'LONNIE'S RESPONSE TO SANDY A'S 'WHAT IS THE BIBLE''- cpyrt 2009 , Lonnie Fowler

          The  following  is  in response to Sandy A's  article  "WHAT IS THE BIBLE''.  IT IS NEITHER pro nor con to Sandy's article ---but contains information every Bible  reader  ( or not )  needs  to  read.   It is gleaned from material I am   writing and including in my book in progress:  'GOD  BEYOND THE BIBLE,  GOD BEYOND THE CHURCH ..."    I have notified  Sandy  that I  would be responding to her article.  Again,  this is neither  pro  nor  con  her original   heartfelt  article.  Thank you, Lonnie Ray Fowler         

         In  her  article,  'WHAT IS THE BIBLE ', author Sandy A.   refers to The Bible  as a  compilation of 66 books  from  over 40 writers  over a  1500  year period ( although the number   that  I  know is  1600 years. )   First we will  examine  the  number of  66  books.

         I  must  assume  that,  like  myself,  Sandy  uses  The King James  Version---which  today, does contain  66  books.   This  is  the problem when  people  THINK  ( as I once did )  that what we carry around in our arms, or have on our desks (  or dashboards ), or booksleves , or  even  PULPITS : is a copy  of  THE ORIGINAL KING JAMES VERSION  OF  1611.  It's  a  problem, because ---- WE  DON'T !

          The  Original King James  of  1611,  which  neither you  nor I  have copies of ( unless you are a rare book or Bible collector ) --- contained 80  books, not 66.    It  also  included  a  long  ( and I mean  l-o-n-g  )  Epistle of  Dedication  to  King  James  himself .  As  well,  it  also  includes an equally  long  letter to the readers  of The Original King James by  the translators  themselves .  ( Which is why it is officially called  'FROM  THE TRANSLATORS  TO  THE  READER .)

          If  you did own,  or had access to  ( and you can on the internet )  an original KJV ;  and  you did   read  that  letter from  the translators  :  you  would  know  that  the translators  never claimed  that  The KJV   was  "infallible",  nor that it was ever  intended to be the final translation of The Bible.  You  would  learn , by their own hand ,  that  they felt that every man in his own  generation and language   should  be able to understand   The Bible.

          That's why you and I don't own an original KJV of 1811 .  One  reason is that it was written  in  The OLDE  King's English --- and if you think you have trouble with the thee and thous, and many other things in the  enormously  changed  KJV  you  have at home --- you would  surely  be in a mental upheaval  trying to decipher  the Olde King's English  of The Original.

           Another reason  is : again it was never promised to be infallible--- and  infallible it was not. Fallible , it was . ( Not  God's fault .)  Have you ever heard the line '' lost  in translation" ?  Well, when we say that The Original KJV of 1611 ( which is still my favorite )  is fallible,  it's a matter  of  translation .  Which is another thing most modern readers of The Bible ( KJV or not )  forget :::::

           All  scripture was originally written  in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. And those 40  or so authors ?  Nary a white guy among them . Nary  an American among them .  Nary  an  Englishman    among them.  Goodness folks--- even Jesus  spoke  Aramaic  ( not English) .  He  was neither white, nor American.  He  was  a Middle  Eastern  Jew ,  from The  Middle East,   over 2000 years  ago .  English  wasn't  invented yet .  So  the  fallibility  ( accept  it.  I had to )  is   due to  translating  three different  languages  from  millenia  ago  into  a  modern ( as of the 1600's  )   language  that  didn't  exist  when The Bible  ( as we call it )  was originally written---by 40 writers over a  15 to 1600  year period .///////   And  certainly  English has changed  immensely since the 1600"s  .

              Simply  because  we  have  become  a race  of  short  attentioned  peoples , I am going to let you breathe --- and  continue this  subject  in another post ( or 2). I hope you will return.  It's  just that if we are tenaciously going to cling  to  The Bible,  even in our internet age --- we  must  not be naive, nor misinformed , as to  how  we  have come by this  which we call   ''The Bible. ''  (  And, as I will write later :  CHRISTIANITY  itself  .) ****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*** Edited Clarification :  I didn't mean to imply in this post, that Sandy A., nor her  article,  were naive or misinformed  .  I simply meant that as a society, and as individual  believers ( and even non-believers ) we  have received much misinformation over the centuries about Christianity and The Bible.  LRF )

           Your friend,   Lonnie  R.  Fowler