[MacDuff]

NeitherFirstnorLast

The Bible is a document that is greatly interpreted in Christianity. It is compiled, translated and explained interpretively.

In my opinion, the Byzantine compilation of the New Testament is the most accurate. In the Greek edition of 1904 as used in the Greek Orthodox Church. Which is basically the same as what is called the Byzantine Majority Text in the West. I have personal reasons for adhering to this opinion. But also in my opinion, the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine compilations affect the propagation of the basic revelation from God in the New Testament very little.

Translation is another matter. I discovered through comparison with how words are translated internally in the KJV and how such words are translated in other translations, just how interpretive Bibles can be in relation to translation. As well as through speaking with those who know the languages involved. Greek prepositions, for example, tend to be translated as if they are interchangeable. Some Greek words are translated by so many different English words that they become meaningless in and of themselves. It’s no wonder that many Protestant interpreters will go back to the Greek to get a personal interpretive point across.

Upon that discovery, I decided to learn New Testament Greek because for the one who is in Christ, the New Testament tends to have a little more importance than the Old Testament. And it’s much easier to learn than Hebrew. I understand the Greek words very literally and usually according to the primary meaning of the word.

Which is one reason why when I read ekklesia in the New Testament I don’t see or read into it a Christian Church. And why I believe that the only way a Christian Church can be considered the same as an ekklesia is to consider historic development as being as or more authoritative than the New Testament portrayal. Which can only lead any honest open-minded seeker to Catholicism, not Protestantism in its myriad “flavors”. Certainly not to “orthodox evangelical Christian”, or Evangelical Protestantism.

I have a RecV New Testament. I don’t remember how I happened to obtain it. But as far as a translation is concerned, it’s an excellent and very literal translation of the Alexandrian compilation, according to what is considered literal translation in Christianity. In my opinion as one who knows something about the Greek, the translation has the same problems as most English translations, but can be considered comparable to literal translations, such as the NASB.

As far as the notes are concerned, right up front it is acknowledged they are the opinions of one Witness Lee. In that sense it is like any other study Bible put out with the notes of an individual. Such as John MacArthur’s Study Bible, by a noted Calvinist. Personally, I detest Study Bibles, including the RecV, because the interpretive notes tend to distract from the translation, which is already interpretive in its own right. As do commentaries, like the Life Studies of Witness Lee that I’ve read so much about, which are just another way to have interpretive notes in addition to the Bible. Wherever notes or commentaries are used, not just in the Recovery, they are in a practical sense considered the true interpretation of the text, and as such become more authoritative than the text itself. Such are used throughout Protestantism and are authoritative in a more obvious way, being acknowledged to be authoritative, in Catholicism.

As far as Genesis 1-2, my understanding is based on reading an interpretive English translation of the Old Testament, the NCV. And the consequent research into meanings of certain Hebrew words. The Gap theory, in my opinion, is nonsense based on an interpretation that became popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries among Evangelical Protestants as an alternative way to understand these verses in light of Evolutionary theory. Since in my opinion Evolutionary theory is bunk for the most part, I need neither the Gap theory nor Theistic Evolutionary theory nor Progressive Creationist theory to understand these verses.

The interpretive translation, the NCV, pointed out is that the Hebrew word translated “heaven” can also be translated “sky”. And is usually translated both ways in most English versions. Darby is one of the very few translators who translated that Hebrew word consistently as “heaven” throughout those two chapters. Not having a complete RecV Bible, I don’t know how it is translated in that version.

If one translates all references to this Hebrew word as “sky” instead of “heaven” in Genesis 1-2, one gets an entirely different view of what is being said. Wherein the reference is to the creation of the Earth and its surroundings, rather than a reference to the creation of the universe. It led to my personal view that the universe is old, but the earth is young. In Christianity, the only two views are that the universe, including the earth, is very old in agreement with Evolutionism, or very young in opposition to Evolutionism. I consider my view to be in keeping with the context of the revelation itself, unrelated to Evolutionism.

In regard to the idea of Biblical inerrancy, I don’t agree with it. Given that all that is available today are copies, and there are obvious discrepancies in the Bible that those who believe in Biblical inerrancy refuse to accept. They interpret the discrepancies and then believe the interpretation. Which in no way causes the discrepancies to cease to exist. It merely replaces them in the mind of the interpreters with an interpretation. Even Atheists see that as ludicrous.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I believe that the Bible isn’t inspired or God breathed. It means that I recognize that there are discrepancies in the Bible that may not have been there initially. We have no way of knowing not having the original copies. Even if they were always there, it doesn’t detract from the Bible being used by Jesus Christ through the Spirit to teach those who are in Christ. Only those who believe that the practice of Biblical interpretation is the only way to properly understand the Bible must of necessity believe that the Bible, which they are interpreting, is inerrant and thus infallible in its own right. Leading to the mistaken notion that the Bible alone is a book of commandments for faith and practice. Turning the Bible into a book for a man-made religion, instead of a life-revealing book through the Spirit as intended.

In my opinion, the Bible alone is nothing but another book when understood through the practice of Biblical interpretation. And just another source for human opinion. Evidenced in denominational Christianity. Only when the Bible is used as a tool of Jesus Christ, rather than as a tool of human interpreters, is the Bible more than that.

Do we have the right to “assert that our OWN private interpretations are unquestionable”? That, of course, depends on whether we consider our own view as an interpretation or something taught us by Jesus Christ. If it’s only an interpretation, then it is tantamount to admitting it is merely an opinion, a personal theory of reality created by our own imaginations. No better than any other theory created from the same very human sources. Which implies that there is no way of knowing with any certainty that the reality we believe in is real or imaginary. While I’ve learned not to expect any Christian to agree with my view, I certainly think of it as being more than merely a personal theory or opinion, more than just a private interpretation. When I say the Bible says thus and so, it would be nice if Christians would agree with me. But I get “fairy tale” and “phony” among other epithets instead. Or my personal favorite, I'm my own denomination. One more reason I’m not a Christian. Certainly not an “orthodox evangelical Christian”.

This site, supposedly intended to be for recovering former Recoveryites, limits itself to only those who will agree that the way to recover is only through becoming one with another view with its own distinctive set of doctrines and rules apropos to itself. Where free expression is no more free than they claim it is in the Recovery. This forum is just an extension of the same principle that drives the Recovery and other Christian denominations. The “we alone represent the truth” principle.

I think what really clued me in to how Christians think is when I did nothing but quote the Bible and have the person respond that it was just my opinion. If the Bible is just my opinion, and the opinion of any number of people, then what is the Bible really? Nothing at all of any consequence.


Ohio

There are other versions that translate Genesis 1:2 as “became” instead of “was”. The Concordant Version put out by Al Knoch’s grandfather for one. And probably where the translators of the RecV got the idea, if not from Pember.

MacDuff