Board index ‹ Bible

[A Light]

Does it take a good man to interpret the bible accurate according to God's intentions?

If it requires a good man to interpret the bible according to God's intentions, and there have been rapists, pedophiles, and murderers in the church who are interpreting the bible today, is it possibly that some of the people who were appointed, as a result of Constantine's order, to created a bible after evaluating over 100 books, and some of those who translated the bible throughout the centuries, were not good men, and did not interpret the bible correctly?

[jimwalton]

What it takes to interpret the Bible correctly is a genuine relationship with God. 1 Corinthians 2.6-16 (esp. vv. 10-14) tells us that God reveals truth to us by His Spirit. his is not something that can be figured out if you think hard enough about it, or it you just have enough logic and reasoning power you can "get" it. It's not like that. It's a spiritual truth that can only be digested and appropriated if the Spirit of God allows you to see and hear. Now, I would also say that the Spirit of God approaches everyone with such an allowance, but only those who tune their hearts to him in response are the ones who hear it. It's the ones who have ears who hear what the Spirit is saying. So it's not so much that it requires a good man. There are plenty of good men who don't have the Spirit in them.

As far as your statement about rapists, pedophiles, and murderers, I would need to know who in the world you are referencing with those comments. The men and women I know today who are interpreting the Bible—various pastors, professors, teachers, and even common people—are not rapists, pedophiles, or murderers. So you have to be more specific. If you're talking about the numerous Catholic priests who have been found out to be pederastic predators, I wouldn't trust anything they say about the Bible. I would be quite confident the Spirit is neither talking to them or through them.

You mention "as a result of Constantine's order." About what order in specific are you referring? In the Edict of Milan he allowed tolerance for Christianity in the Empire, but what does that have to do with your question?

And you are soundly mistaken if you think anything Constantine did "created" the Bible. By the time of Constantine the Old Testament had been in existence for at least 1000 years, and the NT for 200 years. The Church Fathers, in the 2nd century (100 yrs before Constantine) all recognized the authority of the Gospels and Paul's epistles. Only in response to the Gnostic heresy and various other heresies did the Church bother to solidify the official canon. Between AD 140-220, numerous church leaders affirmed what we call the New Testament. During the AD 300s, Origin, Eusebius, and Athanasius did the same. What had been known for centuries to be authoritative was finally affirmed (ratified) by the Synod of Rome (the Western Church) in 382 and by the Synod of Carthage (the Eastern Church) in 397—both of them in complete consensus. Constantine died in 337, so these events had nothing to do with him or any "order" of his.

> some of those who translated the bible throughout the centuries, were not good men, and did not interpret the bible correctly?

About whom are you talking here?

[A Light]

From what I've read, there were multiple versions of the Old Testament books among the Dead Sea scrolls. How do we know the correct one got into the Bible?

"The idea that the coming kingdom is always to be accompanied by a Messianic figure is not entirely accurate for Judaism in this period. We hear of some groups, for example, who expect the coming change, but never mention a Messiah, or a Messianic figure at all, either as a deliverer figure, or as some sort of heavenly agent. So some forms of Judaism in this period don't ever talk about a Messiah. At Qumran, on the other hand, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we hear not of just one Messiah, but at least two Messiahs. Some of their writings talk about a Messiah of David that is a kind of kingly figure who will come to lead the war. But there's also a Messiah of Aaron, a priestly figure, who will come to restore the Temple at Jerusalem to its proper purity and worship of God. In addition to these two major Messianic figures, we also hear of a prophet figure."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/essenes.html

[jimwalton]

> From what I've read, there were multiple versions of the Old Testament books among the Dead Sea scrolls. How do we know the correct one got into the Bible?

The OT was already set by the time of the DSS. There are no debates about which books to accept and which to reject. The OT canon has always (to our knowledge) been unanimously affirmed. The biblical manuscripts of the DSS are the OT texts themselves, commentaries, paraphrases, and interpretations of biblical texts. There are no "multiple versions" to my knowledge. The OT was all set by the time the DSS were written, so there is no decision necessary about "How do we know the correct one got into the Bible." We have the correct ones, recognized and authenticated—they're in our Bible.

As to your paragraph about various theories and perspectives about a Messiah in Judaism and among the Qumran community, I don't get what that has anything to do with your question or your misunderstandings about Constantine. It's a completely different subject. Maybe you could explain.

[A Light]

"Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of 300 religious leaders. Three centuries after Jesus lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin. The actual compilation of the Bible was an incredibly complicated project that involved churchmen of many varying beliefs, in an atmosphere of dissension, jealousy, intolerance, persecution and bigotry."

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

"The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in the Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles.[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine

[jimwalton]

If you read your first link more carefully, you'll notice the first sentence is: "There seem to be a number of legends about the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) in circulation on the internet, presented as fact." Then he proceeds with the quote you've given as an example of one of the misunderstandings about the Council of Nicea under Constantine. In reality the Nicea Council was to deal with the doctrinal issue of the Trinity, not with determining the canon or which writings were to be included in the Bible and which not.

> The Fifty Bibles of Constantine

These were copies of the same text, not Constantine "to created a bible after evaluating over 100 books."

I'm sorry, but you have some misunderstandings here that need to be straightened out.

[A LIght]

"According to Eusebius, Constantine I wrote him in his letter:

'I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art.[4]' "

[jimwalton]

Yes, but there is nothing in this quote to say that Constantine created a Bible. He commissioned the copying of manuscripts already in existence so that each copy would be the same as the original. They were copies of the same text so that all would be the same, not Constantine's order to write the Bible.