Chapter
One
The bible continues to be the best selling book in the U.S.
You may have noticed, however, it never appears on the New York Times’
best-sellers list. It is certainly not the most widely read book.
Someone remarked that the word “Bible” is really an acrostic for
“Basic instructions before leaving earth.”
Many say they do not read the bible because their denominations do not
allow them to interpret what the Word of God says.
Jehovah’s Witnesses is but one example.
Also known as the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society, Jehovah’s
Witnesses conduct an aggressive door-to-door witnessing program across the U.S.
and in other countries. The Society
was founded by Charles T. Russell in 1884.
Russell felt that the concept of the Trinity, among other teachings in
Scripture, was too difficult to comprehend.
Therefore, the Society does not believe in the divinity of either Jesus
or the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Jesus
of the Witnesses is not the Jesus of the New Testament. However, they claim the Scriptures to be the inspired
Word of God. Moreover, they
maintain that there is no conflict between what their organization teaches and
what the Scriptures teach. Many
Churches and churches claim to believe in the Scriptures but then proceed to
modify the Jesus described therein to suit their particular needs.
When asked to explain the meaning of verses such as,
“...
Let us make mankind in our image ...” [Genesis 1:26],
“And
he (the Lord) said, ‘Indeed! The man has become like one of us,
knowing good and evil ...” [Genesis 3:22],
“‘Let
us go down, and there confuse their language so that they will not
understand one another’s speech ...’” [Genesis 11:7], and
“And
I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: Whom
shall I send, and who shall go for us?” [Isaias 6:8],
the
Witnesses reply that only the president of their organization is permitted to
interpret Scripture.
No one reads a book written in a language he cannot understand because it
would be gibberish. Therefore, when
a Church tells its members they can read the bible, even encourages them to do
so, but cautions that only the Church can interpret its meaning, the members are
logically disinclined to read. Yet,
this is exactly what many denominations do.
Such a prohibition is also the mark of a cult, as will be explored in
Chapter Two.
A common but mistaken notion among those unfamiliar with the bible and
biblical truths is that there are numerous versions of “the bible,”
Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Byzantine, Alexandrian, and others, each
describing a different path to salvation and all contradicting one another.
This is not true. However, before addressing this point, let’s take a brief
moment to get some idea of how we actually got that precious book known by
simple titles such as “Holy Bible” and “The Book.”
Back
to top
The writings that comprise the bible were written by more than forty
scribes over a period of more than fifteen hundred years. 1
The writers lived on three continents, Africa, Asia, and Europe, and
spoke three primary languages: Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek. They had
occupations spanning the full range of human endeavors and were most often
called and used by God while simultaneously continuing to perform their
day-to-day jobs. These included
farmers, shepherds, fishermen, tent makers, tax collectors, rich men, poor men,
a physician, and even a king.
Back
to top
In the Old Testament, God commanded Moses to take His commandments to the
people and to write down the things He would reveal to him.
In many instances, the prophets included in their books God’s command
to “write it in a book.” God
tells us why He wanted His Word written down:
“Now
therefore go in and write (it) for them upon (a) box (clay
tablet), and note it diligently in a book (scroll), and it shall be
in latter days (the time after Jesus’ ascension) for a testimony for
ever.” [Isaias 30:8]
God tells us that His written Word is to be a testimony for ever!
In St. Matthew 24:35, Jesus revealed, “Heaven and earth will pass away,
but my words will not pass away.”
Words passed down orally through tradition do pass away.
No doubt at some point in school you participated in a standard exercise
where a short and simple story was started at the first desk in the classroom
and transmitted orally, whispered by one student to another and so on, until it
reached the last student. The first
and last versions of the story were then compared and there were always
differences. In such exercises the
stories were brief and simple. Yet
the story changed in the span of a relatively few minutes among a relatively few
transmitters. Even common sense
tells one that in order to preserve what is said, it must be written. This has been standard practice in law, business, and
virtually all human endeavors since recorded history began. The fact that Jesus promised that His words would not pass
away is what allows St. Peter to conclude:
“‘...
the word of the Lord endures forever.’ Now
this is the word of the gospel that was preached to you.”
[I St. Peter 1:25]
Nevertheless, some people remark, “If God wanted things written down,
why didn’t He write anything?” The
answer is: He did.
Exodus 31:18 states:
“When
the LORD had finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two
tablets of the Commandments, the stone tablets inscribed by God’s own
finger.”
There is no recording in the gospels of Jesus directing His disciples to
“write it in a book.” However,
Jesus told His disciples He was going away and that where He was going they
could not follow [St. John 13:31-36]. In Chapter 14, He comforted them by assuring that there were many mansions in
His Father’s house and that He would return for them.
In verse 26 He revealed, “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your
mind whatever (the things) I have said to you.”
Jesus’ promise that they would be taught “all things” by the Holy
Spirit and led into remembrance of all things He had said and the significance
of same are discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.
Following His resurrection, Jesus told St. John (around 95 A.D.) to
"write it in a book" [see Apocalypse 1:11]
Moreover, it should be understood that Jesus has two natures:
one divine and the other human. It
was the Divine Who told the Old Testament prophets to “… note it diligently
in a book … as a testimony for ever.” Thus,
how can one legitimately argue that Jesus never told anyone to write anything?
Back
to top
It is sometimes stated sincerely, but nonetheless erroneously, that the
Roman Catholic Church or Catholics wrote the New Testament. After the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the
followers of Jesus obeyed His command and set about throughout the known world
to be His witnesses [see St. Matthew 28:19-20].
By as early as 95 A.D., there were established churches with large
memberships in Jerusalem and Antioch, as mentioned in the book of Acts, as well
as in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea,
as revealed in Chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Apocalypse.
There were also churches at Corinth, Philippi, Colosse, Thessalonica, and
multiple churches at Galatia [see Galatians 1:2].
It is also generally agreed among Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox
theologians that the book of Apocalypse (in the Catholic Bible, Revelation in
the Orthodox Study Bible and King James Version) was the last book written.
Thus, by 95 A.D., all the individual writings (books) that would make up
the New Testament had been completed.
At that time, the churches were autonomous, acting independently of one
another. There was no church
hierarchy acting over these individual churches.
There were no Bishops acting over several churches and no Cardinals
acting over the Bishops. Neither
was there a “Pope,” nor a Bishop of Rome, acting over all.
The Nicolaites had established a clerical hierarchy over the laity at
Pergamum. However, as recorded in
Apocalypse 2:15, God condemned the actions and teachings of the Nicolaites.
More will be said about the Nicolaites in Chapter Five.
Many Catholics have been told that the bible records Jesus saying, “My
Church will be Catholic.” However,
this simply is not true. The word
“catholic” comes from the Greek word katholikos which means
“universal.” St. Vincent of Lérins
is credited with defining and applying the concept of a single, catholic or
universal Church to the many disparate churches that accepted Roman Emperor
Constantine’s invitation to join him and form an Empire-wide religion early
in the 4th century. However,
St. Vincent did not create the definition until the first half of the 5th
century. According to his
definition, the Catholic Church is the custodian of, “That which has been
believed everywhere, always, and by all. This
is what is truly and properly catholic.” 2
As will be explained in Chapter Five, not all autonomous,
persecution-wearied churches accepted Constantine’s 313 A.D. invitation.
As discussed above, it is clear that all books of the New
Testament had been completed no later than 95 A.D., well before Constantine
established his universal Church early in the 4th century. The first application of the term “catholic” to the
universal Church started by Constantine was made by St. Vincent in the 5th
century. Thus, it is clear that
neither Constantine’s universal Church nor the Roman Catholic Church nor any
of their members could be credited with having written any part of the New
Testament.
Back
to top
Sometimes people remark, “If Jesus wanted a New Testament, then why
didn’t He write it instead of establishing His church?”
Others note that Jesus never wrote so much as one line of Scripture. 3
The answer is that God chose to enter onto the human stage in a very
personal way - as the Son of Man, God in human flesh.
While some apologists contend that, “The Apostles were never reported
to have circulated a single volume of the Holy Scriptures,” 4 this
is misleading on several counts. First,
what is meant by “volume”? Biblical
terms generally include New Testament, Old Testament, Scriptures, books, and
writings. The word bible comes from
the Greek, biblion, meaning book. However,
the term volume is unknown in the area of biblical exegesis.
Also, what is meant by “reported”?
Certainly it is not reported in the New Testament that the
apostles believed in the Trinity because the word “Trinity” does not appear
in the bible! If these apologists
are trying to mislead people into believing that the writings that would later
be assembled into the New Testament were not in wide circulation among the early
churches, then what are we to do with II St. Peter 3:16, discussed in the
Introduction, wherein St. Peter referred to St. Paul’s writings as
“Scripture”? St. Peter was
certainly under the impression that St. Paul’s epistles, like his own, were
widely circulated! And why not?
Even a casual reading of the epistles reveals that they were shared among
the early churches:
“Timothy,
my fellow-laborer, greets you, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen.
I, Tertius, who have written (a scribe) this epistle, greet you in
the Lord.” [Romans 16:21-22]
“I
wrote to you in the letter not to associate with ....” [I Corinthians 5:9]
“You
are our letters, written on our hearts ....” [II Corinthians 3:2]
“Greetings
to the brethren who are at Laodicea and to Nymphas and the church (ekklesia)
that is in his house. And when this
letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the
Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea.”
[Colossians 4:15-16]
“I
charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren (believers).”
[I Thessalonians 5:27]
“And
if anyone does not obey our word by this letter, note that man and do not
associate with him, that he may be put to shame.” [II Thessalonians 3:14]
“This,
beloved, is now the second epistle that I am writing to you ....” [II St.
Peter 3:1]
Moreover, in the gospel that bears his name, St. John clearly states that
testimonies were being written at that time:
“There
are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these should
be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that
would have to be written. Amen.”
[St. John 21:25]
Finally, St. Paul prophesied that the Word of God would soon be made
complete:
“For
we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect (complete)
has come, that which is imperfect (partial knowledge and partial prophecy)
will be done away with.” [I Corinthians 13:9-10]
Back
to top
The individual books that comprise the canon of Scripture were assembled
into what we call the bible around 397 A.D., some three hundred years after the
death of St. John, the last apostle to die.
St. John wrote a number of New Testament books, including the last book,
the Apocalypse, which he wrote while exiled on the Island of Patmos during the
reign of Emperor Domitian around 95 A.D. However,
the collection of writings we call books that later came to be known as the
canon of Scripture was recognized by Christians long before 397.
A heresy concerning the deity of Jesus at the time of His birth was being
promoted by certain factions that taught Jesus was only human until His baptism,
at which time He became deity. The
heretical faction was led by Paul of Samosata, the bishop (pastor) of the church
at Antioch. In refuting this heresy
in 266 A.D., the Synod of Antioch (an assembly of members from that church)
found such teaching to be “foreign to the ecclesiastical canon.”
Moreover, during the Great Persecution under Emperor Diocletian beginning
in 303, the individual writings that would later be assembled into the New
Testament were confiscated from the churches and destroyed.
The fact that these writings were preserved so that today we have them in
our New Testament is an indication of how just how widespread those writings
were among the 1st and 2nd century churches.
Also, in 363, the Council of Laodicea decreed that only the canonized
books, as opposed to the apocrypha, were to be read from the pulpits.
Thus, the gospels and epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and
others were widely held and identified as canon among early Christians long
before they were assembled into the New Testament in 397 A.D.
Back
to top
The original canon contained forty-six books in the Old Testament and
twenty-seven in the New. However,
only certain books were considered inspired.
These included all of what is now known as the New Testament and
thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. Those
Old Testament books considered not to be inspired, but included for historical
reasons, were and are called apocrypha, which means “hidden.” In the first publications of the canon, the seven apocryphal
books were noted as such in the index and in the titles.
This notation remained through the production of the Latin version by
Jerome, called the Vulgate, in the late 4th century.
In 1546 A.D., the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant
Reformation, called the Vulgate the Church’s only authentic version of the
bible (the Catholic Church no longer supports this position) and instructed that
the books with previous apocryphal designations be inserted into the revised
version without such designations. 5
This was in part a posthumous slap in the face to Martin Luther
(1483-1546) and many other reformers inside the Roman Catholic Church who, in
pursuing reforms from within their Church, advocated deletion of the
non-inspired apocrypha.
Back
to top
Due to a number of disputes among learned Catholic theologians following
the Reformation, a revised version of the Vulgate was commissioned by Pope
Sixtus V (1585-1590). When
presented with the revision in 1588, Sixtus opined that the work was “too
scholarly” and decided to conduct the re-write himself.
He wrote a papal Bull, Aeternus Ille, in which he declared his
version to have been “ ... approved by the authority of the Lord,” and
warned it was to be held as “ ... unquestioned in all public and private
discussions, preachings and explanations.” 6 After
Sixtus’ death, a successor, Pope Gregory XIV (1590-1591), inherited Sixtus’
papal Bull, complete with threats of excommunication and declaration that the
revised Vulgate was the only true bible approved by the Lord.
Gregory recognized that the revised work contained numerous errors
interjected by Sixtus himself. Roman
Church theologians were unable to agree on how to address the problem.
Prominent Catholics like Wycliff, Hus, Erasmus, and Luther had been
pushing the Church toward reforms that would move Catholicism toward total
reliance on Scripture for direction, a doctrinal position referred to as Sola
Scriptura, and away from what reformers viewed as the “damnable
traditions” of the Roman Catholic Church.
The internal battle over having gotten so far away from Scripture in its
practices and doctrines had gotten so vociferous that in 1546 the Council of
Trent had no choice but to declare tradition on the same level as Scripture,
more or less. This will be
discussed in more detail in Chapter Five. The Council also directed that the non-inspired apocrypha be
viewed on the same level of authority and veracity as the thirty-nine inspired
books in the Old Testament. 7 At
this point the reformers and their faithful followers had no choice but to
separate themselves from what they believed to be an apostate
Roman Catholic Church.
Back
to top
In order to limit the damage done by Sixtus’ revised Vulgate, Father
Robert Bellarmine cunningly advised Gregory to halt further production and
distribution, remove the errors inserted by Sixtus, and then resume issuance of
a corrected Vulgate under Sixtus’ name. Bellarmine
was determined to protect the image of the papacy at all costs.
With regard to errant copies already in circulation, courtesy of a new
invention called the printing press, Bellarmine suggested that the Church buy
them back and holders allow for same under penalty of excommunication and worse.
In a short time the Inquisition in Venice and the Jesuit General (the
worse) began to bring back copies of the embarrassing, error-riddled Sixtus
bible. In 1592, Pope Clement VIII
(1592-1605) released the largely corrected Vulgate under Pope Sixtus’ name.
8 The indicator of apocryphal
books was no longer included in the index or on book titles.
Back
to top
In 1603, shortly after Trent and the release of the corrected Sixtus
bible, the people petitioned King James I on several matters, including the need
for a bible in the English language. 9
Given the turmoil in the Roman world over the production of a new Latin
bible, it is little wonder that the people feared for what might be produced and
passed off as Scripture. However,
the king’s Anglican roots were buried deep in the soil of Catholic tradition.
None of their petitions was granted except for the production of an
English bible free from papal chicanery. The
Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible was printed and subsequently
distributed free to the people in 1611. This
produced a significant contrast with the Catholic Church which was seeking
desperately to ferret out copies of the earlier-distributed, erroneous Sixtus
version and burn them.
Back
to top
With all the machinations and goings-on concerning the production,
distribution, recall, redrafting, reformation, and free dissemination of
“bibles” during the late 1500s to early 1600s by Catholics and
Protestants, one might expect that there would be significant differences
between what has come to be known as the historical Catholic version of the Holy
Bible and the Authorized King James Version.
In fact, there is little difference.
Whereas the Catholic version kept the apocryphal books and dropped the
distinction between what is apocryphal and what is inspired in the Old
Testament, the original King James Version included the apocryphal books for
historical reference only and retained their apocryphal designations.
Some of the inspired Old Testament books have different titles and
contain minor differences in the spelling of the names of some of the prophets,
people, and locations. For example,
books I and II Samuel and I and II Kings in the King James Version are called I-IV Kings in the Catholic Bible.
I and II Chronicles in the King James Version are called I and II
Paralipomenon in the Catholic Bible. The
Catholic Bible’s Canticle of Canticles is called the Song of Solomon in the
King James Version.
Today’s Catholic Bible includes the seven apocryphal books in its Old
Testament without apocryphal designators (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach,
Baruch, I Machabees, and II Machabees). The
King James Version no longer includes the apocryphal books. The older, authoritative Hebrew text, referred to as the
Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), did not contain the apocrypha. 10
It contained the same thirty-nine books contained in the King James
Version, although the books are presented in a different order in the Hebrew
Bible. Genesis is first and II
Chronicles (same as II Paralipomenon in the Catholic Bible) is last.
It should be noted that Jesus endorsed the makeup of the Hebrew Bible,
and therefore the makeup of the Old Testament as found in King James Version.
As recorded in St. Matthew 23:35, Jesus accused the Scribes and Pharisees
of killing the prophets from Able to Zacharias.
Able appears in Genesis and Zacharias appears in II Chronicles (see II
Paralipomenon 17:7). So Jesus
accused them of murdering the prophets from beginning to end.
Moreover, Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, recorded the Jews
rejection of the apocrypha and Jesus never quoted or even mentioned one of the
books during His ministry. Neither
did His apostles. Neither did any
writers of the books of the New Testament refer to the apocrypha, although they
often made references to many other Old Testament books. Since the apocryphal books taught things contrary to the Law
and the prophets, the Jews considered the apocrypha to be not only impure, but
dangerous as well! 11 The
apocryphal books of the Old Testament were written after prophecy and direct
revelation had ceased. 12 There
was about a five hundred year period between the last Old Testament prophet and
John the Baptist, Amos 8:11-12 confirms this. This is
further confirmed
in the apocryphal book of I Machabees:
“...
And there was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that
there was no prophet in Israel.” [9:27]
Neither
does the Mass employ readings from the apocrypha.
There is little difference between the New Testament portions of the
Douay-Challoner text and the King James Version and, most important, no
difference between what the two teach with regard to soteriology, the doctrine
of salvation. Moreover, the Douay-Challoner translation is based on old
texts that predate the injection of Textual Criticism (also called “higher
criticism”) such as is found in modern translations (see below).
I know your concern. I, too,
was taught to believe that there were great differences between Catholic and all
others’ views on attaining salvation - differences so important that all but
Catholics are condemned to hell! 13
However, if there is no difference between what the two bibles teach
about salvation, then the differences between Catholic and others’ teachings
on salvation must originate somewhere outside the Word of God, that is, outside
the bible. And, in fact, such is
the case. This point will be
addressed more fully in Chapter Five.
The psalmist wrote in Psalms 118 (119):89 (119:89 in the King James):
“Your
word, O Lord, endures forever.”
Back
to top
Some allege that the reason there are so many denominations is because
there are so many different interpretations of Scripture.
God’s Word is quite clear as to the reason behind differing
interpretations:
“...
our gospel ... is veiled only to those who are perishing.
In their case, the god of this world (Satan) has blinded their
unbelieving minds, that they should not see the light of the gospel of the glory
of Christ, who is the image of God.” [II Corinthians 4:3-4]
Those who have been blinded to the truth of the gospel simply do not have
eyes to see. Because they have not
believed in the Jesus of the New Testament, they do not have discernment [see
St. John 16:9]. This is what causes
various interpretations. More will
be said in Chapters Four and Five on how to obtain spiritual discernment so that
Scripture can be interpreted correctly.
Back
to top
God the Father gave man His Word in the person of Jesus the Christ
[St. John 1:1]. Jesus gave us
His Word during His earthly ministry.
He established His church not to change the gospel but to spread
the good news. He gave
believers His written Word, the New Testament, so they could separate that
which is from God from the traditions of men which the New Testament
writers warned would come. Moreover,
the Scripture is a moral compass. It
points the way - the only way. If
one rejects the authority of Scripture, he may, as he stands in front of
Jesus for judgment, ask why He gave us His written Word.
The response he will hear is:
“For you. So you
could find Me.” After
explaining that He was going away, Jesus said to His disciples:
“‘And
where I go you know, and the way you know.’
Thomas said to him, ‘we do not know where thou art going, and how can
we know the way?’ Jesus said to
him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
No one comes to the Father but through me.’” [St. John 14:4-6]
While none of us knows the way, some of us know the One who does know the
way. Similarly, I may not know the
way to Boston, but I trust that the airline pilot does.
Therefore, my way to Boston is through the pilot.
Again, Jesus promises:
“Heaven
and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” [St. Matthew
24:35]
and
St. Peter confirms:
“For,
‘All flesh is as grass, and all its glory as the flower of grass; the grass
withered, and the flower has fallen - but the word of the Lord endures
forever.’” [I St. Peter 1:24-25]
Back
to top
While the historical Catholic and King James Version of the New Testament
present the same gospel, many modern translations are corrupted to varying
degrees. Therefore, translations
such as the New International Version, American Standard Version, New American
Version, New Jerusalem Bible, and the Revised Standard Version cannot be
recommended for bible study. Some
seventy “modern” bibles have been published in the 20th century.
All have been corrupted by Textual Criticism which inculcated the
philosophies of German rationalism, liberalism, and Darwinism.
The King James Version, which is based on the original Greek Textus
Receptus (received text), is recommended for bible study.
Let us proceed now with a clear understanding that the bibles under
discussion, the Douay-Challoner Catholic text, Authorized King James Version,
and the New King James Version are virtually identical, with differences
confined largely to the Old Testament and on matters not related to salvation.
Also, The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, is
quoted in later chapters. This
study bible, too, is based on the received text and is therefore in concert with
the New Testament gospel presented in the Roman Catholic Bible referenced in
this work, the King James Version, and the New King James Version.
It should be noted that the versions of the Roman Catholic Bible, King
James Version (KJV), and New King James Version (NKJV) used as sources for this
work often do not capitalize personal pronouns when referring to Deity (Father,
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit).
Back
to top
Proceed to Chapter 2
|
