Bibliolatry, Idolatry

Gina, don't let a Modernist/Neo-Orthodox's name calling bother you. Just consider the source.

 

Gina, the charge of bible idolatry is more of a debating (or bullying ) technique than anything else. That someone is worshipping the Bible or putting it above Christ is a serious charge that just doesn't fit the facts of the cases of the people to whom it is charged. It's kind of like the Calvinist (and I'm on the "Calvinistic" side of the fence) who charges others with not believing in the sovereignty of God. The fact that someone interprets the Bible to mean that God exercised His sovereignty in some other way than I think He did, does not mean they do not believe in sovereignty at all. The fact that we believe the Bible is God's Word to us and the objective way we know His will obviously does not make us idolators. But the charge sounds good to those who make it.

 

Those of us who hold to Inerrancy of Scripture often hear such charges. Charges of Bible idolatry is often a Liberal debating techinque that is silly.

 

Gina and Kiffin,

If you will read my posts carefully, you will find that I am careful not to call all innerantists bibliolators - only those who equate the Living Word (Christ) with the written word (the Bible). If you do this, you are a Bible worshiper, plain and simple.

Daniel

 

Psalms 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

 

Daniel,

To be honest with you this is the first post of yours I have read. I however do not know anyone who believes that their Bible is Jesus.

We do however believe the Word of God (The Bible) to be God breathed and to be the very breath of God Himself.

 

I have been thinking about a thing lately. I do not know how much it relates to this thread about bibliolatry. I feel the charge of bibliolatry is a most pathetic one. It is most often thrown by liberals at such who believe each word of the Bible is inspired of God and that it is inerrant, authoritative, and without contradictions etc. What I have noticed is that this liberal approach to the word of God goes hand in hand with New Hermeneutics and a preference for Dynamic Equivalency in Scripture translating. These are the marks of unbelief. It begins with an unbiblical view of the Scriptures - "only the thoughts were inspired not the actual words and letters". Thus it has no problem accepting the un-godly philosophy of paraphrasing/D.E. in Bible translation. And along comes the ungodly philosophy commonly called New Hermeneutics, which does not care for the meaning of the original author, and seeks to explain away clear biblical precepts and commands by saying they pertained only to the cultures in which they were originally given. Much more heretical is propagated by New Hermeneutics so called. These three often go hand in hand and are clear marks of an unbeliever who does not honor the inspired words of Almighty God as being holy and just and true. Such an one is rejecting lordship, as Jude said in his epistle. And such are the pushers of Dynamic Equivalency such as Eugene Nida, Robert Bratcher etc. etc. It is most saddening that these ungodly men and their ungodly organizations and societies are pushing their ungodly paraphrases in most languages of the world today. And more pathetic is the fact that such who claim to believe verbal inspiration and inerrancy support such organizations and societies moneywise. They can't have it both ways. Either the liberal view of the Scriptures is right or the scriptural view of the Scriptures is right.

Harald

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...only those who equate the Living Word (Christ) with the written word (the Bible).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Daniel, do you believe you have debated with people on this board that equate the written word with Christ?? If so, could you provide us with some quotes to show us about what you are talking?

 

if Harald keeps imagining what DE is, that it's based on a denial of verbal inspiration, rather reading Nida and Bratcher for himself, he'll not come out of this tunnel.

what seems more in line with bibliolatry is the superstition that grows FE out of verbal inspiration. there's no requirement or example in Scripture to demand that (other than a couple of exceptions), n i suspect that it was an argument invented, as many such poor arguments seem to be, to defend one's versional chauvinism.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harald:
What I have noticed is that this liberal approach to the word of God goes hand in hand with New Hermeneutics and a preference for Dynamic Equivalency in Scripture translating. These are the marks of unbelief. It begins with an unbiblical view of the Scriptures - "only the thoughts were inspired not the actual words and letters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

&lt; It begins with an unbiblical view of the Scriptures - "only the thoughts were inspired not the actual words and letters". &gt;

Is it your position that it is an absolute impossibility for any translation to be "scripture" because the writings were not inspired according to the "words and letters" of any language other than the original?

 

One must be able to distinguish between the inspired originals and translations of the same. E.g. the Textus Receptus, is most definitely Holy Scripture, to this can be no denial. What then about translations of the same? Is for example the KJB the word of God? Yes, it is. Were the translators inspired in their translating? No, not to my knowledge. Does the KJV contain translational mistakes or blunders? In honesty's name I must say there are a few, as in other translations also. Is e.g. the Living Bible the word of God? And if it is not why not? This is not an altogether easy question. The fact is that LB is a paraphrase translation which has taken too much liberty with the original text, so much that it clearly adds to, omits from, and twists what words God revealed. This is a perversion/warping/twisting of the Holy Scriptures. In my opinion it (LB) is not God's word, scripture. It is to be compared with the false gospel of Arminianism. It contains certain unrefutable truths of God, but on the whole it is not THE Gospel of God, because it omits from, adds to and twists the biblical Evangel of Christ. Thus also the Living Bible and other paraphrases which clearly bring in destructive heresies because of this un-godly philosphy of translation they have employed. And this is rooted in a disrespect for the inspired words of Almighty God. Hope I made myself somewhat clear. Any translation/version which undeniably brings in unbiblical doctrines/heresies of a destructive kind is definitely suspect. Who then is to decide whether a particular translation is or is not scripture I won't answer here, but such versions which clearly introduce heresies and deny fundamental and less fundamental biblical truths/doctrines and make the Bible look like a book which contains contradictions and discrepancies and thus make God look like an unreliable person - such versions are to be shunned for the sake of God's glorious name. Such versions are definitely the LB and the TEV, and someone more knowledgeable with paraphrases and such like might add even more per-versions to the list.

sincerely,
Harald

 

before u proceed to blaspheme God's Word, can u show where either the LB or TEV "denies" biblical truths / doctrines or introduces heresies?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harald:
, but such versions which clearly introduce heresies and deny fundamental and less fundamental biblical truths/doctrines and make the Bible look like a book which contains contradictions and discrepancies and thus make God look like an unreliable person - such versions are to be shunned for the sake of God's glorious name. Such versions are definitely the LB and the TEV, and someone more knowledgeable with paraphrases and such like might add even more per-versions to the list.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

O No, "Doctor" B. You show me where the Textus Receptus, e.g. Scrivener's of 1894, contradicts the Old Testament, and I might begin listening to you-wards. Prove to me the Received Text contains contradictions or discrepancies. And if the TR contains such then tell me if the Alexandrian text and/or the Majority text so called are free from the same. Isa. 8:20. If the TR, let us say, of Erasmus and Stephanus and Beza, contained errors and discrepancies and contradictions do we today have any NT in English which can be legitimately called Holy Scripture?

Harald

 

FSIH. The following excerpts are from David Cloud's The Living Bible: Blessing or Curse? Either Cloud has misquoted the LB or the LB is a heretical translation as I said.

PSALM 34:20
KJV "He keepeth all His bones: not one of them is broken."
TLB "God even protects him from accidents."
This is a prophecy of the fact that none of Christ's bones were broken during His crucifixion. It is quoted in John 19:36. What blasphemy to destroy a Messianic prophecy!


ZECHARIAH 13:6
KJV "And one shall say unto him, what are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."
TLB "And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend."
In a footnote Taylor says: "That this is not a passage referring to Christ, is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reason for his scars." This is simply amazing. Zechariah 13:6 is considered a Messianic prophecy by most conservative commentators. The context DOES support this. Zechariah 12-14 is one long Messianic prophecy. Taylor claims to be an "evangelical" but in this instance he talks like a modernist.


LUKE 11:1B
KJV "one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray"
TLB "one of his disciples came to him as he finished and said, `Lord, teach us a prayer to recite"
This spurious translation gives support for such sacramental denominations as the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, with their prayer books, prayer candles, prayer beads, and hollow repetious invocations. Christ did not teach his disciples a prayer; he taught them to pray!

JOHN 2:4
KJV "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come."
TLB "I can't help you now, He said. It isn't yet my time for miracles."
This is simply an interpretation and not a translation in any sense--and a wrong interpretation at that! The Lord Jesus would not have said His time for miracles was not yet come and then do one immediately! He was speaking more of His Crucifixion and His time to reveal Himself to Israel as the Messiah. This verse shows the problem with paraphrasing. If the Bible is not translated accurately and carefully, it is impossible to get the correct Holy Spirit-led interpretation.

ROMANS 5:1
KJV "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
TLB "So now since we have been made right in God's sight by faith in His promises we can have real peace with Him because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us."
There is a vast difference between "we have peace with God" and "we can have real peace with Him." Taylor makes God's certainty and absolutely security into a possibility.

1 TIMOTHY 3:16
KJV "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh."
TLB "It is quite true that the matter to live a godly life is not an easy matter, but the answer lies in Christ who came to earth as a man."
1 Timothy 3:16 is one of the clearest and most lovely witnesses to the deity of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and the reading of the KJV is supported by the best testimony of manuscripts and ancient versions and writings. Yet Taylor ignores this wonderful testimony and makes it into something about how to live a godly life. The verse is not speaking of a godly life, but of the God Life, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God, the Triune Godhead.
If any reader desires evidence about the textual support for the KJV reading of 1 Timothy 3:16, we recommend the study entitled God Was Manifest in the Flesh. This is available from Way of Life Literature.


Harald

 

there is yet a 3rd possibility: Cloud has a problem understanding a technique of translation that the KJB itself employs, which the TLB also does, which coupled w his versional chauvinism results in extreme, alarmist remarks of all sorts.

try turning the arguments around on the KJB (where it "denies" the mediatorship of Christ, puts grammatical errors on his lips, etc.), and then add in a snide comment or two, n i think u'll see the picture.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Harald:
FSIH. The following excerpts are from David Cloud's The Living Bible: Blessing or Curse? Either Cloud has misquoted the LB or the LB is a heretical translation as I said.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

rlvaughan,

You wrote

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Daniel, do you believe you have debated with people on this board that equate the written word with Christ?? If so, could you provide us with some quotes to show us about what you are talking? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have only run across one post that came close to biblioatry, although I do not think the author is a bibliolator (just to give the benefit of the doubt). But one post is enough to talk about such an important issue. And I think many place the Bible above Jesus without even realizing it. It's always a temptation to place something in black white, something we believe to be absolutely sure, over something that cannot be seen or audibly heard. A poster on this thread continues to say that we cannot know anything of Christ apart from Scripture. I maintain, as I think any Christian should, that we know Christ most of all because he lives within us and speaks to us daily. Elsewhere, I have stated the following analogy:

If a book is written about me and you read that book, you can only know me partially - only what the book tells you. But if you know me personally and talk to me every day, then you can know everything you want to know about me - you know me perfectly.

It is the same with Christ. Scripture introduces us to him. We do not know him until he lives within us.

Daniel Payne