I would like to express my appreciation for a Catholic apologetic blog for posting this article from the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) 1914.
This is an article for which the ministers of the INC explaining why they don't have a Bible version which they think is free from mistranslation. Unlike the New World Translation of the Holy Scripture of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the INC does not have a Bible of their own. We all know how they "hop" from one version to another to support their doctrines.
We have given examples of this version hopping before like Lamsa's version of Acts 20:28 to support the name Church of Christ as being the official name of the church. They would use Moffat's version of Hebrews 1:8 which says "God is your throne" instead of "Your throne, O God" to debunk the belief that Jesus Christ is God. Their ministers all reason that this version is in error, that version is mistranslated, and here is what we think is correct. So why can't they have their own Bible version? The answer:
Your suggestion that the Iglesia ni Cristo publish her own Bible with all the correct translation of mistranslated verses is both well-meaning and appealing. It would be truly convenient and handy to have just one Bible with all the verses that we cite or quote from different translations gathered in one compendium.
By publishing her own Bible, the Iglesia ni Cristo will in effect have a "sanitized" version of the Scriptures--tailor made for her teachings. This is the very thing that the Iglesia ni Cristo avoids, that is, to be accused of manipulating the Scriptures to suit her doctrines.
My comment can be expressed in one word: Baloney! Yes folks, try to imagine that you're their presiding minister making an executive decision on whether or not to make a Bible version free of error. You stand up and say, "No, let's not make our own Bible version because we could get criticized for being biased." Well, that seems a very compelling reason not to make one. Okay, so the government will not make new infrastructures in a city because they might be accused of corruption. Yeah right.
In all fairness there's a little objectivity there. After all, they are using their opponent's Bible. But then again how does one know what version to use? They answer:
How, then, are we to know which particular translation of the Bible to use, for example in delivering a sermon? Apostle Paul states the guiding principle to the doctrines of the Bible, thus:
"This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." (I Cor.2:13, New International version)
Therefore, there must be no contradiction between the different version of the Bible because spiritual things are compared to spiritual truths.
I have had asked some INC member on how that principle works. They gave an instance like why we should agree with Moffat's "God is your throne" as the correct translation of Hebrews 1:8. It's because Christ already said the Father is the only true God in John 17:3 and therefore there cannot be two gods.
Folk's that is not comparing spiritual with spiritual. What happened here that the INC assumes that their interpretation of John 17:3 is correct before they can come up with the conclusion on how Hebrews 1:8 must be rendered. Nothing in John 17:3 denies the deity of Christ; just like how nothing in Mark 10:18 (No one is good except God alone) denies Jesus is good. What the INC is doing is forcing their beliefs on the translation. Proof? They can't do it for all other verses, especially those that are without doctrinal controversy.
In case you haven't noticed, the word "translation" involves language. You convert a language to make it understandable to a foreign language (Bible in English, Biblia in Tagalog). They only way to translate Greek to another language is to study Greek grammar and see how your language matches it. That's objectivity at work and not "Well, it should be translated this way because this other verse already said something."
To continue with their response:
But one may ask, "Who is in a position to compare spiritual things to spiritual truths?" Are all preachers that we see and hear nowadays are qualified to compare spiritual things with spiritual truths, more so preach the gospel? Apostle Paul answers us, thus:
"And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10:15, New King James Version)
A preacher of the Gospel therefore must be sent by God. Why must he be sent by God? Apostle John states, thus:
"The one whom God has send speaks God's words, because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit. (John 3:34, Today's English Version)
Moreover, the messenger sent by God is entrusted with the ministry and message of reconciliation (cf. II Cor. 5:18-20)
Therefore, even if there are translations of the Bible that contain mistranslated verses, the commissioned preachers of God can identify them because they have been given God's spirit for them to understand His will written in the Bible (cf. I Cor. 2:12)
In the end the INC members are relying on their "commissioned preachers" to tell them what is right. And no doubt the "commissioned preachers" claim to preach correctly because their preaching is based on the Bible - which the INC members rely on a "commissioned preacher" for them to understand it since there are mistranslations. So they really don't need the Bible after all.
If the INC claims to be the true church, they can defend any Bible translation they could make. Their ministers, or at least some of them, have been known to be courageous in discussions so there should be no problem for them to defend it. But no, they won't make their own version... because they can't.
The INC never had any Bible scholars. Sure, they sometimes read the original language but that's just a few verses (controversial verses for that matter) and not the whole Bible. They pick commentaries from Evangelical and Catholic sources for reference, they never made any scholarly studies of their own on the Scriptures.
All the INC can do is to claim that their "commissioned preachers" have this sort of enlightenment from God that they can understand the Bible. A claim which other cults are making. If you are an INC member, you're probably reading the Bible from the eyes of your "commissioned ministers". Worse, you're not reading the Bible at all. Oh wait, you don't have an official Bible.
This is an article for which the ministers of the INC explaining why they don't have a Bible version which they think is free from mistranslation. Unlike the New World Translation of the Holy Scripture of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the INC does not have a Bible of their own. We all know how they "hop" from one version to another to support their doctrines.
We have given examples of this version hopping before like Lamsa's version of Acts 20:28 to support the name Church of Christ as being the official name of the church. They would use Moffat's version of Hebrews 1:8 which says "God is your throne" instead of "Your throne, O God" to debunk the belief that Jesus Christ is God. Their ministers all reason that this version is in error, that version is mistranslated, and here is what we think is correct. So why can't they have their own Bible version? The answer:
Your suggestion that the Iglesia ni Cristo publish her own Bible with all the correct translation of mistranslated verses is both well-meaning and appealing. It would be truly convenient and handy to have just one Bible with all the verses that we cite or quote from different translations gathered in one compendium.
By publishing her own Bible, the Iglesia ni Cristo will in effect have a "sanitized" version of the Scriptures--tailor made for her teachings. This is the very thing that the Iglesia ni Cristo avoids, that is, to be accused of manipulating the Scriptures to suit her doctrines.
My comment can be expressed in one word: Baloney! Yes folks, try to imagine that you're their presiding minister making an executive decision on whether or not to make a Bible version free of error. You stand up and say, "No, let's not make our own Bible version because we could get criticized for being biased." Well, that seems a very compelling reason not to make one. Okay, so the government will not make new infrastructures in a city because they might be accused of corruption. Yeah right.
In all fairness there's a little objectivity there. After all, they are using their opponent's Bible. But then again how does one know what version to use? They answer:
How, then, are we to know which particular translation of the Bible to use, for example in delivering a sermon? Apostle Paul states the guiding principle to the doctrines of the Bible, thus:
"This is what we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." (I Cor.2:13, New International version)
Therefore, there must be no contradiction between the different version of the Bible because spiritual things are compared to spiritual truths.
I have had asked some INC member on how that principle works. They gave an instance like why we should agree with Moffat's "God is your throne" as the correct translation of Hebrews 1:8. It's because Christ already said the Father is the only true God in John 17:3 and therefore there cannot be two gods.
Folk's that is not comparing spiritual with spiritual. What happened here that the INC assumes that their interpretation of John 17:3 is correct before they can come up with the conclusion on how Hebrews 1:8 must be rendered. Nothing in John 17:3 denies the deity of Christ; just like how nothing in Mark 10:18 (No one is good except God alone) denies Jesus is good. What the INC is doing is forcing their beliefs on the translation. Proof? They can't do it for all other verses, especially those that are without doctrinal controversy.
In case you haven't noticed, the word "translation" involves language. You convert a language to make it understandable to a foreign language (Bible in English, Biblia in Tagalog). They only way to translate Greek to another language is to study Greek grammar and see how your language matches it. That's objectivity at work and not "Well, it should be translated this way because this other verse already said something."
To continue with their response:
But one may ask, "Who is in a position to compare spiritual things to spiritual truths?" Are all preachers that we see and hear nowadays are qualified to compare spiritual things with spiritual truths, more so preach the gospel? Apostle Paul answers us, thus:
"And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom. 10:15, New King James Version)
A preacher of the Gospel therefore must be sent by God. Why must he be sent by God? Apostle John states, thus:
"The one whom God has send speaks God's words, because God gives him the fullness of his Spirit. (John 3:34, Today's English Version)
Moreover, the messenger sent by God is entrusted with the ministry and message of reconciliation (cf. II Cor. 5:18-20)
Therefore, even if there are translations of the Bible that contain mistranslated verses, the commissioned preachers of God can identify them because they have been given God's spirit for them to understand His will written in the Bible (cf. I Cor. 2:12)
In the end the INC members are relying on their "commissioned preachers" to tell them what is right. And no doubt the "commissioned preachers" claim to preach correctly because their preaching is based on the Bible - which the INC members rely on a "commissioned preacher" for them to understand it since there are mistranslations. So they really don't need the Bible after all.
If the INC claims to be the true church, they can defend any Bible translation they could make. Their ministers, or at least some of them, have been known to be courageous in discussions so there should be no problem for them to defend it. But no, they won't make their own version... because they can't.
The INC never had any Bible scholars. Sure, they sometimes read the original language but that's just a few verses (controversial verses for that matter) and not the whole Bible. They pick commentaries from Evangelical and Catholic sources for reference, they never made any scholarly studies of their own on the Scriptures.
All the INC can do is to claim that their "commissioned preachers" have this sort of enlightenment from God that they can understand the Bible. A claim which other cults are making. If you are an INC member, you're probably reading the Bible from the eyes of your "commissioned ministers". Worse, you're not reading the Bible at all. Oh wait, you don't have an official Bible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment