For the Old Testament, the traditional text is what is known as the Masoretic. The Masoretes were Jewish scholars who worked diligently between the 6th and 10th centuries AD in Babylonia and Palestine to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the OT. Their intention was not to interpret the Bible, but to transmit to future generations what they regarded as the authentic text. Therefore, to this end, they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them.

They were careful to draw attention to any peculiarities they found in the spellings of words or the grammar of sentences in the OT, and since Hebrew in their day was a dying language, they introduced a series of vowel signs to insure the correct pronunciation of the text, since traditionally, the text was written with consonants only. Among the various systems developed to represent the vowel sounds, the system developed in the city of Tiberias, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, gained the ascendancy.

The earliest complete copy of the Masoretic text of the OT is located in the St Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) Public Library; it was written about 1008 AD.

The Masoretic text is not a single, unbroken thread, but rather a river of manuscripts, with both a western and eastern branch; within the texts labeled “Masoretic” there is a certain amount of variation, and the Masoretes carefully noted the differences in the texts that they used as their sources. Therefore, it must be stressed that the so-called “Textus Receptus” that one may hear of occasionally (especially from those who believe that the King James Version is the only acceptable translation) is mostly a fiction; it is a concept that has little basis in reality beyond wishful thinking.

Remember, too, that English is not the only language into which the Bible has been translated. It has been translated into over 2,000 languages by scholars using the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

The earliest copies of OT books are called the Dead Sea Scrolls, a body of Biblical manuscripts discovered since 1947 inside caves near a place called Qumran, right next to the Dead Sea in Israel. The texts all date prior to 70 AD, the period when the community at Qumran was destroyed by the Romans following the Jewish revolt. Some texts date as far back as 150- 200 BC, based on epigraphic dating and Carbon 14 dating.

Other manuscripts useful for establishing the text of the OT are as follows:

• The Septuagint — a translation of the OT into Greek, made in Alexandria, Egypt about 250 BC. There are several versions, with minor variations among them. They are: the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates to the fourth century AD, the Codex Alexandrinus, which dates to the fifth century AD, and the Codex Vaticanus, also of the fourth century AD.

• The Samaritan Pentateuch. A copy of the first five books of Moses kept by the Samaritans in Samaritan characters. It is notorious for some deliberate alterations designed to legitimize the Samaritan place of worship on Mt Gerizim (cf Joh 4:20).

• Peshitta. The Syriac translation of the OT and the NT. Syriac is an Aramaic dialect. The translation was done sometime between 75 and 200 AD.

• Vulgate. The Latin translation of the OT and the NT was made by Jerome about 400 AD.

The first English translation of the Bible was undertaken by John Wycliffe (1320-1384). By 1380 he had finished the translation of the NT; however, his translation of the OT was incomplete at the time of his death. Friends and students completed the task after his death. His translation was not from the original Greek and Hebrew texts; instead he made use of the Latin Vulgate. Many translations followed:

• William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible again relied heavily on the Vulgate; however, he was a good Greek scholar and thus he did make use of Erasmus’ Greek text and some other helps that had been unavailable to Wycliffe. The NT was completed in 1525 and the Pentateuch in 1530. He was martyred before he could complete the OT.

• Miles Coverdale, a friend of Tyndale, prepared and published a Bible dedicated to Henry VIII in 1535. The NT is based largely on Tyndale’s version.

• Matthew’s Bible appeared in 1537. Its authorship is somewhat unclear; it is probable that it was produced by John Rogers, a friend of Tyndale. Apparently Rogers came into possession of Tyndale’s unpublished translations of the historical books of the OT and so included these in this version, which again rests heavily on the work of Tyndale, as well as Coverdale.

• The Great Bible of 1539 was based on the Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew’s Bibles. It was a large volume, chained to the reading desk in churches, and from this fact derives its name.

• The Geneva Bible of 1560 was produced by scholars who fled to Geneva, Switzerland, from England during the persecution instigated by Queen Mary. It was a revision of the Great Bible.

• The Bishops’ Bible of 1568 was produced under the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Elizabeth I. It is to a large extent simply a revision of the Great Bible, with some influence of the Geneva Bible. It was used chiefly by the clergy and was unpopular with the average person.

• The Douay Bible was a Roman Catholic version translated from the Latin Vulgate. The NT was published at Rheims in 1582 and the OT at Douay in 1609-1610. It contains controversial notes and until recently was the generally accepted English version for the Catholic Church.

• The King James (or Authorized) Version was published in 1611. It was produced by 47 scholars under the authorization of King James I of England. The Bishops’ Bible served as the basis for this version, though the translators did study the Greek and Hebrew texts and consulted other English translations. It was the most popular translation in English for well over three hundred years, undergoing at least three revisions before 1800. The New King James Version appeared in 1982. The NT had been published in 1979. One hundred nineteen scholars worked on the project, sponsored by the International Trust for Bible Studies and Thomas Nelson Publishers. They sought to preserve and improve the 1611 version.

• The Revised Version was published between 1881 and 1885. It was made by a group of English and American scholars. It was to a large extent a revision of the King James translation, though the scholars involved did check the most ancient copies of the original scriptures, using manuscripts that were unavailable at the time the King James Version was produced.

• The American Standard Version of 1900-1901 is the American version of the Revised Version, with those renderings preferred by the American members of the Revision Committee of 1881-1885.

• The Revised Standard Version was published in 1952. In 1928 the copyright of the American Standard Version was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, which authorized a revision by a committee of 32 scholars. The NT was issued in 1946, the complete Bible in 1952. The copyright is currently owned by the Division of Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is a continuing body, which is both ecumenical and international, with active Protestant and Catholic members from Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. Additional revisions were made in the NT in 1971 and in 1990 the New Revised Standard Version was issued.

• The Berkeley Version was published in 1959. The NT was originally translated into modern English by a single individual, Gerrit Verkuyl in 1945. With a staff of 20 translators, including professors from various Christian colleges and seminaries, all under his direction, a translation of the OT was rendered.

• The Amplified Bible appeared in 1965. It was commissioned by the Lockman Foundation and is unusual — even idiosyncratic — in that it has bracketed explanatory words to try to explain somewhat difficult passages.

• The Jerusalem Bible was published in 1966. It is a Roman Catholic work originally done in French at the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem in 1956. The French title was La Bible de Jerusalem. The English version was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts, but it follows the French version on most matters of interpretation. It is the only major English translation that makes use of the divine name “Yahweh” in the OT. The translation includes the Apocrypha. A revision called The New Jerusalem Bible came out in 1989.

• The New English Bible was published in 1970. It was produced by a joint committee of Bible scholars from leading denominations in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, assisted by the university presses of Oxford and Cambridge. Twenty-two years were spent in the work of translation, with the NT arriving in 1961. The full Bible includes the Apocrypha. It is printed in paragraphed, single-column format, with verse numbers along the outside margin of the pages. A revision of this translation, called the Revised English Bible, appeared in 1989.

• The New American Standard Bible was published in 1971. It is a revision of the American Standard Version and was commissioned by the Lockman Foundation. A group of Bible scholars worked for 10 years, translating from the original texts and attempting to render the grammar and terminology of the American Standard Version into more contemporary English, except when God is addressed. Then it reverts to King James style language. The NT appeared in 1963.

• The Living Bible appeared in 1971. It is a paraphrase by Kenneth N. Taylor; he sought to express what the writers of scripture meant in the simplest modern English possible. It scarcely needs to be said that sometimes he got it terribly wrong! It is a paraphrase of the American Standard Version; it is not a translation from the original languages.

• Today’s English Version (Good News Bible) was published in 1976. The NT, entitled Good News For Modern Man, was published in 1966 by the American Bible Society. A translation committee of Bible scholars was appointed to work with the United Bible Societies to make a similar translation of the OT. Their objective was to provide a faithful translation into natural, clear, and simple contemporary English. American and British editions of the complete Bible appeared in 1976. In 1995 an updated version was produced, called the Contemporary English Version, which is notable for removing anything that might be misunderstood as anti-semitic from its translation of the NT.

• The New International Version was published in 1978. The Committee enlisted Bible scholars from a broad range of denominations and countries and has become the most widely used of the modern translations.

As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: “An act for the reducing of diversities of Bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar [common] translated from the original.” The Bishop’s Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James I, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop’s Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 “for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church.” Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, “moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.”

The king rejoined that he “could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities [Oxford and Cambridge], then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.”

Accordingly, a resolution came forth: “That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.”

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had “appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” These men were the best Biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that “there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn.” Other men were sought out, according to James, “so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom.”

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2Ki; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1Ch through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution [ie, further explanation], so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,.. but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor.”

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:

“We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s…or Queen Elizabeth’s of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.”

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: “Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch.”

The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

“Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers’ Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.”

The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

“THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio.”

The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King’s desire that “there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue.” The translators expressed that they were “poor instruments to make GOD’S holy Truth to be yet more and more known” while at the same time recognizing that “Popish persons” sought to keep the people “in ignorance and darkness.”

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concordances was “A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation”, by John Downham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first column of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:

“The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision.”

As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially “authorized”, Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:

“From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King’s Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labor, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.”

This article was taken from the book “A Brief History of English Bible Translations”, by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.

More than 100 scholars from six English-speaking countries, as well as editors and English stylists, worked on the New International Version. The scholars represent more than 20 denominations.

In the 17th century, King James’s translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri.

It took ten years to complete the NIV translation. The process started in 1968 and finished in 1978. This does not include more than 10 years of planning before 1968.

The system for editing each book is one of the distinctive features of the NIV. The procedure was as follows:

• Initial Translation Team

• Intermediate Editorial Committee

• General Editorial Committee

• Stylist and Critics

• Executive Committee (or Committee on Bible Translation)

• Final Stylistic Review

• Executive’s Committee’s Final Reading

The NIV was created and is maintained with the mandate to translate, accurately and faithfully, the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic Biblical texts into clearly understandable English.

The NIV is the most widely accepted contemporary Bible translation today. More people today buy the NIV Bible than any other English-language translation.

Caveat: In the New Testament, the NIV does have some unfortunate choices, from more obscure ancient manuscripts, that reflect a “trinitarian” bias on the part of the translators. These erroneous translations should be noted and replaced, in most cases, with the alternative renderings from the margin.

This naturally raises the question: “If there is such a problem with the NIV, why use it in the first place?” The answer is: these “problem” passages are easily identified, and can be remedied (as above). On the other hand, the NIV provides what many other versions (especially the KJV) do not, that is: (1) scholarly work of the highest standard, which takes into account all the linguistic discoveries and advances of the past 400 years; and (2) modern renderings that avoid all the archaic words and expressions of older versions (see Lesson, AV difficult words — for examples of this).

(Also see Lesson, NIV, background.)

A convenient, 7-part analysis of the entire Bible:

1. Gen through Deu — REVELATION
2. Joshua through Esther — PREPARATION
3. Job through Song of Solomon — ASPIRATION
4. Isa through Mal — EXPECTATION

5. Mat through Joh — MANIFESTATION
6. Acts through Jude — REALIZATION

7. Rev — CULMINATION

For the serious Bible student (or anyone who wants to become a serious Bible student), there are only a few Bible versions that deserve consideration:

1. The King James Version (also known as the Authorized Version) is still much used, and even revered, in Christadelphian circles — although its inadequacies (due primarily to its age) are known and understood. Much of the best Bible study material is based on the KJV, as are the good analytical concordances and lexicons. Many believers, not quite able to tear themselves away from it for more modern (and possibly more accurate) versions, nevertheless supplement their KJV reading and study with occasional reference to good modern versions.

A good study Bible still available within the Brotherhood is the “Interlinear” (KJV and English Revised Version line by line, one under the other), but beware! It requires some practice to read it smoothly.

2. The Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952) is the earliest of the modern translations still being used in significant numbers. It was intended as a further revision of the KJV and English RV, and is generally respected for its scholarship.

3. The New International Version (NIV, 1978) is perhaps the best translation in American English today. It is close to the Hebrew and Greek text while at the same time reproducing our language as it is spoken today. As an advertisement for the NIV says, “If King James were alive today, he’d be reading the NIV!” (In the New Testament, the NIV does have some unfortunate choices, from more obscure ancient manuscripts, that reflect a “trinitarian” bias on the part of the translators. These erroneous translations should be noted and replaced, in most cases, with the alternative renderings from the margin.)

4. The New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1960) is the most literal, word-for-word translation on the market today — which is not to say it is necessarily the best. Many feel its extreme literalness makes it a poor translation, because its English is consequently choppy and decidedly poor. As a study Bible, however, if not as a reading Bible, it has some appeal among Christadelphians.

And there, probably, the list of recommended versions should end. Other possible versions range from the mediocre at best (New English Bible, Good News Bible, or Today’s English Version) to the very poor (Living Bible, and the various “special sect” translations — like the JWs’ “New World Translation”).

Many of the versions are available in expensive “study editions”, with extensive marginal notes. These notes, while sometimes containing valuable material, can often be very biased and misleading. It would be far better to get a good wide-margin Bible with marginal references, but no notes. These types of Bibles, seen commonly among Christadelphians, are available from various sources in all four recommended translations. Make up your mind to produce your own marginal notes as you study, a practice infinitely better for personal development than relying on the notes of “orthodox” commentators.

A sign of the end of the age

The problem of racism is very much in the news today. Despite efforts to eliminate racism and ethnic hatred, the world continues to see race riots, civil wars that involve fighting between ethnic groups, ‘ethnic cleansing’, genocide, anti-Semitism and theories of racial superiority. That this should be so today comes as no surprise to those who seriously read their Bibles. Almost two thousand years ago Jesus Christ predicted that one of the characteristics of the time of the end would be fighting between ethnic groups:

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation [Greek ethnos] shall rise against nation, and kingdom [Greek basileia] against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places” (Mat 24:6,7).

In the above passage, the original Greek word rendered nation is “ethnos”, from which we get our word ethnic. This word refers to an ethnic class of people. The Greek word for kingdom, “basileia”, refers to a political institution. Thus the word ethnos, used separately from “basileia”, shows that there would be clashes between ethnic and racial groups, as well as between nations, in the last days.

Were the black races cursed by God?

It is a common myth that the Bible, specifically in Genesis 9, condones the enslavement of the African races, and implies that the black races are inferior. Genesis 9 was used in the days of the black slave trade by supposed Christians who wished to justify their horrible treatment of African peoples. However, their interpretation of this passage was a flagrant misuse of Scripture, a misuse of Scripture that unfortunately continues to this day in some quarters. This incorrect interpretation has caused much tragedy and suffering among the African races, and we need to put it to rest immediately. Following an immoral incident involving Ham and perhaps his son Canaan, Genesis 9 describes how Canaan is cursed by Noah:

“And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant” (Gen 9:25-27).

Those who try to maintain that the Bible teaches the enslavement of African peoples, argue that since Ham is the father of the African races, this curse amounts to a legitimization of racism against blacks. However, while it is true that Ham is the forefather of the races that became established in Africa, Ham was also the father of other peoples, such as the people who lived in the Promised Land prior to its being conquered by the Israelites. The main group of people living in the Promised Land at this time were the descendants of Canaan, the Canaanites. For this reason the land was also called the Land of Canaan. One group of Canaanites, the Gibeonites, tried to trick Joshua into a peace treaty:

“And Joshua called for them, and he spake unto them, saying, Wherefore have ye beguiled us, saying, We are very far from you; when ye dwell among us? Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God” (Jos 9:22,23).

It was as a direct result of their trickery that the Canaanite Gibeonites were cursed into servitude for the Israelites. This is the Biblical fulfillment of the Genesis 9 curse. Even in the days of Solomon, several hundred years later, this curse was still being fulfilled:

“And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day” (1Ki 9:20,21).

Of the above listed groups, the Amorites, Hivites, Jebusites, and perhaps the Perizzites were Canaanite groups. Thus the curse (which actually became a blessing!) was extended to other Canaanite groups as well. The Gibeonites, according to Joshua 9:22,23 quoted above, were to be employed in the temple service. This association with the worship of Yahweh, the true God, opened up the possibility of salvation to these non-Israelites. This is a foretaste of the grace God would later extend to all Gentiles (non-Israelites).

“Christian” racism

While the Bible itself in no way encourages or tolerates racism, it is unfortunately true that some Christians have been and are racist, just as some non-Christians are racists. However, this is not a reflection on the true nature of Christianity. One of the perpetrators of the myth of the inferiority of the African races was the Catholic Archbishop of the Americas, Bartolome de las Casas (1474-1566). Las Casas was a champion of the rights of North and South American Indians, since he believed the Indians had souls and thus needed to be saved. Thus he fought to end the enslavement of the natives of the New World. However, he also recommended that African slaves be imported to America, since they did not have souls and were thus inferior! As we have already stressed, this view is definitely not Biblical.

Unfortunately, there has arisen in the minds of some Christians the illusion that Christ was racially white. But ethnology, history and the Bible converge to show just how much of an illusion this idea really it. It is common for people to portray the ‘greats’ in history in ways that are more agreeable to their own sensibilities. Thus many whites have simply assumed that Christ had fair skin, and some even assume that he had blond hair and blue eyes! Of course, the simple rebuttal to this notion is that nobody knows what Christ looked like. However, ethnologists affirm that Palestinian Jews living in the first century were quite dark-skinned, with dark hair and eyes. The Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Slavic white races lived over a thousand miles to the north and northwest of the Palestinian Jews. Thus the racist portrayal of Christ as a ‘Great White God’, presented by such groups as the Mormons, is to be rejected.

We must distinguish between true Christianity as revealed in God’s Word, and the corrupt manifestations of Christianity that owe their origins more to human reasoning. In other words, Christianity is not racist by nature, although some individual Christians are (as are some Hindus, atheists and other non-Christians).

Is Christianity a white man’s religion?

It is sad, but true, that some white Christians assume arrogantly that Christianity is a ‘white man’s religion’. Partly because of these attitudes, many people misrepresent the Christian faith as the religion of the white races, in much the same way that native North American religions are the indigenous religions of native Americans.

However, historically speaking, the white races are relative late-comers to the Christian religion. For example, the ancestors of the northern European Anglo-Saxons continued to be full-blown pagans for centuries after the Gospel message first went out on the Day of Pentecost (c. 30 AD).

Christ himself was a Jew, and hardly the Nordic ‘god’ of some people’s imaginations. Christ’s immediate disciples were also Jewish, and it was to the Jewish peoples that the Gospel was first preached. Before Christ ascended into heaven, he told his disciples how the Gospel would first spread among the Jews in Jerusalem, and then to the Samaritans (who were part Jewish) and only then to the other parts of the earth:

“But ye [Christ’s disciples] shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Thus while it may be fair to say that some institutions that call themselves Christian are manifestations of the modern ‘white man’s religion’, it is clearly untrue to say this of the Christian faith as represented in the New Testament.

Evolution and racism

While the Bible teaches that God created all human beings equal, the atheistic ideas of evolution have led many to adopt racist views. Hitler, for example, was influenced by evolutionary Darwinism when he espoused the racist view that the ‘Aryan’ race was superior to all others. One manifestation of evolutionary thinking, known as social Darwinism, led to racist and class policies in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries:

“The theory [of social Darwinism] was used to support political conservatism. Class stratification was justified on the basis on ‘natural’ inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness, temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society would, therefore, interfere with natural processes; unrestricted competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological selection. The poor were the ‘unfit’ and should not be aided; in the struggle for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, social Darwinism was used as a philosophical rationalization for imperialist and racist policies, sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan cultural and biological superiority.” [Encyclopedia Britannica, 1986, 10:920]

More recently, Philippe Rushton, a Western University (London, Ontario) psychology professor, created a stir when he published a race theory based on the evolutionary development of humans. Rushton claimed that the black races finished evolving first, followed by the white races, with the Asian races last. His theory proposes that Asians are the most highly evolved humans, followed by whites, with the blacks being the least highly evolved. Moreover, Professor Rushton claimed that this made Asians the most intelligent, the blacks the least, with the whites falling somewhere in between.

Rushton was roundly condemned in most quarters, and he lost some of his academic privileges. However, according to the principles of evolution, which openly teach that some species are more highly evolved than others, there is no reason why a theory such as this should be automatically condemned without serious investigation (which it was). Such a theory is quite compatible with the tenets of the amoral discipline of evolution. Most people seemed to reject Rushton’s ideas for moral, ethical and religious reasons.

Those who believe the Bible to be authoritative in such matters do have reason to automatically reject all racist theories, as we will see. It should be pointed out, however, that it would be unfair and simplistic to portray all evolutionists as racist, just as it would be to call all Christians racist. Still, there is one major difference. Some Christians have read racist ideas into the non-racist Bible, while evolutionary principles inherently support the idea of one race or species rising above another.

Nevertheless, a chosen people

While the Bible does not teach that any one race or nation has guaranteed access to salvation based on their race alone, the Bible does affirm that God chose the nation of Israel as a special people to manifest His Name throughout the world. Early in the first book of the Bible, God made a special promise or covenant with Abraham, the father of the Israelites:

“Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:1-3).

Later, when the people of Israel had become a nation, God made a further covenant with the Israelites:

“Now therefore, IF ye will obey my voice in- deed, and keep my covenant, THEN ye shall be a peculiar [or, special] treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exo 19:5,6).

For about two thousand years, God manifested His truth through the Israelites and their religion. The special status of Israel did not mean that no other people had access to the true God and salvation. Many Gentiles (non-Jews) associated themselves with the religion of Israel and became proselytes (converts) to the Jewish faith, a faith that taught that God created all the world and all the people in it.

The wall of partition, and its removal

Unfortunately, many Jews became arrogant about their special status and treated the Gentiles as inferior in God’s plan of salvation. This problem was epitomized in the following inscription in the Jewish temple court at the time of Christ:

“NO FOREIGNER MAY ENTER WITHIN THE BARRICADE WHICH SURROUNDS THE TEMPLE AND ENCLOSURE. ANYONE WHO IS CAUGHT DOING SO WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO THANK FOR HIS ENSUING DEATH.” [FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (revised, fifth edition). (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1985), p 93]

However, one of the most important aspects of the work of Christ is that his sacrifice symbolically broke down this restrictive partition between Jew and Gentile. The apostle Paul, who was the Apostle to the Gentiles, wrote the following to Gentile Christians:

“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain [two] one new man, so making peace…” (Eph 2:11-15).

Christ made peace between the races, and thus Christianity is a truly universal faith open to all races without restrictions of any kind.

The equality of all races

Along with the teaching that the Gospel is open to all races, the Bible clearly emphasizes that God created all humans equal, and all people who respond to the Gospel will be accepted by him. Now that’s good news!

“… God shows no partiality. But in every nation [Greek ethnos] whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts. 10:34,35).

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:24-26).

Racism, and beliefs of racial superiority were quite common in the ancient world. In addition to the Jewish feelings of racial superiority, the Greeks commonly called all non-Greeks Barbarians. In light of the above quoted passages that show the Bible teaching on the equality of all races, it is not surprising that we find the most liberating statement in the ancient world in the Bible:

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:26-29).

It must be stressed that the secular world can never offer the freedom from racism that Christ offers. It is only ‘in Christ’ through faith and baptism that this freedom exists.

The Kingdom of God: All nations living in peace!

The Kingdom of God is a hope that all people can share in through the Gospel, regardless of race. The Bible tells us that the Kingdom will be established when Christ returns to the earth, and it will be a Kingdom of righteousness and peace in which all races and peoples will live together in harmony with a common religion.

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it” (Isa 2:2).

God’s ultimate purpose is that the knowledge of His glory will eventually fill the entire earth, and thus all fighting and hatred between races will be eliminated. The Kingdom will be a beautiful contrast to what we see in the world today!

(SS)

Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Bang…?

The Big Bang may well be the most amazing discovery in the history of science. Imagine if you can, every single particle that makes up every single person, planet, star and galaxy of the entire Universe bound into a ‘singularity’, a point of infinite density occupying zero volume, and unleashed in a mammoth explosion of energy that marks the dramatic beginning of time, space and everything. Imagine these cosmic fireworks unfolding like flowers, clustering into galaxies and bursting into stars, stretched apart with the fabric of space over billions and billions of light years, and throughout it all swirling clouds of gas condensing and forming the planets, nebulae and stars we see today!

Try to grasp the power behind such a creation, and the genius of the mind who engineered it! Absolutely incomprehensible!

Truly this was the Lord’s doing, and surely it is marvelous in our eyes!

Yet at the beginning of this century, the Universe was commonly thought to be infinite and static, with the assumption that it had always existed. It was just… there! Even though most religious people accepted that God made all things, few considered the possibility that the actual creation of the Universe would ever be discovered or described by science.

But this is exactly what the “Big Bang” is all about.

It was Einstein’s amazing calculations early this century that first suggested that the Universe was expanding, but, as he did not believe it, he added a “fiddle factor” into his maths to stabilise his Universe, hoping to discover the reason later. By 1929 Edwin Hubble’s deep space observations had shown the Universe to be vastly more immense than previously imagined, and his discovery of galaxy redshifts demonstrated that the Universe was indeed expanding. There was no avoiding it this time, and Einstein realized that his cosmological constant “was the greatest mistake of my life.”

The first amazing implication of an expanding universe was that if the Universe was indeed smaller and smaller the further we explore back into time, then we can extrapolate a moment of beginning (10 to 15 billion years ago) where the Universe was incomprehensibly small in a way where all known laws of physics break down. Which for many people sounded like a very unsatisfactory arrangement, and was the source of much scientific debate. But when Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered the predicted background radiation in space in the 1960s, the case for the Big Bang was considered sealed.

Why?

Well, it had been realised for some time that if the Universe was in fact expanding, space would be expanding with it and any radiation in that space would be proportionally “stretched”. The Big Bang fireball would have generated intense very short wavelength high-energy radiation but, as the Universe expanded, this would be progressively expanded into radiation of microwave wavelength and diminished in intensity to something of a whisper.

In 1964, Penzias and Wilson were testing an experimental microwave antenna and were plagued by a background hiss that would not go away, no matter where the antenna was pointed. Speculation blamed some pigeons roosting inside, who were soon forcibly evicted, but the hiss continued. A discussion with radio-astronomers led to the realization that they had tuned into the relic of the Big Bang, and the mysterious hiss became one of the most persuasive evidences for the Big Bang.

Since then, several other discoveries have also confirmed the theory, and most astronomers now regard the evidence for it as “overwhelming”.

Yet Gen 1:1 had always said, “In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth.” The Bible had always described an ultimate beginning. Today, few Bible students familiar with the Big Bang theory would doubt that Gen 1:1 is a reference to this grand beginning of our magnificent and expanding Universe.

One thing that impresses me in all this is the way the scientific community came around to accept the Big Bang. Nobody wanted it, and it hardly sounded like an original idea either. It was resisted strongly for years, partly because it had such a disconcerting Biblical flavour, sounding too much like Christianity’s Creation “ex-nihilo” (‘out of nothing’) and partly because it could have no scientific explanation. Science is in the business of giving cause to effects, but here was the greatest effect of all with no cause. In fact the very term “Big Bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle in derision of the concept! Yet the observational evidence became overwhelming, and science was forced to follow. In fact, Fred Hoyle himself ended up doing much of the science that helped explain it, and the name has stuck.

(Actually, this is science at its best and most reliable. Unwilling scientists were forced to follow the evidence because the evidence demanded it rather than because it supported their pet theories.)

A big difficulty for a scientist in accepting such an unexplainable for a First Cause is that a great big “stop” sign is put in place saying, “No questions please!” Don’t enquire about the cause, because any ideas cannot be tested! This is anathema to the scientific mind, partly because it opens up the field to total speculation which can never be tested. The rapid progress of science in the last two centuries has been largely due to an approach that has eschewed untestable speculation and superstition in favour of rigid testing procedures. Yet all that science can test is that which is within the Universe. Beyond the Universe, anything is possible.

Why bother then with trying to explain anything? If we admit that the Universe itself is physically inexplicable, then how can we be sure that any physical explanation for anything is truly meaningful? How can any scientific explanation of anything be truly worthwhile if the origin and cause of the Universe is beyond scientific enquiry? These are very disturbing questions. It is impossible to fully explain our cosmos unless we have a source of information from beyond the Big Bang!

So stop worrying! We ‘theologians’ and our Bibles are not being tossed away yet! Quite the opposite it seems! For we have a source of information from beyond the Big Bang.

Today, the essential Big Bang concept is so firmly entrenched that the best way to get attention for a cosmological article is to include in the heading “Is this the end for the Big Bang?” or something equally controversial. While we do well to be cautious about any scientific theory, and findings which appear to challenge the theory behind the Big Bang do get reported quite often, every astronomer I have spoken to has no hesitation in affirming that the Big Bang remains by far the best fit with observation. And after all, what scientist worth his salt is not looking for problems to solve? And there are many problems to solve, especially problems of detail. But the debate is not so much over WHETHER the Big Bang has happened, but HOW the Big Bang unfolded.

Unfortunately, we tend to grab these headings and triumphantly exclaim, “See, the scientists can never agree and obviously don’t know what they are talking about! Why don’t they just read the Bible and get the answer?” Personally, I’m glad some don’t. There is no witness like an unwilling witness. And we forget that science is attempting to explain how the Universe happened in mechanical terms, rather than why it exists in absolute terms. It would seem very foolish to turn the tables by pretending to understand the mechanics, and perhaps lose direction and find that scientific men are coming closer than we to understanding the “why” when we have had the revealed word of God to tell us, but we were too busy debating the wrong thing to notice the question.

In fact, the funny thing is, the Bible always talked about a beginning of the Universe, but when science discovered and described it, how many of us disputed it? Amazing! Surely this must be telling us something!

What I find particularly interesting about this beginning, is that God was already there. Which means that if the Big Bang marks “the beginning” of the Universe, then God was not only “before” the Universe came into existence, (rather logical if He created it after all!) but, being before it and the Creator of it, he is logically above and beyond it, independent of and unconstrained by anything that is part of it.

In other words, this implies that God is independent of and unconstrained by physics, chemistry and biology, and indeed, any of the laws or dimensions of the Universe that science is able to describe, including gravity, time, and the speed of light. All these things are created by God FOR this Universe and as part of it, rather than some sort of eternal conditions that he has to work under. Perhaps this explains why science cannot “prove” God, simply because God, being beyond the Universe, cannot be tested by experiments within the Universe. The command, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God” suggests that human beings have always tried to put God to some sort of experimental test. But proof of God will always be in the mind of the individual moved by the evidence. And there is no shortage of evidence, as Paul says in Rom. 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.” Many people have observed that a man will either see the finger of God at work in everything, or he can never see it at all.

This is especially true of the Big Bang theory. Many will see it as obviously demanding a God as the “first cause”, while others are determined to hold fast to unbelief. When the editor of New Scientist magazine made a little comment on the “no need for God” question, he was so swamped with correspondence that a special newsletter was required just to publish “the God letters”… all written by scientists! He later admitted that the very argument he had used (Occam’s razor) to do away with the necessity for God had been skillfully turned around to REQUIRE God as a first cause.

One of the more fascinating things about the Big Bang is the precision engineering involved to make it all work. Sir Bernard Lovell, in his book “In the Centre of Immensites”, pp 122,123, remarks about the Big Bang: “If at that moment the rate of expansion had been reduced by only one part in a thousand billion, then the universe would have collapsed after a few million years… Conversely, if the rate had been marginally greater, then the expansion would have reached such magnitudes that no gravitationally bound system (ie, galaxies and stars, etc) could have formed.”

Surely this finely tuned explosion suggests our Universe was no mere accident? No galaxies = no stars, and no stars = no planets, no planets = no earth, no earth = no life, and all that means no you and me.

Then there are the laws controlling the fundamental forces of the Universe. I’ll let Alan Hayward explain with an extended quotation from his excellent book “Creation and Evolution” p 61…

“There appear to be just four basic forces holding everything in the universe together, from the smallest atomic particles to the greatest galaxies. Physicists call them the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Each of these has a characteristic strength that physicists have measured.

“If we ask, why do those forces have those particular strengths, there seems to be no answer…

“Something (or Somebody) has evidently tailored the values of those four fundamental forces of nature, so as to give the universe precisely the properties it needs if life is to exist in it.

“To give just one example of the way these forces are matched, take the relationship between gravity and the weak nuclear force. It is the perfect balance between these two that has caused the universe to keep expanding at a comfortable steady rate. To achieve this, according to Paul Davies, the two forces have to be tuned to each other with the astonishing accuracy of one part in ten thousand billion billion billion billion!

“If they became mismatched by this minute amount in one direction, then, says Davies, ‘the expansion of the universe would be explosive, and it is doubtful if galaxies could ever have formed against such a disruptive force.’ With the same amount of mismatch in the other direction, ‘the explosion would be replaced by a catastrophic collapse of the universe.’

“All this, says Davies, provides ‘compelling evidence that something is “going on” ‘.

(Alan Hayward, “Creation and Evolution”, p 61, and quoting from Paul Davies, “The Accidental Universe”, p 110)

Several years later, while discussing some even more astounding fine-tuned coincidences, Paul Davies (in his best-seller “The Mind of God”, in a chapter called “Designer Universe”) is less hesitant at expressing what he thinks is “going on”, and arrives at the following conclusion:

“The apparent ‘fine tuning’ of the laws of nature necessary if conscious life is to evolve in the universe then carries the clear implication that God has designed the universe so as to permit such life and consciousness to emerge. It would mean that our own existence in the universe formed a central part of God’s plan.”

The apostle Paul reminded the Colossians that the whole Universe was created for Christ, things in heaven and things on earth, and we have been invited to share with him. Do you think it is possible that we have under-estimated just what this means?

It seems to me that an awful lot of time and drama are passed over in the simplicity of the opening words of our Bibles, presumably because they would distract from the essence of the message. Yet the shepherd boy’s quiet consideration of the sun, moon and stars enabled him to face the giant Goliath in a spirit of astonishment that such could dare defy the armies of the Living God! Job had his attention directed to consider the behaviour of a creation whose hidden secrets teach us about the power and intellect of our God, and the prophet Isaiah urges the people several times to lift up their eyes to consider the heavens and the implications they have for worship. There is nothing in science that can ever take this wonder away. Whether a scientist is digging up fossils of ancient life forms or peering into the awesome depths of space, or whether he is studying the biological marvels of our “fearfully and wonderfully made” human frames or teasing out the secrets of the atom, he or she is exploring the handiwork of God in a skillful and disciplined manner, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Truly this world is full of hard-hearted and stiff-necked people who will always resist the truths inscribed into the very fabric of Creation. We must resist allowing anyone’s human prejudices and opinions to obstruct the wonder and reverence due to our Creator, and we must be equally careful lest our own prejudices and opinions interfere with our ability to recognise and be motivated by the hand of our God seen in the discoveries of science.

JP

“The LORD possessed me (wisdom) in the beginning of his way, before his works of old I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men” (Pro 8:22-31).

Books of the Old Testament:	39
Books of the New Testament:	27
Total number of books:	66
Chapters in Old Testament:	929
Chapters in New Testament:	260
Total number of chapters:	1,189
Verses in Old Testament:	33,214
Verses in New Testament:	7,959
Total number of verses:	41,173
Words in Old Testament:	593,493
Words in New Testament:	181,253
Total number of words:	774,746
Letters in Old Testament:	2,728,100
Letters in New Testament:	838,380
Total number of letters:	3,566,480