinal differences between the two.

This bring me to the second method usually referred to as the "Critical Text."  It's called "critical" because it's a forensic recreation of what is believed to be the actual text. Scholars take into account several factors to determine what was originally written by the Apostles and their followers.

This critical method has taken decades to do and is a continual process.  Scholars have come to a 99.5%+ consensus as to what the original NT was, and the differences are in spelling effecting no doctrinal issue.

I follow this later position. The majority view takes the reading that occurs the most as being right, where the critical view takes the more "primitive" (or original) reading to be right.

Every major English translation takes the critical text for their basis of translation.

Now, the reality is, the King James Bible is a GIANT that casts a huge shadow. No Bible has ever had the dominance of this Bible and probably none ever will. I personally think the KJV is beautiful and poetic in many parts, my first Bible was a KJV. Every English translation has been effected by the KJV to some extent.

So let's talk English Bibles.

There are more "word-for-word" (WFW) Bibles and there are more "thought-for-thought" (TFT) Bibles.

The advantage of WFW is that the translation process is much more objective and there is not as much room for human error.

The disadvantage of WFW translations is that they are written more in Greek style and are not good English.

For something to be a translation in English, it is not always helpful to simply translate the words. As well, words from one language into another never have a 1-to-1 correspondence 100% (or even a majority) of the time.

So this brings up the TFT or "paraphrase" Bibles. These seek to look at groups of words and say them how an English speaker would say them. This is how translation should be done, however there is much more subjectivity in this process. Judgment calls have to be made, and no one person is going to be right 100% of the time.

Add to this, not only do we have to get the words right from Greek to English, we also have to account for the current use of the English words.  A highly educated lawyer in New York would have a very different vocabulary than a 10 year old in Texas. This cultural divide complicates the issue.

So what's the best Bible?  The original languages.

What's the best English Bible? I don't think you can say there is just one.

The KJV is good enough for devotional reading and for study. If you are supplementing your reading with commentaries or listening to someone preach, you'll be just fine with the KJV. The NKJV (New King James) is essentially the KJV with updated English.

If we get into modern Bibles, there are a multitude of choices.

For young children, I really like the NIrV (New International Reader's Version).  It's a TFT translation written with the vocabulary of a 4th grader. It's very easy to read and they do a good job.

For adults of all ages, it does get a little complicated:

The NASU (New American Standard Bible updated in 1995) is a very good Bible, all the editions of the NASB are, but it is very bad English, so it is not a very good translation.  It is a WFW type of translation and is very accurate in terms of translating each individual word, but we're not reading words, we're reading the Bible which is made up of clauses, sentences, and paragraphs. It is a very rudimentary and wooden translation that usually requires a lot of explanation to get at the meaning of the actual text. If you're going to have to explain a lot, it's not very helpful as a translation.

The NIV (New International Version) is a tried and true Bible, but I really do not prefer the NT, however the OT is very good. The NIV's translation style lines up well with Hebrew syntax and so is my favorite OT translation.

For the NT I have liked the RSV (Revised Standard Version) for a very long time.  There was an updated RSV known as the NRSV (New Revised...) but there were more than a few editorial choices that I am not comfortable with.  In the early 21st century, however, there was a new undertaking to update the RSV once again. This translation is the ESV (English Standard Version) and I like it very much.  In fact, the English Bible I use every day is an ESV (though I read the Greek NT as my primary study Bible).

The best NT I've ever seen that really takes the Greek into account was translated by Kenneth Wuest. It's a little hard to read, but very good (especially if you've had some Greek).

The HCSB (Hard Core Southern Baptist / Holman Christian Standard Bible) is a very good translation, but is very similar to the NASB, but not quite as wooden in its reading.

The only major Bible I know of that set out to do a totally new translation of the NT directly from the Greek is the NET (New English Translation), however almost all of the editors come from one school with a very specific theological position which does effect their translation at times. However, it's a very good Bible.

So bottom line, I like the ESV very much and prefer slightly the NIV in the OT - but both are still basically built upon the KJV that was compiled 1600 years after Christ. The editors have worked hard to correct these translations in light of the original languages, but the KJV casts a very long shadow indeed.

There is no substitute for solid training in the original languages. If you're contemplating going into ministry, take Hebrew, master Greek, and you'll be miles ahead of most of your contemporaries.

7 Basic Principles

Here are the basic principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (interpreting the Scriptures).

The Priority of the Original Languages: Though there are some great translations out there, none are perfect (they actually can't be) so any decision with regard to the interpretation of the Bible has got to be with respect to the Hebrew/Aramaic (OT) and Greek (NT).

Figurative Language: Shouldn't we take the Bible "literally"?  Absolutely, we should!  However, most people have not thought through what that statement means.  As this blog continues I will describe 22 common figures of speech that the Bible uses to communicate to us.

Progressive Revelation: God has revealed more of Himself and His truth to His people as history has gone along.  In other words, God rarely revealed all of the truth there is to know on a subject the very first time He communicated about that subject.  As time went along, His people gained a fuller understanding of His truth.

Historical Propriety: The primary meaning of the text is inextricably linked to the original author and his intended meaning to the original audience.

Contextual Interpretation: Any passage of scripture has to be interpreted in relation to the passage(s) before and after it.  No text of the Bible is an isolated island and the whole Bible relates to itself.

Analogy of Scripture: Not only does every scripture passage relate to the rest, because the Bible has one true author, namely God, every text in all the inspired scriptures does not contradict itself.

History of Interpretation: A recognition of the gift of teaching throughout all of church history must temper the desire to innovate in interpretation. The same Holy Spirit that leads modern readers into all truth was active 10 years ago, 100 years ago, and 1,000 years ago.  Due respect must be paid to prior Christian understanding.

What kind of Bible Study

We've all been there, sitting in a home group Bible study, or in a Sunday School class.  The Bible is read and then the group leader says "what do you think that means?"  Then (after the dead silence of a certain amount of time) someone pipes up and has something to say...

What happens next is the most important thing.  What usually happens (at least what I've seen) is the teacher usually says "okay... anyone else" or maybe "good answer..." no matter what is said.  YIKES!

If we believe that a verse of scripture can mean one thing for this person and mean another thing for someone else, then there is no point in learning how to interpret the Bible because we can then make it say whatever we want.

On the other hand, if the Bible was written by real people (and it was) to real people (which is also true) then there was a REAL and objective meaning to the text.

So, we must believe that the Bible means something, not just what "it means to me" but what it actually means.  At the same time, though it was written to specific people at an actual historical time, the principles behind the text are still applicable to us today, but the meaning of the text does not change.

Hermeneutics is an attempt at objectively revealing the meaning of the Bible.  You can then take that meaning and apply it to your life.

This brings me to 4 important words encapsulating 2 basic concepts that need to be thought through before any Bible study is attempted, so there they are...

There are 2 kinds of study, INDUCTIVE and DEDUCTIVE.

INDUCTIVE = moving from the specifics to the general

DEDUCTIVE = moving from the general to the specific

Proper Biblical Hermeneutics deals first in INDUCTIVE Bible study.  It looks at the biblical data, the actual words, clauses, sentences, verses, etc... and then draws conclusions.

DEDUCTIVE Bible study starts with the conclusion and then tries to find the verses that support the conclusion (very bad).

We do this all the time.  Any time someone asks me "what do you believe about _________ "  then fill in the blank: security of the believer, limited atonement, the rapture, the intermediate state, life after death, etc...

Any question like this is an invitation to DEDUCTIVE Bible study and it is the ideal set-up to "theologize" and distort God's word.

The proper answer to a question like that is either "well let me read you this scripture and let's see what it says" OR "what scripture are you thinking of?"

I usually opt for the 2nd question because I find it's more helpful to begin where the student is and work from there.  If I simply tell you what I believe (even if I've done the study before) that doesn't help you, and it sets me up as the "expert" who holds all truth and that's just not the case, the Bible holds the truth.

This is also called "proof texting," which is taking an existing belief or doctrine and then finding verses that seem to prove it.  But by not starting with an INDUCTIVE study you can't know if the verse just used to prove the conclusion is really a support for such a dogma.

In other words, don't believe any doctrine that you were not convinced of by the teaching of the actual words of the Bible.  You should never believe something on philosophical grounds and then seek to prove it, there's just too much room for error in that kind of method.

So the 2 concepts are INDUCTIVE & DEDUCTIVE.  The former starts with the specific and moves to the general, the latter starts with the general and moves to the specific.

You may have heard of EXEGESIS & EISEGESIS.  These are closely related topics.

EXEGESIS = drawing out of the text what it means

EISEGESIS = reading into the text something you bring to it

You want to do the first, and never do the second.

INDUCTIVE Bible study represents good EXEGESIS

DEDUCTIVE Bible study CAN represent EISEGESIS

So is DEDUCTIVE Bible study ever helpful?  ABSOLUTELY!  You just never want to start there.

We use INDUCTIVE EXEGESIS to determine what the Bible says.  That is to say, we start with the particulars of a given Biblical text and we uncover the general principle.

THEN we take that general principle and we DEDUCTIVEly apply that general principle to a specific situation (such as our life, a friend's situation, or a church dilemma).

INDUCTIVE Bible study --> General Principle --> DEDUCTIVE application.

That's how it works.  In the coming weeks & months I will be covering the general principles of Hermeneutics.  By the end, I will have outlined the basic rules for interpreting the Bible, and covered all the major figures of speech that we find in the Bible.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Remember, you want to do INDUCTIVE EXEGESIS to get to the meaning of the text, it's not what it means to you, but what you believe it means, has meant, and will always mean.

Hermeneutics

It's a big word, but what does it mean?  Well, when I say Hermeneutics, I'm talking about in relation to the Bible, but there is Hermeneutics in any literary enterprise.

I think a good definition is a slight variation on what I've heard before, so here's my definition as to what Hermeneutics is (at least as far as Biblical Studies is concerned) "the science of the art of biblical interpretation"

Interpreting the Bible (figuring out what it means) is an art, no doubt, but there are guidelines that help us to approach this process with more objectivity and helps us to get closer to the truth.

This semester I'm in a seminar called "Advanced Hermeneutics" in which we are currently studying the history and philosophy of hermeneutics, and the second half will be a little more practical.

This being the case, I'm going back and reviewing my class on hermeneutics from college at DBU under Dr. William E. Bell Jr.  I'll be doing a few posts to help organize my thoughts and summarize "the art and science of biblical interpretation" for you.

If I can get my basement organized, be looking for a general overview very soon, and then 7 posts covering the main "rules" of interpretation.  Though interpreting the Bible is a complex process that takes time and experience, there are some basic governing principles that I believe would do many people a world of good to be aware of.  I'm going to try and help you with these main ideas of hermeneutics.

Check back soon!  Feel free to EMAIL ME with any questions.

The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

[Here is a 'statement' on what the Bible has to say about being a biblical Man or Woman]

In December, 1987, the newly-formed Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood met in Danvers, Massachusetts, to compose the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Prior to the listing of the actual affirmations that comprise the Danvers Statement, we have included a section detailing contemporary developments that serve as the rationale for these affirmations. We offer this statement to the evangelical world, knowing that it will stimulate healthy discussion, hoping that it will gain widespread assent.

Rationale

We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern:

1.            The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;

2.            the tragic effects of this confusion in unraveling the fabric of marriage woven by God out of the beautiful and diverse strands of manhood and womanhood;

3.            the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives;

4.            the widespread ambivalence regarding the values of motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women;

5.            the growing claims of legitimacy for sexual relationships which have Biblically and historically been considered illicit or perverse, and the increase in pornographic portrayal of human sexuality;

6.            the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;

7.            the emergence of roles for men and women in church leadership that do not conform to Biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of Biblically faithful witness;

8.            the increasing prevalence and acceptance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts;

9.            the consequent threat to Biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity;

10.          and behind all this the apparent accommodation of some within the church to the spirit of the age at the expense of winsome, radical Biblical authenticity which in the power of the Holy Spirit may reform rather than reflect our ailing culture.

Affirmations

Based on our understanding of Biblical teachings, we affirm the following:

1.            Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).

2.            Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).

3.            Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).

4.            The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).

o             In the home, the husband's loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

o             In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.

5.            The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).

6.            Redemption in Christ aims at removing the distortions introduced by the curse.

o             In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands' authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands' leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).

o             In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).

7.            In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).

8.            In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God's will.

9.            With half the world's population outside the reach of indigenous evangelism; with countless other lost people in those societies that have heard the gospel; with the stresses and miseries of sickness, malnutrition, homelessness, illiteracy, ignorance, aging, addiction, crime, incarceration, neuroses, and loneliness, no man or woman who feels a passion from God to make His grace known in word and deed need ever live without a fulfilling ministry for the glory of Christ and the good of this fallen world (1 Cor 12:7-21).

10.          We are convinced that a denial or neglect of these principles will lead to increasingly destructive consequences in our families, our churches, and the culture at large.

Why We love...

Why do we love people?

#1 It's not for us!  We do not enter into love so that we will receive love in return or so that we will receive happiness.  Far to many "Christians" believe that God just wants them to be happy.  NO NO NO!  While it may be a tertiary result or a byproduct of a life devoted to God (and often is), He wants you to have a deep and rich relationship with Himself - this is holiness.  Marriage brings joy, belonging, happiness, companionship, comfort, support, and many many other things - but these are not the goals of marriage.  In fact, they pale in comparison to the purpose of marriage, and in fact the purpose of all life, to bring people into relationship with the God of the universe.  Happiness fades, excitement wanes, but a relationship with God can NEVER be taken away.  If you seek happiness as your primary goal, it is your god and you will never catch it.  If you seek God above all else, even through trial and pain, you will ultimately not miss it, and you will experience joy and fulfillment at a level you've never imagined possible.  If happiness is your goal, you've placed yourself at the center of the universe, and you're just not that great...

#2 It's not for them!  When we share the Gospel with someone, we can be moved by compassion and the reality that Hell is forever (just like Heaven) and we don't want them to spend eternity there, but our primary motivation is not compassion, it is God.  If the reason we are so passionate about sharing the gospel is that we care for people, then you just care too much about them.  God is the one we care most about.  People will reject the Gospel, in fact, most people will reject the Gospel (think "narrow path").  So, if your motivation is the pity of the pagan, you will lead a life of disappointment and you'll eventually hit a wall of ministry burn-out that might even lead to questioning Gospel-centered ministry or your own salvation.  God tells Isaiah to preach and preach and preach even if only 10% believe and they wholly reject you.  Jesus says that we need to be willing to HATE our family and friends for the sake of the Gospel.  This is hyperbole to describe the fact that our love and devotion to God should be the driving passionate force in our life that compels us to share the Gospel with anything that moves ("every creature under heaven").  Are people important, sure, but people are NOTHING compared to God.  That's why when caring for the poor, we take care ESPECIALLY for the household of God, because when you do things unto the "least of these MY BROTHERS" we do it to Jesus (Gal 6:10; Matt 25:40).  So caring for the poor is great, but to do so indiscriminately while passing over Christians needs is to have priorities out of what, and to care for the poor without a clear verbal Gospel witness is POINTLESS (Matt 16:26).

#3 It's for God! Obviously (based on my sermonizing above) God is to be the absolute center of our lives. Your marriage will get boring and your spouse will not love or respect you like you think you deserve, YOU DON'T DESIRE ANYTHING.  You love them because God loved you, period!  Most often when loved like Jesus loves us, your other-half will be compelled to love back, but not always, you don't love them based on their response.  When you share the Gospel, it's not about their response.  When you give time or money with people, it's not about their response, though many people are more likely to receive your words if you couple them with kindness, they will not always listen.  It's about God, and it's not a dry devoted obligation, it's a passionate commitment to the all-loving, all-powerful, all-caring, all-sufficient Lord Jesus Christ.  We do what we do for God who does not change.  If you do it for another reason, you'll eventually be disappointed, you'll burn-out, you'll need "time away" from church, and you'll never live the life God has for you.  You'll flit from one thing to the next in search of the all illusive "happiness" and you'll never find it.  Seek first HIS KINGDOM and living by His boundaries and God will take care of the rest.

Everything is about God, we're able to do everything by His power and grace, and every single part of our life should be a memorial to the gift of His Son and the abundant life we've recieved. Or as the Apostle Paul said "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom. 11:36)

He's a bit silly, but funny

Tim Hawkins is coming to our church Feb. 12.  Can't wait :-)

A Little Book Learnin'

Well, I am about to start my second semester in the PhD program in New Testament at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City Missouri.

The first semester was really challenging.  Each semester I have 2 seminars (4 hours each).  Oh, did I mention that I live about 273 miles from Kansas City?  Yea, every Monday I leave my house about 3:30AM and get home around 9:30PM.  It sounds really bad on paper,

Alito don't think it's so neat-O

State of the Union

I actually think our Union is doing okay, if the Government would just leave us alone for a while...

Welcome To ILLINOIS, There's A Tax For That...

Here's a clever ad for the guy I'm voting for for Governor of IL.
(let me know if you think I should vote for someone else and why)

How (When) Did We Get Our Bible?

Many people today are under the mistaken impression that Constantine or some counsel put our New Testament together. This is not the case. Someone I read quite a bit of, Darrell Bock, explains in just a few min. how early the 27 books of the NT (and especially the 4, and only the 4, gospels) were considered the Bible.

Watch this video...