New Heaven and New Earth

Dear Hervey,


Hervey:

The word of faith is "not" to look elsewhere ! That does not teach the Gentiles what to look for ! But Paul "teaches" them to not say in their hearts who ascends or who descends. By not saying in one's heart, then one is walking in the righteousness of faith !


Moses (regarding the commandment of God’s covenant of law with Israel):

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.


Paul (quoting the above words of God through Moses to Israel but applying these words to the Gospel):

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


Jim:

Paul is not teaching the Church either to do or not to do anything here. He is describing the difference between that to which Israel has submitted itself (the righteousness which is of the law – 10:5) and that to which Israel has not submitted itself (the righteousness which is of faith – 10:6-9). He is applying the words of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and the principle expressed in those words to describe in Romans 10:6-9 that to which Israel has not submitted itself. The subject of discussion in Romans 10 is the failure of the majority of Israel to avail itself of the righteousness which is of faith that has been presented to everyone.

Those who are saved already have the righteousness which is of faith. Therefore, by definition, they do not say in their hearts, “Who shall ascend [for us]?” or, “Who shall descend [for us]?” Only unsaved people say these things in their hearts. Moreover, only unsaved Jews say these things in their hearts, as unsaved Gentiles are not looking for the Messiah.

I enclosed the phrase “for us” in brackets in the above quotes from Romans 10:6-7 because that is the meaning of those quotes, as they are derived from Deuteronomy 30:11-15, which says, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us ...?” The question asked in the hearts of unsaved Israel isn’t who goes to heaven or hell but this: Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? and, Who shall descend [for us] into the deep?

That portion of Israel that has rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah continues to ask these questions in their hearts, as they have rejected what Messiah has already done for them. Thus, they do not avail themselves of the righteousness which is of faith.

That portion of Israel that has accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah does not ask such questions in their hearts, as they have accepted what Messiah has already done for them. Instead of asking the questions described in Romans 10:6-7, they do what is described in verses 10:8-9; they confess with their mouths the Lord Jesus and they believe in their hearts that God has raised Him from the dead, as does everyone who possesses the righteousness which is of faith; for “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."

Paul opens chapter 10 with specific focus on Israel in verses 10:1-3, and he closes this chapter with specific focus on Israel in verses 10:16-21. If Paul were speaking in general terms without continuing to be focused on Israel in verses 10:4-9, he could have skipped verses 10:5-8 and could have simply said, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. … If though shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Instead, Paul describes in verses 10:5-8 the difference between the righteousness which is of the law and the righteousness which is of faith, quoting from Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14, which are passages that are addressed exclusively to Israel. Why would Paul quote Old Testament passages that are addressed exclusively to Israel in what he says in Romans 10:5-8 if he were not speaking of Israel? It seems to me that Paul would not have brought Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 into his discussion if the discussion did not continue to focus on Israel.

A continued focus on Israel in Romans 10:5-9 is consistent with Paul’s decision to bring quotations from Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-15 into the discussion, it’s consistent with unbelieving Israel (which has not availed itself of the righteousness which is of faith) continuing to look for another Messiah to do for it what Christ has already accomplished, and it’s consistent with the fact that the subject of discussion in Romans 10 is the failure of the majority of Israel to avail itself of the righteousness which is of faith.

To say that Paul is teaching Gentiles to do or not to do certain things in Romans 10:6-9 is to take those verses out of context with the Old Testament passage (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) on which they are framed and out of context with the subject of discussion in Romans 10, which is the failure of the majority of Israel to avail itself of the righteousness which is of faith.


Hervey:

Jim, you just contradicted yourself here ! Again – Even though it says - "Say not" it is telling them what to "do" , and the righteousness of faith is on "this wise" !


Jim:

Romans 10:6-9 first describes what the righteousness which is of faith is not (10:6-7); then it describes what the righteousness which is of faith is (10:8-9). What the righteousness which is of faith is NOT is this: it is NOT to say in one’s heart, Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? or, Who shall descend [for us] into the deep? Those who say such things in their hearts (unbelieving Israel) do not have the righteousness which is of faith. What the righteousness which is of faith IS, is this: it is to confess the Lord Jesus and to believe that God raised Him from the dead. All (the Greek as well as the Jew) who confess the Lord Jesus and believe that God raised Him from the dead have the righteousness which is of faith.


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Hervey:

The words "Say not", is a directive.


Jim:

This is not a directive. It’s an Old Testament quotation.

Deuteronomy 30:12 It is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above

Click to expand...

Hervey:

The reason that these words of Paul's, in verses 6 & 7 are words of righteousness, is because it is God's business as to whom will ascend into heaven, so "Say not" in thine heart , who will ascend up into heaven !


Jim:

I refer you back to the quotations of Deuteronomy 30:12 and Romans 10:6 above. Your interpretation that Romans 10:6 is a directive regarding judgmentalism is out of context with the meaning of the Old Testament quotation which Paul uses as the framework for what he says. Paul is not speaking with his own words to direct people not to judge who will go to heaven. He is quoting Moses, who is not expressing a directive about judgmentalism. Moses speaks for God to Israel, saying, “[The commandment] is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?” This is not a judgment but a question. The commandment has already been given to Israel. It is not in heaven that Israel should ask the question, Who will go to heaven for us and bring it to us? Paul is quoting these very words of Moses in Romans 10:6, saying, “Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? This is not a judgmental statement but a question that is quoted from Moses. In using the question mark in Romans 10:6, the translators didn’t make a mistake; they correctly understood that Paul was expressing a question as a quotation of Moses.

Your interpretation of Romans 10:6 erases: (1) the question mark, which correctly identifies the clause as a quoted question instead of an original statement, and (2) the parenthetical statement, which explains the meaning of the quoted question in regard to the Gospel. Thus, your interpretation throws out half of the text and imposes an out-of-context interpretation on what's left.

Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Hervey (previous post):

… it is God's business as to whom will ascend into heaven, so "Say not" in thine heart , who will ascend up into heaven!


Jim (responding post):

Your interpretation of Romans 10:6 erases … the question mark, which correctly identifies the clause as a quoted question instead of an original statement.


Hervey (last post):

I never questioned the question marks !


Jim:

Your statement in your previous post quoted above is written in the form of an exclamatory statement with an exclamation point instead of in the form of a question. I was responding to what you wrote. If you meant something other than what you wrote, I was not able to tell.

What you wrote appeared to me to present Paul’s quotation of Moses’ question as a judgmental statement within the heart regarding who should go to heaven as a reward for righteous conduct.

Whether your interpretation of Romans 10:6 acknowledges the form of the quotation as a question or not, it still appears to apply to the quotation a meaning that is not consistent with what is clearly expressed in Deuteronomy 30:12, where the question is not who will go to heaven as a reward for righteous conduct, but this: “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring [the commandment] unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?” This is not a general question about judgment and reward but a question about a select person going up for Israel to heaven in order to bring to Israel what she needs to do God’s will.

The likeness of such a select person to the Messiah is not lost on Paul, as he chooses this very passage to quote in Romans 10:6 as a reference to the Messiah, where he quotes the question, Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? In the parenthetical statement that immediately follows, Paul explains that to ask such a question in one’s heart is “to bring Christ down from above,” or to ignore, undo or disbelieve the fact that the Messiah (Christ) has already ascended for Israel into heaven.

In the next verse, Paul extends this analysis to include the question, Who shall descend [for us] into the deep? In the parenthetical statement that immediately follows, Paul explains that to ask such a question in one’s heart is “to bring up Christ again from the dead,” or to ignore, undo or disbelieve the fact that the Messiah (Christ) has already descended for Israel into the deep.

You reject this analysis because it equates the “hades” (86, hell) in Acts 2:27-31 with the “abussos” (12, the deep, the bottomless pit) in Romans 10:7 and in Revelation 11:7 and 17:8. Your solution to the conflict between your view and the text is to conclude that the parenthetical statements in Romans 10:6-7 are unintelligible and false and that the person identified by the pronoun “who” in these verses is not the Messiah but people in general.

This solution takes the quotation in Romans 10:6 completely out of context with the meaning that is so clearly expressed in Deuteronomy 30:12, and it takes a scalpel to the Biblical text to excise those portions of the text that prove to be inconvenient to your view. Thus, this solution does not interpret the Bible; it edits the Bible.


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Hervey:

Just because you see a question mark in Deut. does not mean that Romans 10:6 is a question. But if it is a question, it does not make any difference. "Say not in thine heart" -- does not say -- Ask not in thine heart, it says -"Say not - in thine heart" !


Jim:

So then you accept that Romans 10:6 is framed on a quotation from Deuteronomy 30:12, but you don’t accept the meaning of the quotation. Correct?


Hervey:

The statement in Romans 10:7 says , not to "say" in your heart "who will decend into the deep" (?) ! ! The parenthetical reverses, what the question is asking ! ! It is a total opposite of the question ! !


Jim:

If I were giving you directions for driving to city A, and in those directions I told you that you would come to a fork in the road, and I told you NOT to take the left road because that would take you to city B, would you conclude from this that NOT taking the left road would lead to city B, or would you conclude that taking the left road would lead to city B? You would conclude that taking the left road would lead to city B, wouldn’t you?

Likewise, NOT SAYING (or asking) in one’s heart, Who will descend (for us) into the deep? is not what brings Christ up again from the dead; rather, SAYING (or asking) in one’s heart, Who will descend (for us) into the deep? is what brings Christ up again from the dead.

Is being brought up again from the dead the opposite of descending into the deep? Yes. That’s exactly Paul’s point. To ask in one’s heart, Who will descend for us into the deep? as if it hasn’t been done yet, is to bring Christ up again from the dead; that is, it is to ignore, undo or disbelieve the fact that Christ has already descended for Israel (and for everyone) into the deep.

Thus, what Paul is using a quotation from Deuteronomy 30:11-14 to describe in Romans 10:6-7 is unbelief toward Christ as the Messiah. Verses 10:6-7 describe unbelief toward Christ as the Messiah, and verses 10:8-9 describe belief toward Christ as the Messiah. The righteousness which is of faith says NOT to do what is described in verses 10:6-7, and it says to do what is described in verses 10:8-9. It says not to disbelieve (10:6-7) but to believe (10:8-9).

Paul is not contrasting being judgmental in 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:8-9. He is contrasting NOT believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:8-9.

The judgmentalism interpretation of 10:6-7 establishes an illogical comparison with believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:8-9.

In order for a comparison to be logical, both sides of the comparison must address the same issue. For example, to say that this car is blue but that car is small is an illogical comparison; however, to say that this car is blue but that car is red is a logical comparison.

Similarly, to say that Romans 10:6-9 compares being judgmental in verses 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in verses 10:8-9 is illogical; however, to say that it compares NOT believing in Christ as the Messiah in verses 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in verses 10:8-9 is logical.


Hervey:

And why are you trying to make Romans 10:6 & 7 be exact , in every way , form and manner, with what it says in Deut. ? Why not just remind the unbelieving Jews, of what Deut. says ? ?


Jim:

Why would Paul quote Deuteronomy 30:12 in Romans 10:6 if he did not intend to apply the meaning of the quote to what he was saying? Why then even use the quote? The very fact that Paul used the quote indicates that he applied its meaning to what he said.


Hervey:

I am throwing out your private interpretation of what is said inside of the parentheticals, as well as the parentheticals themselves !


Jim:

What you do with the Biblical text is your business. However, it is generally considered unacceptable to discard portions of the Biblical text.


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Hervey:

But here is the problem Jim, Paul did not speak these words that are in the parentheticals ! They were added by man, and men like you who like to add parentheticals, when and whereever you would like to change the Word of God to suit your own purposes !


Jim:

What is the basis for your conclusion that a parenthesis in the Biblical text signals a change in the source autographs, other than wishful thinking? The only basis you’ve offered thus far for your conclusion that Biblical text found within parenthetical punctuation has a different source than the rest of the text has is your personal opinion that the parenthetical text doesn’t make sense. Do you have any basis more authoritative than your own personal opinion for your conclusion?


Hervey:

Not only did those men who added the parentheticals , properly show us their addition by using the parenthises, but they have shown us their other added words by using italics, which you can see in the parenthetical in Romans 10:6.


Jim:

Where is it stated by the translators that text found within parenthetical punctuation is added by the translators, just as those words printed in italics are? If you cannot direct me to an official document that states that parenthetical statements in the Biblical text do not have the same source that the rest of the text has, then I suggest that you and I stop debating this specific issue from positions of ignorance and that we address this question to the one group of people who would be in a position to settle this issue: the translators themselves. I’m sure than any publisher of the King James Version of the Bible would have access to documents from the translators themselves explaining what everything means in the translation. So just tell me which publisher you wish me to contact, and I’ll direct this question to that publisher.


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Hervey:

You will however be able to find most of this information from those scholars who know about the history of the translations of the bible. At one point, I gave you one of those scholar's name's, and his book, that would clear up a lot of our present conversation. The book is - "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" - by - Bart D. Ehrman. He is, or was the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. … If I can help you in any other way, please, don't hesitate to ask. I am more than willing to help in any way that I can .


Jim:

Please quote to me from this book the statement that parenthetical statements in the Biblical text either have a different source material than the rest of the text has or does not come from the source material but is added by the translators. Please include the page number. I’m assuming that you’ve read this somewhere and haven’t just come to this conclusion on your own.


Hervey:

The publishers will not be able to tell you "how" the parentheticals got in there. The translators are the one's who put them in there, and other translations have copied them over the period of time that we aquire our newer translation to come out about one every year. The translator's of the KJV are dead and long ago have they returned unto dust !


Jim:

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Parentheses are not found in the source material for any of the translations, as the language of the manuscripts from which the translations are made is Greek and has no punctuation. As far as I know, the same manuscripts from which the Authorized Version was translated in 1611 are also the source material for subsequent translations, including the New King James Version that was translated in the late 1970’s.

Either your position is that a parenthesis is a signal from the translators themselves of a change in the source material (the manuscripts) from which they made their translation, or your position is that a parenthesis is a signal from the translators themselves that the text encased in parentheses comes not from the manuscripts but from the translators themselves. I’m not sure which is your position, as I’ve seen you express both opinions. So, yes, these translators are very much alive to tell us what is meant by the parentheses which they themselves inserted into their translations.

I’ve already E-mailed the Bible Editorial Department of Thomas Nelson Publishers with this question. I’m awaiting their reply.


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


I’ve found a web page that explains in a relatively concise fashion the history of the English translations of the Bible and the source material on which they are based: click here.


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Am I correct in assuming that it is strictly your own conclusion that parenthetical punctuation marks in the New Testament are a signal from the translators that the enclosed text is not from the same source that the surrounding text is, and that such a conclusion is not found in any of the books of the scholars that you mentioned in your previous post?


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Hervey:

It is not strictly my conclusion …


Jim:

OK. Please tell me the name of the book (along with the page number and its author) where you have seen it stated that parenthetical punctuation marks in the New Testament are a signal from the translators that the enclosed text is not from the same source that the surrounding text is. I'm interested in knowing what scholar(s) shares your conclusion.


Sincerely,
Jim

Dear Hervey,


Hervey (previous post):

It is not strictly my conclusion …


Jim (responding post):

OK. Please tell me the name of the book (along with the page number and its author) where you have seen it stated that parenthetical punctuation marks in the New Testament are a signal from the translators that the enclosed text is not from the same source that the surrounding text is. I'm interested in knowing what scholar(s) shares your conclusion.


Hervey (last post):

Here is a little history , that you may or may not find interesting [directing me to an article regarding the evolution of punctuation in the Middle Ages].


Jim (this post):

I assume from your failure to provide bibliographic support for your conclusion regarding the significance of parenthetic punctuation in the English Biblical text that your conclusion is uniquely yours.

Here’s a copy of my E-mail to Thomas Nelson Publishers regarding this issue:

Dear Thomas Nelson Publishers,

I have encountered a view that parenthetical statements in the Biblical text either were added by the translators themselves, as those portions of the text printed in italics were, or have different source materials (autographs) than the rest of the text has, as signified by the parentheses.

Can you either E-mail to me or direct me to official documents from the translators of the King James Version of the Bible that explain what the various punctuation and print styles should signify in the translation with respect to which source material(s) was used for the translation and with respect to which portions of the text were added by the translators themselves?

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Jim

Click to expand...

Here is their response that I received today:

Subject: RE: Clarification From The Translators Of The King James Version Of The Bible

Thank you for your inquiry. To our knowledge, there are no official
documents concerning the question you raise about parentheses. It should be sufficient simply to compare the KJV with the Textus Receptus in a few places.

For examples, see Acts 8:16; 1 Cor. 9:21; 2 Cor. 5:7. We see that Greek words corresponding to the words in parentheses are present in the TR.

Parentheses in the KJV are normal sentence punctuation. They are not meant to signify textual variations or supplied words.

On the other hand, italics are used to signify a word supplied by the translators to complete the sense in English idiom, even though there is no corresponding word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

Blessings,
Bible Product Development Department
Thomas Nelson Publishers

Click to expand...

What I’ve just been instructed by Thomas Nelson Publishers to do to prove that the parenthetical statements in the Biblical text are not words added by the translators, but are translated from the same source material from which the surrounding text is translated, is the very thing that I initially did in directing you to the Interlinear Bible (5th page of this thread, post dated 02/02/02, 01:07pm), which shows that the English text in parentheses is translated from the same source material from which the surrounding English text is translated, that source material being the Greek that is displayed (shown in transliterated form) below the English translation in the Interlinear Bible.

Thomas Nelson Publishers has just specifically told me (us) that the parenthetical statements in the Biblical text do “NOT” represent “textual variations or supplied words.” It is easily seen that both the parenthetical text and its surrounding text are translated from the same source: the “Textus Receptus,” or Received Text, from which both the King James (Authorized) and New King James Versions are translated.

Right now I’m looking at the Preface to a New King James Version of the Bible. In the section of the Preface entitled “The New Testament Text,” the translators explain:

… The manuscript preferences cited in many contemporary translations of the New Testament are due to recent reliance on a relatively few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents. However, in spite of their age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other signs of unreliability. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and related papyri is known as the Alexandrian Text.

On the other hand, the great majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century, most of their readings are verified by ancient papyri, ancient versions, and quotations in the writings of the early church fathers. This large body of manuscripts is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries, presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New Testament.

Since the latter nineteenth century the theory has been held by some scholars that this traditional text of the New Testament had been officially edited by the fourth-century church. Recent studies have caused significant changes in this view, and a growing number of scholars now regard the Received Text as far more reliable than previously thought. In light of these developments, and with the knowledge that most textual variants have no practical effect on translation, the New King James New Testament has been based on the Received Text, thus perpetuating the tradition begun by William Tyndale in 1525 and continued by the 1611 translators in rendering the Authorized Version. Important textual variants are recorded in footnotes.

A newer group of New Testament scholars are persuaded that the best guide to a precise Greek text is the close consensus of the majority of Greek manuscripts. The Greek text obtained by using this rule is called the Majority Text, which is similar to the Received Text. At important places where the Majority Text or the Alexandrian Text differs from the Received Text, the variants are recorded in footnotes.

Click to expand...

In the next section of the Preface, entitled “Footnotes,” the translators explain:

… Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, footnotes are classified as follows:

1. NU-Text: These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” This text is published in the Twenty-Sixth Edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ Third Edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”

2. M-Text: This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in “the New Testament Text.”

With the assistance of these footnotes, which show lines of textual divergence more fully than commonly provided with English language versions of the Bible, it is trusted that readers will be enabled to better appreciate the substance and degree of variation in the manuscript sources of the New Testament.

Click to expand...

Thus, the New King James Version of the Bible (NKJV) identifies with footnotes where there is variation between the Received Text, which is the basis for the NKJV (as well as the KJV) translation, and the Alexandrian and/or Majority Text. The NKJV does not show any such footnotes associated with Romans 10:6-7. Thus, according to the translators of the NKJV, all of the text in these two verses is translated from the Received Text.

Thus, according to the Interlinear Bible, and according to the translators of the NKJV, your conclusion that the parenthetical text in Romans 10:6-7 either is added by the translators or is translated from a different source material than that from which the surrounding text is translated has no merit.


Sincerely,
Jim