The Pastor With No Answers
By Vlad Kedrovsky
In March 1995, a Baptist pastor informed his congregation that on a
Sunday night soon, he would have an "Ask the Pastor" night. Questions
were to be submitted in advance, in writing. The following were
submitted by a member of the congregation [edited for publication]:
1. WHAT IS SCRIPTURE?
During the course of sermons and conversations, I believe I have picked
up some contradictions in your position on the matter
of the inspiration of scripture. Since you asked for questions...
I believe it is your position that only the "original autographs" were
inspired. Let's begin there. I think we can agree that the
original autographs, back when they existed, would have been classified
as "scripture." But, as you said Sunday night, those
manuscripts no longer exist. Probably haven't for 1700 years or so. But
the Bible still uses the word "scripture(s)." In
particular, II Timothy 3:16 says "All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and ..." You have well defined what "inspiration" is
and what it isn't. But I ask again, WHAT IS SCRIPTURE, that I might know
exactly what it is that is "inspired."
If I take your statement that only the original autographs were
inspired, then I must conclude that "all scripture" refers to the
original autographs. Even if it did, how could something which did not
exist at the time Paul wrote those words be profitable to
anyone for any purpose? Back up one verse. Timothy knew "the
scriptures." Did Timothy know the original autographs? Did
he have them in his possession? Did he see them somewhere and learn
them?
Let's check out a few other places. Try Luke 4:21 "And he began to say
unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your
ears." Did this synagogue in Nazareth have the original autograph of
Isaiah? Check out John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in
them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of
me." Jesus told the Jews who had challenged Him to
"Search the scriptures..." Was Jesus telling these people to search the
original autographs? How would anyone know if the
"scripture" were fulfilled if they (original autographs) had crumbled
into dust centuries earlier? John 19:36 "For these things
were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall
not be broken."
In the eighth chapter of Acts, Philip was sent to meet up with the
Ethiopian eunuch. When Philip found him, he was reading
something called "scripture": Acts 8:32 "The place of the scripture
which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the
slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his
mouth:" How on earth did this dude from Ethiopia get
his hands on the original autograph of the book of Isaiah?? And why did
that synagogue in Nazareth ever give it to him??? Or
how 'bout those Berean guys? Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than
those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word
with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether
those things were so." The fact that the synagogue in
Nazareth got their hands on the original autograph of Isaiah blows my
mind! And then they gave it to this eunuch!! Unless he
stole it from them (as Tischendorf stole Sinaiticus from those monks
down at St. Catherine's...). In any event, now we learn
that these Bereans had all of the original autographs of the OT!!!!!!
WOW!! Now, if they had them all, what did the eunuch
have?
If "scripture(s)" refers to "original autographs," then Jesus was
playing a cruel hoax on those to whom He spoke. Check out,
for example, among others, Mt.21:42; 22:29; Mk.12:10,24; Lk.24:27;
Jn.2:22; 7:38,42; 19:37; 20:9. How could these people
check out or know the scriptures, if they had crumbled into dust
centuries earlier?
When we get to Luke 24, we get a different twist on things: 24:32 "And
they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within
us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the
scriptures?" Did Jesus have the original autographs with
Him? In fact, did he have ANY book with him?? Or did he simply speak? In
v.45, Jesus opened their understanding so they
could understand the scriptures. What scriptures? The original
autographs? And once these Emmaus guys understood these
original autographs, did they mail them up to the Bereans? (Relative to
Luke 24:32, see, also, Job 32:8.)
In John 10:35, we learn that the scripture cannot be broken. But if
"scripture(s)" refers to original autographs, Jesus was
mistaken. For every original autograph that was ever written has been
broken into dust. Do you see the problem we have
here? If II Timothy 3:16 says the original autographs were inspired,
then how do you explain all these other places where that
word "scripture(s)" appears, when they cannot possibly refer to the
original autographs?? I ask again: WHAT IS SCRIPTURE?
2. WHAT IS "THE BIBLE"?
You stated quite flatly Sunday night that there were no contradictions
in the Bible. Yet only a month ago or so, you sat across
from me at lunch and stated that the King James Bible had contradictions
in it. If memory serves, you pointed me to John
19:36 and I Corinthians 11:24. Now if I take both of those statements as
true, then I must conclude that the King James 1611
Authorized Version is not "The Bible." Hence, my question.
So, if the AV is not "The Bible," Then what is? The NASV? The NIV? The
RSV? The NKJV? The NRSV? The LB? The
NEB? The ASV? The RV? Any of the 100+ English translations that have
appeared on the market (!) in the last 100 years?
Or is it Nestle's 23rd? 26th? Westcott and Hort's text? The UBS, 1st
Edition? 2nd Edition? 3rd Edition? 4th Edition? Beza's
text? Stephanus' text? Erasmus' text? The Old Latin? Jerome's Vulgate?
The Douhay-Rheims? The Jerusalem Bible? The New
Jerusalem Bible? The Message? The Oxford Politically Correct Bible? WHAT
IS "THE BIBLE"?
Can I get one? Can I hold one in my own hands? If not, can I see one in
a museum someplace? Is there a seminary or a
monastery someplace where I could go to see one? Has anyone ever seen
one? Was the book you held up Sunday night "The
Bible"? I believe that was a King James Bible. Is THAT BOOK you held up
"The Bible"? If it is, then what are those brown
books in the pew racks?? If your book is "The Bible," then those NIVs
can't be. They are different from the book you held up.
Unless, of course, we can believe that things different are, in fact,
the same.
3. WHAT IS YOUR FINAL AUTHORITY?
On Sunday night you stated clearly, and absolutely correctly, that when
one finds passages in "The Bible" that are not inspired,
then one becomes his own authority. At the risk of putting words into
your mouth (and you're perfectly free to spit them out!), I
would think that any errors or contradictions one finds in "The Bible"
could not be inspired by God. I'm not talking about
difficulties or passages that appear to be contradictory at first
reading, without proper study. So, if one were to find an error or
a contradiction, would not such a one be his own final authority?
Let me push it just a bit further and cover all the bases. If one were
to find errors, contradictions, poor translations, unfortunate
renderings, or things lost in translation, would not such a one be his
own final authority? Now you admonished us, quite rightly,
to believe "The Bible" in the face of all detractors or critics. But, if
my AV has mistakes, contradictions, poor translations, faulty
renderings, and the like, then it cannot be "The Bible." Yet, you told
us to believe "The Bible," period. You said that we are not
our own authority. "The Bible" is, and you raised a physical book as you
said it. I saw it. So, I ask these two questions again,
because they are inseparable: WHAT IS "THE BIBLE"? WHAT IS YOUR FINAL
AUTHORITY?
4. IS IT REALLY TRUE THAT NO TRANSLATION IS INSPIRED?
Because if it is, then about 40 verses in the New Testament are not
inspired, since they, even in the original autographs, were
Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. How do you reconcile the
"verbal inspiration" of the NT, and yet allow for 40 uninspired verses?
Is Exodus 5-11 inspired? All those conversations that took place between
Moses and Pharaoh were in Egyptian. Yet, when
Moses wrote the book of Exodus, all those conversations appeared in
Hebrew. They were all "translations." Or we could go
back to Joseph in Egypt. He spoke Egyptian to hide his identity from his
brothers. Yet, when Moses wrote it down, he wrote it in Hebrew, a translation.
What about the decrees of Artexerxes and Darius and Nebuchadnezzar??
Those guys didn't speak Hebrew, yet what they
said appears in Hebrew in Daniel and Esther. Translations. Not inspired?
All that tongues stuff in Acts 2 were translations, for each man heard
what Peter was saying in his own language. Not inspired?
What about the sign that was nailed on the cross? That consisted of
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. At least 2 of those had to be
translations. Not inspired?
Or how 'bout Matthew 27:46? Jesus cried out in Aramaic, and in the very
same verse, even in the original autographs, there
was given the translation. I guess "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" is
inspired, but "Theemou, Theemou, inati me egkatelipes" is not,
being a translation.
Are you sure NO TRANSLATION CAN BE INSPIRED? Now, of course, in the
context of our usual discussions, we are
talking about English translations of "The Bible" (whatever that is).
But the above material must dispell the notion that no
translation can ever be inspired. So, setting aside for the present the
100+ particular English translations available today,
WHAT SAYS THAT NO TRANSLATION EVER COULD BE INSPIRED?
Was it not you, yourself, who said, "Let God be God"? Won't you even
allow Him to inspire a translation if He really wants to?
Never mind whether He did. You won't even allow Him to do it!! WHY NOT?
What prohibits God from giving the world an
inspired English translation to be used during the 400 years or so
before His Son's second coming, in a world whose universal
language is English? I say again, never mind whether He did or not. What
PREVENTS or PROHIBITS Him from even considering such a project?
5. ISN'T ONE WHO SAYS THAT ONLY THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS WERE INSPIRED
PREACHING AT LEAST A FORM OF DEISM?
If we deny a deistic approach to the preservation of scripture(s)
(whatever they are), then God must be involved in something
beyond the original autographs. What is this involvement? To what does
this divine involvement extend? If God was not
involved in the making of copies or translations, then how does one
advancing the theory that ONLY the original autographs
were inspired, and man took it from there, avoid the charge of deism?
Thanks for allowing us the opportunity to Ask the Pastor. If I think of
any more questions, I'll be sure to send them on to you!
[It took the pastor over six months even to admit that he received the
questions. As of June 1996, he had not offered one
word of one answer to one question. But during this time, he has
repeated his illogical, contradictory "stand" on the "Scriptures"
(whatever they are...!). Repeated requests for clarification of his
illogical statements has resulted only in their repetition.]