Follow this link to read part 1: https://churchtimesnigeria.net/theology-school-pastors/
By Olatokunbo Odunuga
TYPICAL REVEALING DISCOVERIES OF SCHOLASTIC DEVOTION
I will like to mention that in geological explorations, valuable mineral resources are discovered at deeper levels. For instance, when one drills the ground deep enough, he would tap into water. But to tap into oil, gold or diamond, one may need to drill ten to fifty times the depth at which water was obtained. Even for mere water, the water that is screened at the first aquifer is inferior in quality to what would be obtained in the second, third or fourth aquifers. It is virtually the same principle in searches and researches in scriptures.
So, when one takes the initiative to yoke his neck in seminary or Bible college curriculum, with zeal to embark on searches at deeper levels, there is no limit as to what insights he can access. It is in these institutions that we are privileged to interface with insights not ordinarily accessible in Sunday Schools and mid-week Bible studies.
Let me share with you certain discoveries I personally made in searching the scriptures with a theological microscope, using KJV as my “guinea pig”
- The very first sentence in KJV is found defective. What is rendered as ‘heaven’ in Genesis 1:1 should be heavens. And I found myself vindicated by NKJV, NIV, RSV, and virtually in over 95% of other versions. If heaven is just singular, Paul would not have written of the third heaven. (2 Cor. 12:2).
- In Isaiah 45:11b, KJV records “command ye me”. It ought to be “command ye me?” (a question) or “do you dare to command me?” I won’t expect mere mortals to dare command the Almighty God when we cannot even command our earthly fathers!
- In Isaiah 10:27 which is rendered “the yoke shall be broken because of the anointing” . My survey established it had been corrected in diverse ways by other versions such as ACV, Amplified, ASV, CLV, ESV, GW, HCSB, JPS, NASB, NET, NIV,WEB, There was no “anointing” in the original Hebrew text. The Hebrew word was an obscure and uncertain word that put the translators to task. Many Bible versions even completely omitted the phrase e.g. BBE, Brenton, CEV, CAB, CSB, Good News Bible, The Message, RSV. In the context, it is not about spiritual deliverance but a prophecy of future physical deliverance of the Israelites from the bondage to the Assyrians. That was why we have:
–“Then they will no longer rule your nation” in Contemporary English Version;
–“In that day, the LORD will end the bondage of His people”-Holman Christian Standard Bible.
–“….in days to come He will lift the heavy load of the Assyrians from your shoulders….”-NIRV
–“On that day, Assyria will be pulled off your back….”
But if the scripture comes to one as a personal rhema, then the devil likes it or not, it will be fulfilled in the person’s circumstances.
- In Isaiah.28:18, “your covenant with death shall be dis-annulled” in today’s grammar should be “annulled”. In its present rendering in KJV, it may seem as the opposite of ‘annul’ in contemporary understanding.
- Possessing your possessions” (Obadiah 1:17) which had become a mantra in prosperity preachings had been regularised in several versions. It is not really about us possessing any material possession, but a prophecy that the people of Israel will reclaim their land which was seized from them by their enemies. It would have been clear if read in context. Even the earlier part “on Mount Zion there will be deliverance” is not about deliverance per se, but about remnants of Judah who would physically escape to Mount Zion from the onslaught of their enemies. It is very explicit when I read it in MKJV, Good News Bible, ACV, ASV, BBE, CEV, CSB, ESV, HNV, JPS, LITV, The Message, NET, NJB, NLT, RV, WEB, YLT
- Psalm 138: 2b (KJV), “…for thou hast magnified thy word above all they name”
Bible scholars are aware that “scripture interprets scripture”, and no text of Scripture should contradict another or be of private interpretation (Isaiah 28:10, 2 Peter 1:20 ). KJV rendering contradicts the scripture that certifies that the Name of Jesus is above any other name or thing in the universe. And the word that comes out of His mouth cannot be rated higher than His name, which is the identity of the person, i.e. the spoken word cannot be magnified above the Word Himself. My thought is vindicated in many other versions :
* NIV- “….for you have exalted above all things, your name and your word”.
* Brenton-“….for thou hast magnified thy holy name above everything” [Brenton Version even confirms my position, by putting His Name above His word]
* Complete Apostles Bible-(Same as in Brenton Version).
Others such as CSB, DRB, ESV, GB 1599, Geneva Bible 1587, CLV, GNB, God’s Word Version, HCSB, HNV, Message Bible, RSV, WEB, etc all agree to some extent with my thought at least by putting the word on the same pedestal (level) as the Name and not exalting it above the name.
- Isaiah 61:3 (KJV)-“…..to give unto them beauty for ashes….”.
At a closer look, I realised the incompatibility of “beauty” and “ashes”. To me, the former is intangible while the latter is tangible“. Therefore, I checked with some other versions that reflect the compatibility.
* NIV- “…..to bestow on them a CROWN of beauty instead of ashes….”
Similarly in AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV, DRB, ERV, ESV, GW, HCSB, HNV, JPS, Message Bible, NASB, NET, NCV, NJB, RSV, RV, WEB.
- Psalm 51: 11b-(KJV) “….and take not thy holy
spirit from me”- The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity came into the world at the beginning of the New Testament era-Luke 1:15. Hence the divine title ‘Holy Spirit’ wasn’t used in the Old Testament. The original Hebrew word “Ruach Kodesh” in Psalm 51: 11 means ‘Spirit of Holiness’ not ‘Holy Spirit’, who is God. The Hebrew word for Holy Spirit is “Ruach Hakodesh” and not “Ruach Kodesh”.
The same applies to Isaiah 63:10-11, where KJV stated holy spirit. Tactfully and significantly, KJV uses small letters h and s for the holy spirit. No saint in the Old Testament dispensation had the Holy Spirit resident in him or her. I further observe that KJV translators seem to realise that all was not well with putting Holy Spirit in Psalm 51:11, but for reasons best known to them took a compromise position by putting the Holy Spirit in small letters as ‘holy spirit’. Amazing! What inflexibility! Others like ACV, AMP, ASV, BBE, Bishop’s Bible, Brenton, RV, CEV, DRB, GB, GNB, HNV, KJ 2000, RSV, WEB, etc also got carried away. It is amazing that some of these versions wrote ‘holy’ in small letters and ‘Spirit’ in capital “S” while others everything in small letters.
- John 3 :16 (KJV)- “that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. The defect in this translation is evident from the fact that those who regrettably will go to hell and eventually end up in the Lake of Fire will also be in an ‘everlasting life’ status. So I had checked to that corrections had been effected in:
* NIV- “…..but have eternal p life”. Same correction in ASV, ALT, ASV, BBE, VW, CEV, CENT, CSB, Darby, ESV+, GNB, GSNT, GW, HNV, ISV, LONT, Moffat, MRC, MNT, MRC, Murdock, NASB, NET, NCV, NIRV, NJB, NLT,RSV, WEB, WmsNT.
- Rev. 4: 11-“Thou art worthy, O Lord….and for thy PLEASURE they are and were created”. Before I point out my challenge with the KJV on this text, let us please highlight NIV and a few others:
*NIV- : “You are worthy, our Lord and God……and by your WILL they were created and have their being”
*AMP: “Worthy are you our Lord and God,………; by Your WILL they were [ brought into being ] and were created.
*Living Bible : “O Lord, you are worthy………They were created and called into being by your act of WILL”
*International KJV :”You are our Lord and God…..and because of your WILL, they were created and have their existence”.
Now, even though it is delightful and fulfilling to be a source of pleasure to God as many KJV-compliant preachers impress often, the divine author of the text actually had his “act of WILL” in mind. It might have conveyed a sense close to an act of will if KJV had rendered it ‘at your pleasure’ instead of ‘for your pleasure’. Alas, a sweet song, which I also have enjoyed over the years, had been composed with “Thou art worthy……” based on the faulty KJV text.
- Zechariah 2: 8b (KJV)-“…for he that toucheth you toucheth the APPLE of his eye”. Before we proceed, I want to express the feeling that many of my audience may not be too excited with this segment, because we are accustomed to the stickers, handbills, slogans around this verse. But please, let us be patient and objective. In the entire Bible, apple (singular) is recorded 8 times-Deut.32:10; Psalm 17:8; Prov. 7:2; Songs 2:3, 8 :5; Lam. 2:18; Joel 1 :12; Zech. 2: 8. For purpose of clarity, let me highlight four Hebrew words— ‘iyshon, babah, bath, tappuach— that were used in the 8 verses. The last Hebrew word is simply and unambiguously literal apple tree while the first three can mean “pupil” or “apple”, literally, figuratively, or allegorically.
Where a text makes sense literally, there is no necessity to sniff out the figurative. If you read Songs 2 :3, 8:5, and Joel 1:12, it is clear as noon-day that the references are to the apple tree, without any figurative implication. But the others are with reference to eye-sight. So, it is neither appropriate nor a figure of speech to read apple or mango or any other fruit into the eye. Whereas the “pupil” is the shield or protector and “optical security” divinely installed in the eye. Whenever any missile, large or small, or even too powerful rays of light approach the eye, the pupil automatically closes.
Hence the KJV translators and other suchlike should have chosen “pupil” instead of “apple” since the Hebrew word has a dual meaning. I give kudos to those translations which choose “pupil” instead of “apple” in Deut 32:10/ Psalm 17:8/ Prov. 7:2/ Zech. 2:8, namely ERV, NASB, NJB, NET, LITV, Message Bible, VW, HCSB, Brenton, CLV, CAB, YLT, GW, even Modern KJV, and Amplified(AMP), though Amplified vacillates with indecision by translating as “apple or pupil”, leaving the reader to make a choice! is in our own interest to have a close understanding as possible to what God, the original author of the Bible has in His love put across to us. It is what a person believes that he ‘ would act out.
Take for instance if a person accepts Isaiah 45: 11b to be…..” command ye me.” as in KJV and not as “command ye me? and believes it, no power or persuasion on earth can prevent him from attempting to command his Creator. Wrong belief would ultimately lead to wrong action. In the same vein, wrong interpretations would also produce wrong indoctrination and fanaticism. T
he essence of accurate Bible interpretation is to draw out of it what the author is putting across to us, not to read into the Bible our own notions or sectional or denominational ideas and bias.(2 Peter 1: 20-21). Between us and the original writers of the books of the Bible, there are time, historical, language, and cultural gaps. It takes a little bit of “helps” to be able to bridge the gaps. Besides, not every text of scriptures should be taken literally and out of context.
The popular, “Touch Not My Anointed” in Psalm 105:15 is an example of general non-contextual misunderstanding because we often don’t read the passage from verse 12. It was a security arrangement God made to protect Abraham and subsequent patriarchs and sojourners as they wandered defenselessly from nation to nation. The ‘touch not’ is even about physical harm not about verbal criticisms.
I found it is clearer in ERV, Good News Bible, YLT, BBE, etc especially Message Bible-“Don’t you dare lay a hand on my anointed, don’t hurt a hair on the heads of my prophets”. Some of us who have been in ministry longer than others or more ‘prominently’ positioned may see this text as a means of tying the hands or shutting the mouths of younger ministers and other believers, even when their suggestions or opinions can be of great help to our own unintentional mistakes. If even we want to appropriate the text without a rhema, even though inordinate, who really are the “anointed”?. Let us check please. it is clear as daylight from 1 John 2: 20, 27[“As for you, the anointing which ye received abideth in you……..”] that every believer is ‘anointed’.
Let us now consider other instances in this matter of understanding the scriptures. For instance, one needs to understand why it is not real for mountains to sing or floods and trees to clap their hands (Isa.55:12, Psa.98: 3, etc) or that God has no physical hands/back/face/ears/mouth (Exo.33:21-23, Psa. 31:2, etc) even though these statements are recorded in the Bible.
There is what is called poetic licence or figures of speech, etc in scriptures. Literature students among us would easily recognize personification, hyperbole, simile, irony etc wherever these are especially in the Psalms and other poetic books of the Bible. You are exposed to such understanding in the Seminaries and Bible Colleges.
- Over the decades, people usually sing, “Alleluia is a heavenly language” when in fact “Alleluia” in Rev. 19: 1, 3, 4, 6 is an N.T. The Greek version of O.T. ‘Hallelujah’, from Hebrew origin, Hallal and meaning ‘Praise ye Jah [the Lord]’. The mere fact that it is recorded four times in Revelation 19 concerning a loud crowd in heaven does not necessarily make It a heavenly language. The same crowd in heaven also said, “Salvation”, “Glory”, “Honour”, etc. in that passage. That doesn’t make those words to metamophorsise from the English language or the Greek and Hebrew equivalents ‘metamorphosise” to heavenly languages. It even does not seem congruent to respond with Hallelujah when someone gives the call, ‘Praise ye the Lord!’. Those responding with “Hallelujah!” are only translating the call to praise from English into Hebrew without actually praising the Lord.
- A keen observer would have noticed that different denominations often have their private interpretations to certain texts of scriptures but like the compass whose needle consistently points to the north, the text must only point to the particular interpretation that is in the mind of the author of the Bible.
For instance, there is the popular notion that one of the names of God is Jehovah Jireh, and from this emanated the popular song, “The Great Provider, the great provider……..He will surely provide for me……” What is oblique with this notion is that Jehovah Jireh is not the name of God, but the name of a place as named by a man, Abraham and not by God Himself ( Gen. 22: 14). Whenever God wanted a name identified with Him, He Himself made the declaration from His own ‘mouth’, e.g. “I am that [who] I am (Exo. 3:14)
I used to be in league with those who disdain seminary and Bible college training until I was privileged to have a little dose of such. It was then I realised the misfortune of not knowing what one has missed when one was not a participant at an event or programme.
Granted, there may be some funny characters in and out of the Bible colleges or seminaries, but that is expected in virtually every institution of learning, even in convents and monasteries. So, one ought not to throw away the baby with the bath water.
One may only frown at the theology of only letters devoid of life. Alas, usually it is some among the highly respected men of God who for personal and private reasons consider It unnecessary to attend such institutions, who often denigrate the institutions. Some may be too busy to afford the time and the strenuous demands of the seminary.
Some may lack intellectual and basic academic requirements but they would not disclose their personal challenges. For instance, I first collected an application form to attend LIFE Theological Seminary in 1984, but because my referee failed to complete the form within the expected time,
I missed the opportunity that year and for some reasons, including demands of secular vocations, I could not reapply until another 10 years. Meanwhile, if I wished to palliate my frustration at the missed opportunity, I could be telling myself “What’s in a Seminary or a Bible College?” and be citing Bishop A or Pastor Z who are performing miracles without attending any theological institutions as if Christianity is merely all about performing miracles.
And in some instances, some of the leaders who didn’t attend the seminaries or Bible colleges still establish such institutions in their denominations. And I have cause to believe that some of those leaders replicate something like mini Bible colleges in their personal libraries.
However world-renowned anointed men of God, who were themselves, scholars, who passed through seminaries and Bible colleges, and who positively influenced their generations and subsequent generations after them never spoke derogatorily of such institutions.
Meek scholars of the calibre of the world-renowned Bible scholars, Derek Prince, who deliberately went to Jerusalem to master Hebrew and Greek, among others for 8 years,
R.B. Thieme, the founder of Berachah Church, Texas, F.F. Bruce, professor of Biblical History and Literature, declared that Jesus came to bring men to God, not property to man.
C. Peter Wagner, professor of Church Growth at Fuller Theological Seminary, USA, in his book, “Your Spiritual Gifts Will Make Your Church to Grow”, captured for us from the Scriptures that the gifts of the Spirit were about thirty, an enlargement to the nine in First Corinthians 12 that many people are familiar with.
Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, professors of the New Testament and Old Testament respectively, in the book, “How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth”, revolutionize the orientation of many believers.
John Calvin at 26 authored the voluminous classic, The Institute of Christian Religion. Martin Luther was a professor of Biblical Literature at 34 when he confronted Roman Catholicism and brought about the Reformation.
Dwight L Moody established the two first-ever Bible Colleges, The Missionary Training Institute in New York and Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.
The testimony about him was that he put a foot each on the continents of America and Europe and shook both for Christ. In the book, Why God Used D. L. Moody, the author R.A. Torrey wrote of him: 1. fully surrendered 2.man of prayer 3. student of the Word of God 4.humble man 5. freedom from the love of money 6. consuming passion for the lost 7. definite enduement with power from on high.
Charles H. Spurgeon, of Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, who at 20 had the largest followership in the whole world founded The Pastors’ College. He held a banquet when he read the Bible the 100th time. He found a Pastors’ College for training students.
William Carey was a professor of Theology in India. He exhausted virtually his entire adult life in the mission field in India. While freshly there, he learned the language of the Indians using a dictionary and later have had his associates produced for the Indians Bibles translated to about 53 of India’s local dialects.
Robert Moffat, the great theologian produced the Moffat Translation for the Christian world. He was a great missionary. His initial point in the mission field was spectacular. He was in a church as a young man. He had no money to put in the plate at “offering time”. He asked for the offering plate, stood in it, and declared that he was giving himself to God.
Charles G. Finney was one of the greatest influencers to the cause of Christ. He had a deeply spectacular and thorough conversion. He shut down his Law practice to pursue ministry and later became a professor at Oberlin College.
George Mueller was a professor of Divinity at Hale University. His ministry spanned over 70 years touching virtually the entire globe. He read the Bible 200 times on his knees and 200 times at his desk. He established orphanages where he took care of 10,013 orphans during his life time. His entire ministry was by faith and never once directly or indirectly requested for financial support by utterance, letter or by body language. His mode was to look up to God in heaven, who would then move men to support him.
1 comment