Watchful Dragons
The watchful dragons, as C. S.
Lewis described them, are always on guard and ready to shred anyone who meddles
with their safe, apostate, easily flexible teaching. As one LCA author wrote
for a study, “We will assume for the purpose of this study that Paul wrote the
Epistle to the Romans.” Did he read but not comprehend the salutation? – “Paul, a
servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of
God…”
The attacks are fashioned as a
signal to the knowing that it is “against the Gospel to take the Gospel
seriously.” Believers read the words and assume, “This man knows Paul wrote
Romans.” The membership is relaxed by a Biblical study and slowly moved into
the right frame of mind. Those who react in anger are dismissed and hated away.
For example, the laziest
pastors in America are the Fulleroids who refuse to do the one thing needful,
meditate on the Gospel and teach faith. Instead, they plagiarize sermons from
those they deem successful – i.e. not faithful to the Word – barely budge from
their computer planning programs. Their reaction to critics? – lazy!
The Scriptures are the Solution
If we go back to the
Scriptures and see how Zwingli and Calvin turned Protestants against God’s
Word, then the return to truth will will be the foreordained process of
comparing the teaching of the Holy Spirit to the unfounded claims of man. But
first, the fatal traps of fraudulent text criticism and toxic translations must
be addressed.
Text and Translations – Or – The Fatal Trap
People no longer have an agreed-upon
foundation for their Christian Faith because a faithful text and translation
have become the target for mockery, deception, and greed. Seniors have watched
this develop since the 1950s, but the origins were earlier. The apostates have
this advantage, almost no one receives serious training in text issues during
seminary, so of the serious students are laymen troubled by the dubious claims
of chattering clergy.
The Biblical text is Hebrew
and Greek, but the disputed Testament is New Testament Greek. If the text is so
flexible and old, why is the newer one the toy of Biblical scholars while the
ancient Hebrew is barely touched by critics? The Jewish tradition is one of
extraordinary care in copying the text, with every letter of every book counted
to make sure the Hebrew copy is precise. Besides that we know that copies for
worship were given special care and preserved even when no longer in active use
in the synagogue.
Oddly, the history of the
largest Christian empire, the Byzantine, is hardly studied by scholars and
therefore seldom taught or described in books and magazines. For eleven
centuries, from 300 to 1453, the Eastern Roman Empire continued while the pagan
Western Roman Empire fell apart, from 400 AD onward. Constantine turned the village
of Byzantium into a Christian city nicknamed Constantinople, and later
nicknamed Istanbul by the Muslims who conquered it. For 1100 years, Byzantium
served as the cradle of Christianity and the preserver of all things Christian,
especially the Greek New Testament.
Normally, a wealth of evidence
will prove a case, but clever con-artists worked against the traditional New
Testament text with attacks based upon man’s resistance to faith and vulnerability
to liars.
The first snake oil salesman
of note was Count Von Tischendorf, who belongs to that fraternity of men who
become famous by conveniently discovering artifacts they manufactured or
mislabeled. He told a fable about leather pages of the world’s oldest New Testament
being used to keep a monastery library warm. The brave Count of Monte Crisco
never explained how leather burned so well, why monks would burn their greatest
treasure, and how the bound book ended up in two tones – part new and modern,
part old and stained, yet bound together.
He obtained the entire book
and matched it with his Vaticanus to create the myth of the true, original,
untainted-by-orthodoxy New Testament text. Thus Codex (bound book) Sinaiticus
and Codex Vaticanus became the stars of the Greek New Testament show. The
traditional text for the King James Version was sneered at for being Byzantine
and the leaven of text manipulation began to gather momentum slowly, as it
always does in academia. Now no one would be hired as a New Testament professor
at any prestigious divinity school – or most seminaries – if he argued for the
Byzantine text and the King James translation of the Bible.
Notice that the “conservative”
synods are glad to sell the horrible NIV and the equally bad ESV Bibles, which
are the equivalent of minting money. However, the Southern Baptists voted to
keep the NIV out of their stores, not even displaying them.
Text Criticism – Lower Criticism
The magic of text criticism flourished
under the dark arts of Wescott and Hort, two clergy given the opportunity to update
the KJV and leave the text alone. Instead, they made themselves the authorities
over this field and invented the most hilarious rules for deciding whether a
reading was good or bad. An example of a variant reading would be:
1. I did not say seven times, but seventy times seven.
2. I did not say seven times, but seven times seven.
That mistake is easy to make
in English or Greek, especially if copying is done by one person reading the
original and a number of clerks copying at once. We all lose concentration and
some hear or speak better than others. If there are thousands of manuscripts
and fragments – as there are in the long Byzantine tradition – there will be
thousands of errors, but 99% of them minor, obvious, and not significant for Christian
doctrine.
So Wescott and Hort drew up
rules for judging manuscripts. Although I was an eager seminarian pursuing the
bright elusive butterfly of text, I found these rules to be self-serving,
ridiculous, and counter-intuitive.
“The shorter reading is better.”
We all know people who lengthen
their version of the story, as LBJ did with his store-bought Silver Star, but
this is not a rule that can be applied with any reliability. Some condense
their stories upon retelling them. Having only a word count, which one is
earlier and more precise?
“The more difficult reading is better.”
This rule is even more
ridiculous. How do we define the word difficult? Is it difficult for traditional
Christians? If so, why does that make it a better reading. This rule comes naturally
from the evolutionary concept of religion, that all were animists, then
polytheists, then matured into monotheists. A supposedly scientific view of Christianity
– simply rationalist – argues that the Faith was based upon a nice man, a good
teacher, who died and was buried. The Apostles and Paul thought so much of Jesus
that they made Him into the Son of God and the Savior, following pagan myths.
“When in doubt, against tradition.”
The most ridiculous rule asks
the reader to determine what the tradition is – and condemn the traditional
reading in favor of the exotic and exceptional.
Translations
The “conservative” Lutherans
were anxious to observe the 400th anniversary of the King James
Version without hinting that the translation was much older than 1611. The
translation was much closer to the Reformation, which the Lutheran leaders were
eager to forget. More observers should have previously noticed the same
hypocrisy concerning the life and hymns of Paul Gerhardt, which they honor even
less than they sing – once a year at the most. After 400 years, he too is
largely forgotten by his own people, who have alienated themselves from the
power of God’s Word in favor of the cleverness of their methods. The connection
between faithful translations and hymns is strong - and essential to the soul
of Christianity.
The first person to translate
the original text of the Bible into English was William Tyndale, who was born in
1494, not long after Luther, and died at the hands of King Henry VIII in 1536,
strangled and then burned at the stake for his extraordinary efforts. Tyndale
was a language genius who could not find support for translating the Bible into
English, so he traveled in Europe and possibly enrolled at Wittenberg. Luther
and his group of scholars were already known for translating the Bible into
German.
Tyndale’s first English effort was printed in Worms, a name that
should resonate with all Lutherans.[1] Luther’s translation is
still the standard of excellence in Germany – nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (following the translation of
Martin Luther) – is included on many editions. When I look for the most
accurate translation of a passage, Luther’s original German and the King James
agree. Unsurprisingly, the KJV is actually the English Luther Bible in
disguise. Tyndale’s name was tainted by his martyr’s death, so when the clergy
asked King James I for one, unified English version, the commission edited
Tyndale’s work, which became the Authorised Version, which we call the King
James.
Tyndale’s final words were “Open the King of England’s eyes!” a
prayer that was answered almost one hundred years later through King James. Now
Lutheran eyes are closed, their lids heavy with sleep from being told, “The KJV
is a verbatim translation. The good translations use dynamic equivalence.”
Nothing matches the hoax of Count Tischendorf better than the wizardry of dynamic
equivalence.
Eugene
Nida and Dynamic Equivalence
How fitting to have the KJV come from a martyr of God’s Word, an
associate of the Lutheran Reformation, but the new translations from an
apostate, Eugene Nida. Apart from the King James updates, all the new
translations and revisions have two things in common:
·
The eclectic, ever-changing New Testament
text.
·
Improbable, erroneous, and anti-Biblical
dynamic equivalence.
Wrong Historical Order?
Some will think that we should
not consider the butchered text of the New Testament and the abhorrent translations,
which happened centuries after Calvin. However, the English Scriptures are the
way in which doctrinal point are made or lost. The “conservative” Lutherans
have watered down language requirements, so few clergy can examine the translation
issues. Even the older clergy of WELS, who always bragged about their superior
education, have trouble with the simplest to read New Testament Greek, such as
1 John.
Therefore, trying to explain
the Biblical Means of Grace, infant faith, and the Real Presence are made
doubly difficult with modern editions which pointedly reject those ancient
teachings from Jesus Himself. A reliable English Bible with the traditional
text is the only way. That honor belongs to the King James Version and – more or
less – to the KJV updates available.
What is dynamic equivalence?
As the failing New York Times
declared, on the death of Nida, the older translations were word for word,
while Nida trained people to use dynamic or functional equivalence.[2] That approach is
contrasted with the formal equivalence of the KJV. However, the typical
argument is that the KJV is word-for-word while the modern translations actually
get at the real meaning of the text. How horrible it was to suffer under the
KJV for 400 years! Now we can finally find out what the Bible reveals, they
suggest. At best, the KJV is tolerable, but too wooden and archaic for people
to understand.
Word-for-word translating is
impossible, because of word order and many other issues. The problem is a clash
of philosophies. The KJV is a precise translation while the Nida-inspired
versions are exercises in creative writing, loaded with denominational agendas.
Manufacture Disciples
This is one difference for which
the Church Growth Enthusiasts will die – the Great Commission, pivotal in their
distorted concept of ministry and evangelism.
KJV Matthew 28 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with
you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
The ESV, NIV, and other popular
versions have “make disciples of all nations,” a complete departure from the text,
because the verb is not make and the object of the verb is not disciples. This
horrible paraphrase, a delight to Fuller Seminary alumni, turns a Gospel
admonition into Law. Everyone is commanded to make disciples. The result is
ministry and evangelism based on compelling people to make disciples rather
than teaching all nations.
The false emphasis of a bad
translation takes away from the combination of go, teach, baptize, and instruct.
The modernists are scandalized by the use of “teach” twice, so they imagine
they have improved the words of Jesus. But the original meaning is far better.
Go (rather than stay) teach all nations (not just the most likely to convert) and
baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Lacking is the
warning against baptizing babies, as they were in the Christian Church until
the Zwinglian Reformation that spawned the Anabaptists.
Missions are best defined in the
original – Teach all nations and baptize in the Name of the Trinity. The feeble
excuse for “make disciples of” is that the verb is the same root in Greek as
disciple. More honest would be – disciple really means one who is taught, who
is under the leadership of a teacher. Jesus was hailed as Rabbi and Teacher,
not as Disciple-Maker. He chose and instructed the Twelve.
The final verse of Matthew is
a reflection of this Gospel –
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with
you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Once people are converted and
baptized, with their children, they need careful instruction in the complete
Gospel message. We need that instruction the rest of our lives, for without the
energy of the Gospel Word within us, we grow cold and inert toward the grace of
God.
My experience with this
passage among Lutherans is that the Church Growth leaders rant in favor of “make
disciples” and positively explode at the thought of the actual wording. One young
Lutheran pastor wrote about this to WELS and found himself hated out of the
ministry and synod. The Fuller Seminary alumni network is comprised of watchful
dragons who make sure their territory remains under the control of Calvinism.
Abandoning the Sacraments
The non-Lutheran Protestants
largely reject the sacraments as God accomplishing His will through the Word
united with earthly elements. Zwingli and Calvin rejected Holy Baptism and Holy
Communion as sacraments, conveying forgiveness, demoting them to ordinances or
laws man should obey. Therefore communion with God is not to be tolerated, even
when the original text teaches that concept.
KJV 1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is
it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:16 Is not
the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we
break a participation in the body of
Christ?
ESV 1 Corinthians 10:16 16 The cup of blessing that we
bless, is it not a participation in
the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
And yet – The ESV agreeing
with the NIV that koinonia is
fellowship.
ESV 2 Corinthians 13:14 The
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
Koinonia, before it was used
as a name for Pietist cell groups, meant fellowship or communion. No one
wonders what it means when a church member says he communes with God when hunting
deer. Participation does not clarify but removes a hotly debated verse from the
Biblical doctrine of forgiveness received through the Body and Blood of Christ.
As Reu observed in his excellent lectures on unionism, creating an agreement when
none exists is the surest sign of ignoring false doctrine.
Once everyone is reading the
NIV and ESV, and these horrible paraphrases permeate the synodical textbooks,
the congregations and pastors will ask, in their ignorance, “Where is the
Biblical difference between us and the rest of the Protestants?” That will also
calm the guilty conscience, if one is left, for going to Fuller Seminary,
Willow Creek, and other enclaves of Enthusiasm.
[1]
For graduates of Mequon – Worms is the location of the Diet of Worms, where Luther
said, “Here I stand. I can do no other” – though he was facing death at the
stake for his Biblical teaching. For graduates of the LCMS and customers of
Concordia Publishing House – Here I Stand socks are not an appropriate way to
honor the Reformation.
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/us/04nida.html
