Entire theologies have rightly or wrongly been built or destroyed upon some of the shortest words: prepositions. Prepositions, as you will recall from your high school English class are typically used to introduce a “prepositional phrase”.  Prepositions are words like; at, about, in, on, with, from, until, for & many more (see list).

As Christians discuss the Bible, the discussion will often hinge on a preposition.  For example about the matter of Communion/Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:26 NIV a discussion may revolve around the phrase “until he comes”, as if the practice of partaking the wine & bread was an activity to be ceased upon the Lord’s coming.

Another concept or proposition affected by what we think of prepositions can been seen in some texts that use the prepositions “with”, “in”, & “on”.

Check any online Christian forum & you will be sure to find two or more persons claiming to be Christian engaging in what may appear to be knock down, drag out fights.  At some point someone intervenes & calls for “love” & “tolerance” & usually lectures the participants about unity.

But why do these fights occur in the first place?  Perhaps some could be attributed to the fact that the participants are immature or self-absorbed, but most often someone will attribute the disagreement to everything from “talking past one another” to “personal attacks”.  So far, all of these factors could be the cause of the spats but more than often it is deeper still.

There is this concept that when we approach Bible interpretation that we just need to be consistent.  This sounds like good advice but what these folks mean by consistency is ignoring genre, context, idioms, typology & all manner of grammatical constructs simply to make things appear to fit as if they are using a pry bar to force it. This isn't consistency but rather obstinacy.

To these folks who are advocating “consistency”, they behave like a person who does nothing more than a literal word study.  This fails even in our own day since how we use words in English can’t always be understood “consistently”.  For example, we often use words & phrases INconsistently with the standard definition.  Further, anyone who has done work in translating from one language to another knows you can’t be “consistent” with how you translate otherwise you will have a poor if not humorous translation...or maybe even a disasterous translation.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Did the Church really replace the Jews as God’s chosen people? This is the question that comes up whenever people think about the role of Christians & Jews in the present world.

As we read the Bible we see God’s personal & special love & attention for the Jews, so we cannot help but to think it is only right to see the Jews as God’s chosen people, after all the Bible says as much in several places:

Deuteronomy 7:6
“For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.

There are a few ways we might approach the content of Deuteronomy 7:6 & the question at hand:

1.      Think such the case was true for only a certain period of time

2.      Think the Jewish writers were being overly biased toward themselves

3.      Think God has expanded this “special treasure” status to all people

A question that often arises during discussions about the authority of the Bible is; "Where did we get the Bible?" this is especially asked about the New Testament.  The typical insinuation is that the NT is a late-date compilation of many texts that had been floating around among the early Christians.  Further, it is said that the Roman Catholics forced the currently accepted texts of the NT.  Some Roman Catholics even boast that if it wasn't for the Roman Catholic Church there would be no New Testament.  Detractors chime in & claim that therefore the current structure of the NT is completely artificial & does not represent what the original Christians accepted as the NT.

This dispute would seem to put Christians, especially non-Roman Catholic Christians in quite a precarious situation.  Protestant Christians especially would seem to be dependant on the Roman Catholic Church for their source of faith -- indeed, Roman Catholics often make such a claim.

But is the NT really a late-date compilation?  The historical Roman Catholic version puts the final, official canon of the NT with the Tridentine Council between 1545-1563AD, which would be quite a late date indeed.

However, there is clear evidence that not only the "Tetramorph" (the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John) but also most of the currently accepted texts of the NT were accepted & in wide use long before the Council of Trent or any such Church Council.

What follows is a table I have constructed from various sources that shows the approximate date of "canons", "catalogues"  -- lists of NT texts accepted by differring groups of early Christians.  You will see that there was a consistent acceptance of our present "Homologoumena" -- authoritative NT texts.  I aslo include a list of resource links that I highly encourage the reader to follow & examine each.

Here is a little quiz sent to me by a friend.  It is interesting & revealing about the various Bible translations & how some have relied on different families of manuscripts or have utilized different translation methodologies (formal vs dynamic equivelance) & thus may differ slightly to greatly.  Take the quiz & see what you think.  I have added the (compare) link at the end of each question which will open a new window so you can see several English translations of the verses in question.

Instructions: Using the New International Version Bible, answer the following questions.

Adam & Eve – What about these names found at the beginning of the Bible?  Are they meant to be understood to be the names of actual people who once existed? Are they merely representations of some sort, either of the parents of a specific tribe of people or symbolic of all of humanity. These are questions raised at various points in Judeo-Christian history.

When people read, we don’t all read in the same way.  I don’t mean merely the content but more about our reading styles.  Some people in an effort to read more efficiently may skip over words like “a” & “the”. Further, when people read they may do so under a specific lens. This is more so when it comes to reading the Bible.

If a person already has a lens that everything they read in the Bible is merely a “symbol” for something else, it is then not too difficult to see how people can see Adam & Eve as merely “covenantal” or allegorical representatives.

There are generally four ways (or lenses) by which to view Adam & Eve:

1. First created humans
2. First covenantal (tribal) humans
3. Fictional representatives
4. Completely allegorical

Isn’t the Word of God the Word of God no matter what translation you use?  Won’t God get the point across no matter what translation we use? Aren’t the differences in the various translations just minor & don’t really affect doctrine?

We have heard this reasoning before & there is different answers depending on who you ask.  Some people will agree with the first paragraph’s rhetorical questions whereas other people might claim there is only one authorized version or translation of the Bible (often the KJV). Obviously there are many opinions in between.

But when it comes to the Bible the most important aspect for the Christian isn’t merely to have the closest “literal” translation but to have a translation that conveys the original intent of any given text.  This is a difficult job for any translation to fulfill.

Faddish preachers who tend to have a disdain for “theology” & studying theological positions often use phrases like, “Theology & statements of faith put people in a box”.  Our impulsive reaction to this accusation is typically to backpedal & try to show how instead we too are “open-minded” & “enlightened” – for the connotation of being “in a box” or building boxes is one where we are pictured as clueless to outside reality.

But is this accusation a true representation of the biblical position?  Are people really neutral & then because of religion & especially <gasp> theology building boxes of exclusion?

The Bible teaches that instead EVERYONE IS IN A BOX.

The origin of Easter seems an easy enough subject as at least one Bible translation uses the word Easter in Acts 12:4, that being the King James Version originally published in 1611 (KJV) But the KJV is not alone in translating the original Greek word as Easter. The Tyndale 1525, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s, Cranmer, the Great Bible (which preceeded the KJV), Mace's New Testament 1729, and Martin Luther also translated this word as Easter. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4. I would like to give reference to these translations.  Please take a moment to compare the various English translations of Acts 12:4....