Young people, feel free to send your questions to Dr. C. Van Groningen of Dordt College, Sioux Center, Iowa. You may send these with or without identification. Names of those asking questions will not be published. Don’t hesitate. Send your questions now.
Yes, the question, “Is it the true Bible?” is asked repeatedly concerning The Living Bible. Other questions concerning The Living Bible continue to be raised also. Various reasons for these uncertainties could be mentioned. For example, its popularity makes people wonder: “The regular Bible is avoided; this one is taken. Why?” The fact that there are voices repeatedly warning against the use of it or too much reliance on it makes people uneasy. “Why do many church leaders, teachers and writers issue such warnings?” they ask. And finally, the fact that certain people push The Living Bible to the extent and in the manner they do raises some concern in the minds of church people who feel in their hearts that they really should not be too closely identified with these vocal, active pushers.
Since I have been approached no less than nine times in recent weeks with the question “Is it the True Bible?”, or some question like it, I thought it might be useful to sum tip what has been said quite clearly, fully, and emphatically in various other places. For example, the latest to appear were critiques in The Banner (Nov. and Dec., 1972).
Two main problems confront us when we evaluate The Living Bible. First – it is not a translation. Second – it presents the theological views of the translator. We will discuss each of these briefly.
1. The Living Bible is not a translation. The man who produced it never intended it to be a translation. He speaks of it as a paraphrase of the Bible. There is a very big difference between a translation and a paraphrasing of the Bible. Translators work from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and attempt to present as accurately as possible in exact words, phrases and sentences what the original had. This is the only way to achieve an accurate and reliable copy of the Bible.
The man who paraphrases does not work for exactness in conveying the meaning of words and phrases. Rather, he takes the ideas as he reads and understands them, arid expresses these in his own manner. Really, a man who paraphrases produces a short concise commentary. He explains as he presents; he explains, of course, as he sees it.
2. Now for the second problem. If, as we said before, the man who paraphrased the Bible to produce The Living Bible explained as he saw it, we have a commentary which gives a man’s views concerning basic biblical teachings. We are thankful that The Living Bible presents Jesus Christ as God and as man, the only Savior for sinners. But, there are three important areas where matters pertaining to our understanding of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord are not properly presented. Possibly, we can explain the problem areas best by using three terms.
First, the man who paraphrased the Bible to produce The Living Bible holds to a non-covenantal view of the biblical message concerning the manner in which God relates Himself to man to redeem and restore him, and to use man in His service in the kingdom of God. This non-covenantal view implies that infant baptism is not accepted. The Reformed belief that the church is one church on earth from the time of Adam until Jesus comes again is ignored. The continuity of the one and same basic gospel message of the Old and New Testament is denied.
Second, The Living Bible is so written that it presents the premillennial view. This term premillennial refers to the general teaching that Jesus Christ is now not king (Sovereign Lord) over all things. True, the view holds that Christ reigns in heaven and in individual hearts. But, He does not now reign as eternal, all-sovereign over all things, i.e., nations, powers, forces here on earth. The devil is believed to be basically in control. The world is Caesar’s world. The Christian can only look to heaven to see the Lordship of Jesus Christ. However, at some future times, Jesus will return, at least two times. The first time He returns, He will set up an earthly kingdom in Palestine (Jerusalem) and reign for a thousand years from His earthbound throne. Then He will return to heaven. After that He will come to judge all men and the end of this world will then have come. The premillennial view clearly set forth in The Living Bible is not found, we are convinced, in the Bible itself.
Third, the man who paraphrased the Bible to produce The Living Bible is a professed Arminian. He does not wholeheartedly accept the truths which the Bible so clearly teaches about man’s total depravity, election (predestination) to salvation by God’s grace according to God’s sovereign good pleasure, the irresistibility of divine grace, the atonement as limited only to the elect, and the perseverance of believers unto eternal life. These doctrines touch on the very character of God’s sovereignty, man’s lost condition and the actual salvation of sinners.
Well, young people, having written the above, what advice do I give you about the use of The Living Bible? I can only repeat what others have said, Use it as a commentary; that is, read it alongside of the Bible itself. Many parts of the Bible can become clearer to you in reading from the two. However, as you do this, be sure you watch for the three theological problem areas. Avoid the non-covenantal, premillennial, Arminian teachings!
Finally, here is a question for you to ponder: Do you think it is correct to name a paraphrase, a concise commentary, with major problems imbedded in it, The Living Bible? Frankly, I do not.
Yes, the question, “Is it the true Bible?” is asked repeatedly concerning The Living Bible. Other questions concerning The Living Bible continue to be raised also. Various reasons for these uncertainties could be mentioned. For example, its popularity makes people wonder: “The regular Bible is avoided; this one is taken. Why?” The fact that there are voices repeatedly warning against the use of it or too much reliance on it makes people uneasy. “Why do many church leaders, teachers and writers issue such warnings?” they ask. And finally, the fact that certain people push The Living Bible to the extent and in the manner they do raises some concern in the minds of church people who feel in their hearts that they really should not be too closely identified with these vocal, active pushers.
Since I have been approached no less than nine times in recent weeks with the question “Is it the True Bible?”, or some question like it, I thought it might be useful to sum tip what has been said quite clearly, fully, and emphatically in various other places. For example, the latest to appear were critiques in The Banner (Nov. and Dec., 1972).
Two main problems confront us when we evaluate The Living Bible. First – it is not a translation. Second – it presents the theological views of the translator. We will discuss each of these briefly.
1. The Living Bible is not a translation. The man who produced it never intended it to be a translation. He speaks of it as a paraphrase of the Bible. There is a very big difference between a translation and a paraphrasing of the Bible. Translators work from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and attempt to present as accurately as possible in exact words, phrases and sentences what the original had. This is the only way to achieve an accurate and reliable copy of the Bible.
The man who paraphrases does not work for exactness in conveying the meaning of words and phrases. Rather, he takes the ideas as he reads and understands them, arid expresses these in his own manner. Really, a man who paraphrases produces a short concise commentary. He explains as he presents; he explains, of course, as he sees it.
2. Now for the second problem. If, as we said before, the man who paraphrased the Bible to produce The Living Bible explained as he saw it, we have a commentary which gives a man’s views concerning basic biblical teachings. We are thankful that The Living Bible presents Jesus Christ as God and as man, the only Savior for sinners. But, there are three important areas where matters pertaining to our understanding of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord are not properly presented. Possibly, we can explain the problem areas best by using three terms.
First, the man who paraphrased the Bible to produce The Living Bible holds to a non-covenantal view of the biblical message concerning the manner in which God relates Himself to man to redeem and restore him, and to use man in His service in the kingdom of God. This non-covenantal view implies that infant baptism is not accepted. The Reformed belief that the church is one church on earth from the time of Adam until Jesus comes again is ignored. The continuity of the one and same basic gospel message of the Old and New Testament is denied.
Second, The Living Bible is so written that it presents the premillennial view. This term premillennial refers to the general teaching that Jesus Christ is now not king (Sovereign Lord) over all things. True, the view holds that Christ reigns in heaven and in individual hearts. But, He does not now reign as eternal, all-sovereign over all things, i.e., nations, powers, forces here on earth. The devil is believed to be basically in control. The world is Caesar’s world. The Christian can only look to heaven to see the Lordship of Jesus Christ. However, at some future times, Jesus will return, at least two times. The first time He returns, He will set up an earthly kingdom in Palestine (Jerusalem) and reign for a thousand years from His earthbound throne. Then He will return to heaven. After that He will come to judge all men and the end of this world will then have come. The premillennial view clearly set forth in The Living Bible is not found, we are convinced, in the Bible itself.
Third, the man who paraphrased the Bible to produce The Living Bible is a professed Arminian. He does not wholeheartedly accept the truths which the Bible so clearly teaches about man’s total depravity, election (predestination) to salvation by God’s grace according to God’s sovereign good pleasure, the irresistibility of divine grace, the atonement as limited only to the elect, and the perseverance of believers unto eternal life. These doctrines touch on the very character of God’s sovereignty, man’s lost condition and the actual salvation of sinners.
Well, young people, having written the above, what advice do I give you about the use of The Living Bible? I can only repeat what others have said, Use it as a commentary; that is, read it alongside of the Bible itself. Many parts of the Bible can become clearer to you in reading from the two. However, as you do this, be sure you watch for the three theological problem areas. Avoid the non-covenantal, premillennial, Arminian teachings!
Finally, here is a question for you to ponder: Do you think it is correct to name a paraphrase, a concise commentary, with major problems imbedded in it, The Living Bible? Frankly, I do not.