Jacques More, "Serious Mistranslations of the Bible" - first thoughts.

A friend of mine has asked me to review Jacques More's book Serious Mistranslations of the Bible (2011, Jarom Books) for him, and I have agreed. A book with a title like Serious Mistranslations of the Bible is setting out to be controversial. After all, at least by implication More is saying that at least the vast majority of English Bible translations contain "serious mistranslations'.

But Jacques More is not the sort of man to shy away from controversy. A former motor-mechanic turned theologian, he began his career as a Christian author with Will There be Non-Christians in Heaven? in which he argued that there are those among non-Christians who are already born-again (See here). His second book argues that Church leadership should not be exclusively male, and his third book was an anti-Calvinist tract called So You Think You're Chosen? In many ways Serious Mistranslations is a sequel to these books, or perhaps a re-issuing of some of the material in these books in an expanded form. Thus it begins with a discussion of the Greek word eklektos, translated 'Elect' in many passages. More argues that it has been persistently mistranslated since the time of Augustine, and that its primary meaning should refer to quality rather than choice.

A quick check of every major committee-written English translation that I possess (KJV, RV, RSV, NASB, REB, ESV, NKJV and NIV), shows that none of them favour More's translation. Left to itself this would be an argument from authority and therefore possibly fallacious, but rather it should be a pause for thought. More is not a Greek scholar, he is a student of New Testament Greek. His book is worryingly lacking in footnotes for a volume that throws doubt on the truthfulness of all English Bible versions. This worries me. I have only begun to read it, but it seems that More's method of dealing with passages that he disagrees with is to claim that they are mistranslated by practically everyone else.

Perhaps it is the format of the book, but it certainly gives the impression that More deals with words alone, and without due attention to context, perhaps as a result of his education. I have a great deal of experience of godly people adopting word-study fallacies where they obtain the meaning of a word in one place from its meaning in another, rather than seeking the meaning of a word in its immediate context. I am no expert in Greek - but neither is More.

The man on his own may be right, but he needs to offer compelling arguments. In the interests of full disclosure, may I add that I am somewhat biassed against books like this one that are self-published, since they have not had to pass an editorial pen.

"Defamation of Religions"

The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) has been pressing (link) for "defamation against religions" to be placed on the United Nations' Human Rights agenda. The trouble here is that it is not overly clear about what this means.

We have seen Pakistan's blasphemy laws used as a blunt instrument against Christians, usually by people with a personal grudge. There are even some Muslims who feel that the central claims of Christianity are an 'insult to Islam', because if the New Testament as we have it today is true, then various claims of the Qur'an are, it follows, false. If Jesus is the eternal Son of God and not just a human prophet, then the Qur'an is wrong when it claims he is not. If Jesus died on the cross, then it follows that the Qur'an is wrong. And if the Qur'an is wrong, then it is not the word of God. At this point the sensible thing to do would be for us to reason together - but it has always been easier to use violence, as centuries of history have taught. And it's not just Muslims, it is found in Christendom as well, Roman Catholics against Protestants and State Churches against Nonconformists. The book of Acts records cases where Jewish and pagan leaders used violence in an attempt to silence opposition - it is always easier to do that than it is to allow true religious freedom.

Not that there is not such a thing as defaming a religion. The first example that comes to mind is the infamous 'Blood Libel" against the Jews, first invented in the Middle Ages. The Blood Libel is the idea that the blood of a Gentile child is part of the ingredients of the Passover matzos - a claim that is patently ridiculous in the face of the prohibition against eating blood that all Jews observe! There have been many lies told about religious groups with the intention of creating hatred against them, and there still are. A few examples that come to mind are the ancient claims that Christians were cannibals (probably based on a misunderstanding of the Eucharist) and committed incest (probably misunderstanding the Christian practice of calling one another 'Brother' and 'Sister'. Paul says that the Apostles had the right to have "a sister as wife', meaning freedom to marry a Christian woman). Modern claims that come to mind include one saying that all Muslim men have to kill a non-Muslim to be considered truly men, and that human sacrifices take place in Mormon temples. These lies really are defamation, and should be punished first of all by society - we should refuse to listen to them and treat those who maliciously repeat such claims as the troublemakers they are.

But to restrain religious freedom - and as an inheritor of the traditions of English Nonconformity wish to extend that freedom as far as possible - because one religious group is upset by another religious group's claims is frankly tyrannical. I do not like the claims of Islam about Jesus, God and the Bible - but they have the right to teach them, and I have the right to challenge them. I find the teachings of Mormonism about God frankly pagan - but I am very glad that they have the freedom to build their temples, as I have the right to give good and true reasons why Mormonism is not Christianity. My feelings - and your feelings - must not be made the basis of restrictive laws. Christianity is not spread by the sword in any way, and the truth will be triumphant over error in a fair contest.

Thoughts on the Atrocity in Norway

We have all been shocked by the terrible crime committed in Norway last week. Anders Behring Breivik, previously an unknown man holding extreme and murderous political views, planted a bomb in Oslo before traveling to an island retreat where the youth wing of the governing party was holding a camp. The details are well-known as to what he did next.

It is quite plain what Christians are to think of such actions. The Bible is abundantly clear that "You shall not commit murder." Yet a word is perhaps necessary since Breivik claims to be a Christian.

That profession is quite false, he claims to be a disciple of Jesus, but Jesus "went around doing good". Jesus did not come to destroy, but to save, and in John 18:36 Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." So, then, it is clear that a man who seeks to kill people is not a Christian, and cannot be. No murderer can inherit eternal life unless he first repents and believes in Jesus. Breivik is unrepentant, he is therefore still lost and in the gall of bitterness.

He is described by the press as "a right-wing Christian extremist." He is not a Christian, whatever he may claim, because he ignores the law of God. He is said to believe he is in a war. I have my suspicions that Breivik may be insane, but the reality of the matter is that he is not in a war. He is not a soldier except in his own imagination, and he has no warrant for committing the crime that he has committed.

Christians follow the Prince of Peace. No man does God a service by murder, whatever he may think, and the man who kills in Jesus' name is committing an act of blasphemy as he does so. "You shall do no murder" still stands in the Law of God, and the man who says, "I love God" but does not love his neighbour is a liar.

The message of Christianity is the Gospel, the word means Good News. Breivik's twisted ideology is one of hate, and is good news to none. I sincerely doubt whether he even knows the meaning of the word grace, or the meaning of love. For God's love is self-sacrificial, it is the love of Jesus dying on the cross to take away sin. And there is grace even for Anders Behring Breivik if he repents of his sins and trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ.

He is no Christian who commits murder. But we follow a Christ who was murdered, and who prayed for his killers, "Father, forgive them."

Why Harry Potter is not a Danger

Well, here it is, the final film in the popular Harry Potter series is out. And with it comes the final flourish of anti-Potter hysteria among Christians. Let it be said that it is not everyone's cup of tea - this is a story of good versus evil, and the evil is seriously evil. Characters die in this film, there is fighting in it.

But the claims that Harry Potter is a danger to children, and the books and films are somehow teaching the occult are frankly fallacious. Yes, the stories are set in a fantasy world where magic as depicted in English folk-traditions is real. But that's just it, to J.K. Rowling, author of the series, those stories are not real, they are fantasy. The world of Potter does not exist - and no-one in their right mind would say that it does. Yes, in the novels that world exists alongside of ours, but in reality it does not - any more than any other parallel-world fantasy does.

The novels cleverly merge two genres, the genre of fantasy literature and the old British genre of the boarding-school novel. They aim to do one thing - to tell a good story. They chart the journey to adulthood of Harry Potter, the central character, and his friends. In the stories he overcomes the opposition of various evil characters, and finally has to face Lord Voldemort, the most evil wizard of all time. And Voldemort is satisfyingly evil as well, a man who has de-humanised even his own appearance.

What about the magic? Simply put, it is mechanical, and magic powers are something a person is either born with or is not born with - one cannot acquire magic abilities. Thus Hogwarts, the boarding school in the books, is a school where those with magic powers learn to use the powers they have, not a school where people learn to do magic. We might indeed say that magic in Harry Potter is like mutant abilities in X-Men - you're born with it. Hogwarts is like Xavier's Institute, a place where those with powers learn how to use those abilities.

The fictional magic of Harry Potter is a matter of those magic people saying the right words, often in just the right tone with the right accentuation. It is not the invoking of demons or spirits to do one's bidding, something that is a constant feature of genuine occultism. In fact the magic of Harry Potter is not religious at all - it may surprise some to learn that the only genuinely religious imagery in the books is Christian. Neopaganism, the New Age movement, and Wicca, are religious bodies, and practice a form of nature-religion, often with a feminist slant. There is no sign of that at all in Harry Potter. Magic is a tool in these books, not a religion, the Wizards and witches of Harry Potter are a race of people, not a religious body.

It is true that some Neopagan groups have used Harry Potter as a recruiting tool, but then Mormonism tries to use the Narnia books of C.S. Lewis for the same ends, even putting out a book arguing that Lewis unknowingly taught Mormonism. The abuse of a book for propaganda purposes tells us far more about the one abusing it than it does about the book itself.

There are those who argue against fantasy literature using Genesis 6:5, which reads in the KJV:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

But this is to misuse the King James Bible. The word 'Imagination' in 1611 did not have the same restricted meaning as it has today. Thus the New King James translates the same passage as:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The word 'Intent' has taken the place of 'Imagination', and that with good reason. The text is not simply saying that the ante-diluvians were taken up with fantasy about wickedness, but they were taken up with thoughts of wickedness. It is certainly not saying that the faculty of imagination is more depraved than any other - if it were, then the text would either imply that all fiction is full of wickedness, which is demonstrably wrong, or it would be warning us against all fiction simply because it is fiction, which makes no sense at all. The faculty of imagination is one we all possess, and may be used for good (as in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress) or evil. Simply quoting Genesis 6:5 out of context does not accomplish anything. One must prove that a book really is evil, and that is what the anti-Potter writers have failed to do. They have shown that Necromancy is evil, and that neopaganism is false religion, but that is beside the point.

So what needs to be proven? That Harry Potter teaches wickedness. So another track is to say that the lead characters often show disrespect for authority figures and disobey them. That is true, but needs to be qualified. First of all, the Bible records men's sins without praising them, so why would someone insist that a work of fiction present perfect characters who never do anything wrong? That is calling for all fiction to be utterly fantastic in another way. Secondly, there are times when the authority figure is abusing his or her power - are we truly saying that authority should be obeyed even when it is abused? Finally, the highest authority in the school, the headmaster Dumbledore, is always respected and usually obeyed. He too is shown as flawed, but he is good. So there are both good and bad authority figures. Harry discovers (as all children do as they grow up) that even those he respects the most are not perfect and have feet of clay. But he still respects them.

And finally, in these stories good is good, and evil is evil. The quote that someone maliciously lifted from the first book and presented without context, "There is no good or evil, only power", comes from the mouth of Lord Voldemort, the villain, and is intended to show how evil justifies itself. But the stories show plainly that there is a difference between good and evil, and evil must be fought.

In the end, to read or not to read is for the conscience of the Christian, and personal preference. It ought to be left there and not lifted to a matter of principle. No-one can read every book in English, and no-one should be made to feel guilty for having read or not read. What is to be deplored is the misrepresentation of these books by certain Christians, and the conflation of all fiction depicting magic as if it were all identical.

Fantasy literature is set in a world that is not ours, a world where there are dragons and magic, a world it is really rather easy to tell is not ours. The real danger is the subtle teaching of an ungodly worldview in books, films and TV shows that purport to be set in the real world, where godliness is mocked and ungodliness promoted. It is in shows that claim to be reflecting reality when they must be a distorting mirror (real life is not worth watching on TV). My fear is that Christians are so concerned about the occult that they forget that a godless worldview is just as dangerous as a worldview in which all is thought of as divine.

It's not about Big Names

The celebrity is the phenomenon of our age. People were once famous for doing something important and/or heroic. Today the famous people are mostly famous for being famous. We have the distinctly unedifying spectacle of people who are famous for having appeared on a vacuous reality TV show, or having been part of a manufactured band. These are the famous - the celebs.

Now, while I find the whole thing nauseous, I find it all the more irritating in the Church. It is no accident that the most famous writers whose books load my shelves are dead, and have been for a while. They are also diverse. I do not buy into the idea of the Christian celebrity, it's all about Jesus, after all.

There are basically a couple of problems with the Christian celebrity. The first is that people tend to follow the celebrity uncritically. I am reminded of our most rebellious tutor at seminary, who set an essay on a passage that was designed to test this. The seminary was founded in part by a noted preacher of the last century, one who has a couple of multiple-volume sermon series' on New Testament epistles. This preacher had written on this text, but it was the opinion of our tutor that the famous man was in error. Fair enough - I think he was too. But the essay wasn't about that - it was about proving that we did exegesis of the text and did not just follow the famous man - or any other famous man - uncritically. Those students who failed dismally in the essay were those who said in effect, "The famous man said it, it must be true." The celebrity culture tends to lead to people uncritically accepting the famous man's views without actually examining it.

Related to this is the presentation of the celebrity as a modern saint. I have two biographies of the famous evangelist Billy Sunday. One is a whitewash, to be blunt. It covers up all his faults, and presents a very flat view of a great man. The other is honest without being a hatchet-job. We have faults - we all do. We are all sinners, and we need to be honest about that. The best of men are but men at best.

Jesus is not a celebrity. He is our Lord and Saviour, and the eternal Son of God. There is no room for a celebrity in the Church. And that means that you and I, dear reader, have to avoid making celebrities. "For all are yours, and you are Christ's."

Reasons why preachers don't preach on Eschatology

Why is it that so few preachers today talk much about the Second Coming? In my opinion - and this is just my opinion - there are two main reasons.

1. Prophetic Speculation.

Well, I haven't taken a survey, but it is my feeling that the number one reason for this is that which Harold Camping represents - people who made predictions.

Now, of course these folk came from different regions, from the cultic fringe of the Watchtower Society's 1975 prediction to the more vague suggestions from the like of Hal Lindsay, who said "well, Israel returned to the Land in 1949, a Biblical generation is 40 years, and so we can expect the rapture before 1989." This of course led to excitement as 1989 approached, followed by disappointment. The result, however, was highly unfortunate - it meant that a lot of sane preachers were dissuaded from preaching on the subject of the Second Coming. Probably because I was converted in 1998, and had never been exposed to the sort of prophetic speculation that existed in the 1980s, I do preach on the Second Advent of Christ, and I have often heard people comment that "we don't often hear about that." Things were different before - but not very healthy.

Prophetic speculation is the enemy of preaching the Second Advent of Christ, and Harold Camping is going to have dealt another blow to Biblical preaching, as a new generation of preachers worry that if they talk about Christ coming again they will be associated with Camping.

2. Silly Controversy

Contrary to popular belief, some ministers dislike controversy, and there is nothing like eschatology to get Christians arguing. Now, I like a rational debate as well as the next chap - the trouble is there's a lot of foolish rhetoric flying around on all sides. To give an example, one chap has said in effect that "Harold camping is just a consistent amillennialist." I'm afraid that sort of language disgusts me. It's like saying that Dispensationalists believe that people were saved by their own obedience to the law in the Old Testament, or that R.C. Stam is a consistent Dispensationalist. It's just silly. Then there are those Dispensationalists who accuse amillennialists of holding "The Roman Catholic view" - and their counterparts who say that Dispensationalism is based on the work of a Jesuit priest. Neither actually move the debate on at all, they are cheap points-scoring tactics designed to appeal to the prejudices of one's own supporters. I'm afraid I have to say this sort of thing makes me very angry. This is an in-house debate, and can only be dealt with with care and sober minds. A disagreement about the timing of the Second Advent is not in itself a heresy. Jonathan Edwards was Postmillennial, C.H. Spurgeon was pre-millennial at the time of his death (having changed his views), and Calvin was probably amillennial. To make one's millennial view definitional of the Gospel is so wrong that people doing this has led people like myself to turn from the whole business is total disgust

But keep on preaching this: Jesus is coming back. In person. In the flesh, to judge both the living and the dead.

Prescription for Anxiety

This has rather surprised me. This is last Sunday morning's sermon. Preaching in the course through John's Gospel I came to the text "Let not your heart be troubled, believe in God, believe also in me." So the question presented itself, how to present it? Well, it seemed that the best direction to take the message was to major on the fact that Jesus was reassuring anxious disciples. The title, I confess, is influenced by a book (which I have not read) by Leslie D. Weatherhead, who pastored the City Temple in London during World War 2. Weatherhead was a theological liberal who was into psychology (he wrote at least five books relating to psychology). But this sermon has nothing to do with Weatherhead!

What happened next was that, in about four days it has become the fourth most popular sermon on Bethel's SermonAudio page, with over 210 downloads. Why? I must confess that the only reason I can think of is that the sermon deals with a topic - anxiety - that a lot of people take some interest in. Or as one might say in a cynical mood, post a sermon with a psychological-sounding title, and people will listen.

Now, I'm a preacher first and foremost. I'm not a psychologist, I haven't studied the subject, and unlike Leslie Weatherhead I don't have a degree relating to it. . I don't intend to practice it, and if you need psychological help, find a good Christian psychiatrist. And don't expect to find me preaching a series on "Psychology in the service of the Soul." That was a Weatherhead series!