Do Christians have authority to re-arrange the Bible

[Jacob_Elliott]

Generally, if he were using the re-arrangement as a teachable example and a) not saying it was authoritative and b) noting that it is a teaching tool subservient to the biblical text I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I've this often when showing chiastic structures (not preaching mind you, but in teaching environments) of lengthy passages. Also, in translation, it can sometimes help to re-arrange aspects of a passage to show the force of the author's thoughts.

This isn't that big of deal imho.

I don't believe in the dictation theory of inspiration because it doesn't work and, imho, it clearly isn't the way the biblical text was inspired.

Anyways, this is a more troubling statement:


I would disagree with him on this. His statement is a misunderstanding of the extent of the priesthood of believers and soul competency. Just my opinion, but the early councils had the authority to do this and, until the canon was sealed in AD 397 at the Synod of Carthage, this was an organic process. He isn't able to access the text the same way.

But that's just my take.

And I appreciate it! :thumbsup:

 

[Jerome]

It's not unheard of.


None other than John Calvin said of Genesis 29:11-12:

Bible:
11. And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept.
12. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son: and she ran and told her father.

Calvin:
"The order of events, however, is inverted in the narration of Moses; for Jacob did not kiss Rachel till he had informed her that he was her relative."

Calvin's Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Curious

Since I'm hearing this 'second hand', I'll just say it sounds 'curious' to me.

There are passages in the Bible (Old and New) with notes to the effect that certain verses or sentences may be out of place. Usually these notes indicate a sort of minority report. They are few (and I'm not going to look them up right now) and typically even after changing them, the facts are not changed materially.

I'd be interested in how much material difference the changes make in the overall meaning of the passage. That would be the telling for me.

Doing a minor 're-translation' or paraphrase can be useful. I'm not sure with which version your pastor started, but sometimes paraphrasing a bit and using modern words - the proper modern words, of course - can make the meaning more clear. However, it needs to be announced and made plain one is doing so and why.

As someone already pointed out, the canon of the Bible has been established in the late 4th Century. If - as we (most, I think) believe - God 'preserved' His message to mankind, then the current canon and text is correct. If anyone claims to be correcting a mistake under the inspiration of God; the argument raises a big logical contradiction.


If in fact the pastor says the passage is 'wrong' and he's 'fixing' it, I would be very much on guard. At the very least, he needs your sincere prayer.

 

[Yeshua1]

[If in fact the pastor says the passage is 'wrong' and he's 'fixing' it, I would be very much on guard. At the very least, he needs your sincere prayer.[/QUOTE]

that is what I thought the pastor was doing, as he was going intot he greek text, and showing the mistakes that were made when translation made into english, and was correcting them!

 

[sag38]

Reordering to make a preaching or teaching point is one thing. As a pastor as I preach through a book I sometimes give more attention to one or more scriptures while not giving as much to others. This is done not out of a sense of superiority but from the point of view of time restraints, perceived needs of the congregation, etc. But, to rearrange the scripture and say that I have the same authority as an apostle and, even worse, to say that the original writers got it wrong is taking it way too far. So, he actually thinks he knows better than Paul? It appears that he is equating himself with the office of apostle. I teach a young adult SS class with a good number of new Christians. I have taught them that if any man or woman claims to be an apostle that they should run away. That person is a cracked pot and dangerous.

 

[Yeshua1]

Reordering to make a preaching or teaching point is one thing. As a pastor as I preach through a book I sometimes give more attention to one or more scriptures while not giving as much to others. This is done not out of a sense of superiority but from the point of view of time restraints, perceived needs of the congregation, etc. But, to rearrange the scripture and say that I have the same authority as an apostle and, even worse, to say that the original writers got it wrong is taking it way too far. So, he actually thinks he knows better than Paul? It appears that he is equating himself with the office of apostle. I teach a young adult SS class with a good number of new Christians. I have taught them that if any man or woman claims to be an apostle that they should run away. That person is a cracked pot and dangerous.

sounds like another david Koreesh wanna be maybe?

 

[convicted1]

There are some places in the Bible that chronology is not perfect, like Moses dies at the of Exodus

That's in the KSNJV..."Kentucky Shuck N Jive Version"...

In all other versions, Moses died at the end of Deuteronomy...D

Deuteronomy 34...

 

[Rippon]

Shuck N Jive

Wait a minute,did you get a release from Winman to use that term?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Still not enough information

[If in fact the pastor says the passage is 'wrong' and he's 'fixing' it, I would be very much on guard. At the very least, he needs your sincere prayer.

that is what I thought the pastor was doing, as he was going intot he greek text, and showing the mistakes that were made when translation made into english, and was correcting them!

In all fairness, if the man in question was talking about the translation from Greek to the KJV, could he be talking about using modern English instead of 1611 English?

The serious question here is exactly WHAT did he change? If the change was something non-critical, probably not a big deal. If the change was regarding salvation or the nature of God, then quite possibly a problem.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Hmmmm

..."Kentucky Shuck N Jive Version"...

You do know there is a "Cotton Patch" version of the New Testament? It is a paraphrase in somewhat colloquial terms of the 1950s or so.

 

[Rippon]

You do know there is a "Cotton Patch" version of the New Testament? It is a paraphrase in somewhat colloquial terms of the 1950s or so.

Good old Clarence Jordon. He knew Greek --but boy was he out there! Kind of in the same ballpark as The Message.It came out in the late 60s.

 

[preachinjesus]

You do know there is a "Cotton Patch" version of the New Testament? It is a paraphrase in somewhat colloquial terms of the 1950s or so.

See also JB Phillips' translation. There is a difference between a paraphrase and what the OP is describing.

 

[Rippon]

See also JB Phillips' translation.

I love the Phillips translation. But just about everyone quotes from the 58 edition. He updated it significantly and released the revision in 1972.

 

[preachinjesus]

I love the Phillips translation. But just about everyone quotes from the 58 edition. He updated it significantly and released the revision in 1972.

I've got the 58 on my shelf. I reference it from time to time when getting a sense of a difficult passage (or an easy one) just for funsies. Our older members tend to like his take since he's using terms and phrases they grew up with. :thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

I've got the 58 on my shelf. I reference it from time to time when getting a sense of a difficult passage (or an easy one) just for funsies. Our older members tend to like his take since he's using terms and phrases they grew up with. :thumbsup:

Personally, I have always liked and appreciated JB Phillips, also like Wuest's translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

I love the Phillips translation. But just about everyone quotes from the 58 edition. He updated it significantly and released the revision in 1972.

One of the first Godeon NT had was a Berkeley version, are you familiar with that?

 

[Rippon]

One of the first Godeon NT had was a Berkeley version, are you familiar with that?

You don't have the Modern Language Bible,which was the last update released in 1969 with the full canon? It's one of my favorites. The language sounds more contemporary than the ESV.

 

[Yeshua1]

You don't have the Modern Language Bible,which was the last update released in 1969 with the full canon? It's one of my favorites. The language sounds more contemporary than the ESV.

Did not know that there was a full version, i only knew of NT!

can you buy a leather bound bible from a publisher in that version now?