On Denying the Authority of Prophets
[or: The Text Behind & Beneath the Text]

  There are some elements in post-modern philosophy that have a curious sort of reasoning that is not entirely absent of a certain logical coherence. For example, they recognize that Aristotle was wrong to assert that 'man is a rational animal', but then quickly reason their way to the opposite conclusion that man is an irrational animal; (whereas our view is that man is a semi-rational animal). And when you add to this supposed fact-of-life the hard-won insight that relativity and historicity makes certainty in anything a virtual impossibility, you end up with what is basically a recipe for intellectual suicide. Or to put it in more philosophical terms, you wind up with a nihilistic sort of deconstructionism that literally brings about the end of the philosophical enterprise itself!

  Thus some philosophers would have us believe that there is no such thing as 'truth', but only opinions and word-games masquerading as truth. They would have us believe that the 'impossibility of certainty' means that one reading of any text is just as good as another; that the lack of any absolute standards means that there is no justifiable means of elevating one interpretation over the others. Accordingly, one translation is just as good, or bad (depending on your point of view), as the next; and it is only our own particular and personal subjective biases and attitudes that cause us to favor this one over that. Apparently, then, judgment and discernment have no place in post-modern philosophy.

  Now this is a very bizarre state of affairs, to be sure. For when we actually get down to the dirty business of comparing various translations and renditions and interpretations of a given text with each other, it seems painfully obvious that some are better than others. Indeed, it is quite impossible to avoid the conclusion that the QUALITY of these various versions of a text varies enormously, and has nothing to do with our subjective attitudes.

  Take, for example, the following translations of Jude 24-25 :

  "To the one who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you unblemished and exultant, in the presence of his glory, to the only God, our savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen."  -- New American Bible

  "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy - to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen."  -- New International Version

  "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen."  -- New American Standard Bible

  "Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."  -- King James Version

  "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to make you stand in his presence irreproachable and triumphant - to the one God our Savior be glory, majesty, power, and authority through Jesus Christ our Lord before time began and now and forever and ever. Amen."  -- An American Translation

  "To him who can keep you from falling and bring you safe to his glorious presence, innocent and joyful, to the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, authority and power, before all ages, now and for ever. Amen."  -- the New Jerusalem Bible

  Now I quite agree that in most cases what causes a particular reader to favor one of these renditions over the others is a purely personal and subjective matter that no amount of logic and reasoning can affect. Thus one's theological orientation may be the decisive influence that draws a reader to one of these versions. Or it may be a certain love of poetic prose or narrative style that is the deciding factor. Or again it may be a habitual familiarity with this or that version that causes one of these to stand out from the rest. Or it may be simply a matter of loyalty or allegiance to a particular church that compels one to like this or that version more than the others.

  In all of these cases there is some small measure of judgment and discernment such that in all cases a choice is made, and in each case the selection is (apparently) the right one. "Right for me. Good for me." So would every chooser say. Hence the post-modern philosopher would appear to be justified in claiming that all translations are created equal. But wait! Something is being overlooked here. "Quality" has been lost in the subjective shuffle; for none of the factors mentioned above ever addresses the matter of validity.

  What makes one translation "better" than another is NOT a matter of whim, habit, aesthetic taste, etc. No indeed. What makes one translation more valid than the others is its resemblance to the original text. The more a particular rendition resembles the original text the more valid it is (i.e. as a faithful translation). In fact, this is the only place where the quality of any version can be accurately determined.

  Now in this case, the matter is especially hard to pin down because the Greek text of Jude 24-25 is both difficult and obscure; and this very opaqueness of the Greek text allows the translators plenty of room for free-play. Hence the remarkable variety among the popular English versions. In each of these renditions the translators did their work from motives and methods unique to each version; piety and scholarship being held to various proportions according to the particular inclinations of the translators.

  The interesting thing about all this is that none of the translators ever gave much thought to the author and what he actually intended to say. Rendering the author unknown and anonymous effectively makes him irrelevant to the process of translation. And yet faithfulness to what the author actually meant to say must always be a key element in what makes for a good translation. So what would a translation that takes the author of Jude seriously look like? Perhaps something like this:

  "Now to the one who is able to guard you without stumbling, and sets before you the glory of Him-blameless-with-exultation [ie. JC], and also the only God (our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord), let that one [ie. the prophet] be given glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the Age; now and unto all the ages to come! Amen."  -- the Prophet Version

  We can therefore conclude that the original Greek text of Jude 24-25 is RADICALLY different (in both meaning and intent) from what all of the popular English translations present as a supposedly faithful rendition of these verses. And yet the translators are not entirely to blame for this willful and deliberate subversion and corruption of this once-inspired text. For one thing, the entire Christian tradition more are less forces upon them a massive blindness whereby they are simply unable to see the prophetic nature of the text (and its author), let alone appreciate its significance.

  This absolute and traditional blindness therefore induces in the translators a kind of blankness-of-mind whenever they are faced with difficult and authentic prophetic-utterances such that they have no choice but to fill this self-created textual void with the fruits of their own piety; in this case, a doxology. On the other hand, the translators are only giving the current generation of Bible-readers what they want and expect, knowing in advance, as it were, that these delicate and discriminating Pharisee-Christians would never accept a "raw" translation (i.e. accurate and faithful to the inspired author).

  Thus we are faced with this curious situation wherein the Word of God testifies to the corruption of itself, and to the Christian religion in general. Accordingly, I cannot offer this translation (PV) to the churches in the hope that it will be accepted; for their collective blindness and hatred of the truth effectively prevents this from happening. I can only offer this translation, the only faithful (and valid) rendition of this text, up to the Lord, and perhaps also to those who love the Word for what it is. That is, to those who understand that the Word has value in and of itself, APART FROM how the churches can use it to further support their own interests and agendas.

  But for most Christians the only value that the sacred texts have resides entirely in what they can make of it. So woe unto our religion. And woe unto our philosophy as well. For when both religion and philosophy wallow in seething pits of blindness and corruption, woe unto us all!

/ Forum: TheologyOnLine - Religion / 24Oct2000 / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /

  "My beloved ones, being extremely eager to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you so as to encourage you to contend for the Faith once-&-for-all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in: the Ones of Old (who were written about; and judged ungodly), perverting the grace of our God into a license to be sexually unrestrained, and also denying Jesus Christ (the Lord and Master of us)." - Jude 3-4 / Prophet Version

 On a recent episode of 'West Wing', there was a scene of considerable interest to the current concerns of the 21st century post-modern People of God. It is a classic example of the Catholic and Pagan 'final answer' to all Christians who may dare to observe that the Holy Bible specifically condemns homosexuality; ie. on the basis that it is an abomination in the eyes of God & Man. President Bartlett's eloquent rebuttal (of the Lady Fundy's assertion of the Torah) takes the form of: 'Oh yeah? Well, if that's the case, why don't I put this or that person to death for violating this or that regulation of the divine Law?' After a series of such (apparently) difficult questions, the Prez ordered the Lady-Fundy to stand in his majestic Cat-presence, and she was left speechless (obviously at a loss for any answer to his "irrefutable" questions and logic) ...
.
 Well, it seems (to the cybrwurm) that the WW-writers not only have a very low opinion of the Faith (based on its obvious gross stupidity (I presume)), but also are quite ignorant of the sacred scriptures (which, if I may say so, are abused by *both* sides of the debate). What the WW-writers seem not to know, but which all True Believers do, is that the Torah is but the *beginning* of the written revelation of the divine will; it is *not* the final word. In other words, Christians do not put people to pain and death for wearing polyester clothes, or being disrespectful, or committing adultery, or working on Saturday, or being gay, or even playing football, because Christians have a New-Law in Christ-Jesus that commands us to obey the *spirit* of the Torah, not the *letter*.
.
 [Note to Reader: This power to transcend the letter of the Old-Law comes not by any merit, virtue, or "rights" on the part of disciples, but entirely by way of divine grace poured forth upon the faithful.]
.
 Now this observation (regarding the necessary distinction between the letter and spirit of the Word) in and of itself serves to burst the proud balloon of the Cat-Pagan final-answer; for it shows that while Christians have every right and duty to reject the Old-Law's response to homosexuality (ie. death), they *also* have the right and duty to recognize the ongoing validity of the human and divine judgment of homosexuality as an abomination ...
.
 Which is only to say that it is not acceptable among the People of God, and therefore serves as a sign that distinguishes between true and false believers. That is, True Believers accept and uphold the Divine Mind (as expressed through the written Word), while False Disciples preach a smurfy Gospel of Perversion ... Yet this is most
certainly NOT the sort of thing that the Lord (or His children) can change His mind about!
.
 But most of the flak against the gospel-truth hinges on the idea that the Torah's judgment is somehow conditional and dependent on social, legal, and cultural factors that are no longer relevant to the post-modern world; and can therefore be discarded. Oddly enough, this sort of baseless apologetic has convinced huge masses of Christians that
not only is it permissible for homoz to be believers, but *also* that it is God's will NOW that gays and lesbians should be made leaders, teachers, and shepherds over the flocks!
.
 Thus sayeth the Lord: "Good Grief!"
.
 Now the reason for the Lord's dismayed reaction to all these progressive and enlightened pseudo-Christians is because the Word of God makes it abundantly clear that the divine judgment (on this vital matter of the true practice of Faith) transcends all specific social, political, and cultural situations; and so remains very much in force as part of the New-Law in Christ. In fact, the divine judgment can be traced all the way through the Holy Bible; through the Old Testament, through Paul and the evangelists, and even right up to the final and youngest book of the New Testament (ie. Second Peter, c.140-50CE):
.
 "But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies, even to the point of denying the Master who bought them. As a result, they will bring swift destruction on themselves. And many will follow their debauched lifestyles. Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation pronounced long ago is not sitting idly by; their destruction is not asleep ...
.
 "so then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment, especially those who indulge their fleshly desires and who despise authority. Brazen and insolent, they are not afraid to insult the glorious ones; yet even angels, who are much more powerful, do not bring a slanderous judgment against them before the Lord. But these men, like irrational animals — creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed — do not understand whom they are insulting, and consequently in their destruction they will be destroyed, suffering harm as the wages for their harmful ways. By considering it a pleasure
to carouse in broad daylight they are stains and blemishes indulging in their deceitful pleasures when they feast together with you.
.
 "Their eyes are full of adultery that do not stop sinning; they entice unstable people. They have trained their hearts for greed, these cursed children! By forsaking the right path they have gone astray ...
.
 "These men are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm, for whom the utter depths of darkness have been reserved. For by speaking high-sounding but empty words they are able to entice, with fleshly desires and with debauchery, people who have just escaped from those who reside in error. Although these false teachers promise such people freedom, they themselves are enslaved to immorality. For whatever a person succumbs to, to that he is enslaved." - 2Peter 2:1-3, 9-15, 17-19 / NETbible

/ Re: Take a look at what Paul said / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 01Jan99 /
.
> Jeffery wrote: The Churches of today have misunderstood Paul in so many ways. Even other
> books in the NT seem to offer corrections to the Churches of their day ... looks as though we
> need some correction today as well.
.
 textman answers: Dear Jeffery, only 'some', you say?   :)
.
> "But this I [Paul] confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God
> of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets."  - Acts 24:14
.
 textman's version say: "But I confess this to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, thus I serve the ancestral God, believing in all the things according to the Law, and the things written in the prophets."
 [same verse; but now sounds much more like Luke to me, yes?]
.
> Paul was Jewish (had Roman dual citizenship)
.
 Yeah, so? You consider this to be a unique and noteworthy detail, doU?
.
> and so was the Messiah.
.
 Really? Aren't you forgetting that by the first century CE, there were tens of thousands of Hellenistic Diaspora Jews? Or did Paul suddenly become the Messiah just because you say so?
.
> I am not, however.
.
 That we all know. Moreover, Paul knew the name of the Messiah better than most. It was writ with rods and stones on his flesh and bone. Moreover, Paul did not call himself "Messiah", but rather, slave, apostle, and prophet; all of which pretty much amounts to the same thing. ... He knew his place in the People of God. Do you know yours?
.
> http://www.mindspring.com/~jefferson1/friction.htm
.
 I didn't actually mean your URL. Everybody and his dog has one of those darn things!
.
> <snip snippets from James on faith>
.
> "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for
> me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was
> once delivered unto the saints. -- Jude 1:3
.
 textman's version say:
.

"From Jude: a slave of Jesus Christ, and a brother to [the prophet] Jacob.
To those Called Ones: loved by God the Father, and kept in Jesus Christ ...
Mercy to you! And may peace and love be multiplied.
Beloved, being extremely eager to write to you concerning our common salvation,
I found it necessary to write to you; [so as] to encourage you to contend for the
*Faith* once-&-for-all delivered to the saints." [Jude 1:1-3 / Prophet Version]

.
 Yes, I'm afraid it's quite true. [insert copious displays of profound embarassment] textman is *very* impressed with the Book of Jude! And can certainly understand why so many Christians are so willing, and even eager, to overlook it's intensely prophetic nature . . .
.
 Wut? You think I didn't notice that?  . . .  Oh perish the thought!
.
                      - the one who just *might* do a little something on the Book of Jude - textman ;>

 / Re: What about Jude 7 ?? / 13Sept99 / NG: alt.christnet.christianlife /
.
> On 8Sept99 ThePhoenix wrote:
.
 textman rudely cuts in with an off-topic remark: Dear Phoenix, did you seriously suppose that the cyber-prophet would allow you to get away with this gross misunderstanding and distorted presentation of the good prophet Judas? ... If so, then you are truly as perverted as your twisted exegesis suggests!
.
> Many current scholars, since the discovery of 1 Enoch, have dropped the interpretation of Jude 7
> as referring to homosexuality.
.
 If that is so (and I do not doubt that it is), you may rest assured that the reason for this has nothing whatsoever to do with 1Enoch; except that it provides them with a much-lusted-after excuse to abandon their responsibility to the People of God (such that they may follow the safe and easy road of political correctness)! Most of these craven and cowardly New Testament scholars who dare to lay their unworthy hands upon of the text of Jude do so for the sole
purpose of making damn sure that the message of the prophet Judas is IN NO WAY set before the People of God!
.
> I will quote Jude 6,7 out of The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, UBS 4th Ed., NA 26th Ed.
> "And angels not having kept their own domain but having left the[ir] own habitation he has kept in eternal
> bonds under darkness for [the] judgment of [the] great day, as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around
> them in the like manner to these [angels] having indulged in fornication and having gone after different flesh
> are set forth [as] an example, undergoing [the] penalty eternal fire."
.
 Very good indeed! Now here is an even better English translation based upon the very same Greek text:
.
"And those Angels who did not keep to their own domain, but having left their habitation, He has kept in eternal bonds (under darkness) for the judgment of the Great Day. As Sodom and Gomorrah (and the cities around them) in the like manner to these fallen angels, having indulged in fornication, and having lusted after *strange-flesh*, are set forth as an example of those undergoing the penalty of eternal fire" (Jude v.6-7 / Prophet Version).
.
> The term "different flesh" is hardly a phrase to refer to distinguish male from female.
> It is more suitable for humans compared to another being.
.
 That's NOT what text says, Mr. Phoenix. Judas is here telling us quite plainly that the people of those cities - being "the Ones of Old" identified at the start of the epistle - did commit their inequity in a "like manner". He is most emphatically NOT saying that the sin of these Ones of Old is that they lusted after angelic flesh. Rather, their sin is that of sodomy; as the Old Testament account of Lot's visitors makes very clear.
.
> Remember, man and wife are one flesh.
.
 That's very right! One male wedded to one female under God are 'one-flesh' by virtue of their covenant with God and each other. The antithesis of this is this very 'strange-flesh' whereby male lies with male, or female with female. Both of these crimes are an abomination in the eyes of both God and humankind. ...  And rightly so!
.
> But, to keep closer to the point, notice: 1 Corinthians 15:39-40  NRSV ... <snip quote>
.
 This is not much relevant to the proper exegesis of Jude.
.
> Now, go back up and look at the sin mentioned, "in the like manner to these [angels]". Remember, Jude 14
> lets us see that Jude writes with a Jewish book in mind that is not canonical,
.
 This observation is also not relevant; since there was no canon of Christian scriptures when Judas wrote this letter in the early second century. At that time the prophets of Egypt considered 1Enoch (and various other "non-canonical" books) to be scripture ... And it is a gross presumption on our part to say that the prophets were wrong to do so!
.
> but it is the basis of his writing here. It is First Enoch, and I quote The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
> about First Enoch: "The main part of the first book is concerned with the problem of evil. Evil is traced to the
> fallen angels who lusted after the daughters of men." Vol. 1, page 156
.
 Since homo-men do not lust after the daughters of men, the wisdom and appropriateness of the phrase "in the like manner" is apparent ...  Or at least ought to be.
.
> The above commentary out of First Enoch is of course based on Gen. 6:1-4. Regardless of whether First Enoch
> was correct in that commentary, it is clear that Jude had this in mind when he wrote Jude 6 and 7. The phrase
> "different flesh" refers to angels-mankind in sexual relationships.
.
 No. What is clear is that you haven't got the first clue what the prophet Judas has in mind. ... So how do we measure the rank stupidity of scholars and scribes who comment on verse seven? Very easy. They simply remove v.6,7 from the rest of the epistle, and thus provide commentary on it AS IF this statement has no necessary connection with the rest of the prophet's message. If you wish to understand the meaning of "strange-flesh", you MUST read v.7 within the context of the entire epistle as a single unified composition. Once you do that, it is obvious that Phoenix (and the vast majority of Jude-scholars) are full of shit, and *very* not worth listening to!
.
> The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, Rev. Ed., 1996 reads: "If there is any identification of Sodom with
> homosexuality in the NT, it is in Jude 7 (cf. 2 Pet.2:6-8), but it is more likely that the "unnatural lust"
> mentioned there is that of mortals for angels (Lot's visitors)." page 433.
.
 The only problem with this idiotic interpretation is that the men of Sodom did not know that Lot's visitors were angels; hence their unnatural lust could not possibly be "that of mortals for angels" ...
Dear Cyber-Saints, please do not ever place your trust in the silly fools at Harper-Collins!
.
> It is becoming less common to see Jude 7 used as a proof-text to condemn homosexuality.
.
 Which is merely a darn good indicator of the sheer depth of the corruption of the Faith that possesses our liberal intellectual elite!
.
> Again, Sodom had nothing to do with a homoerotic love between two males.
> It was an attempted gang rape. -- ThePhoenix
.
 Correction: an attempted *homosexual* gang rape ... Please let us not try to ignore or cover-up the blatantly obvious!
.
 So there you have it! ... My dear brothers and sisters, the choice (as always) is yours to make. You can choose to follow the distorted exegesis of scholarly cowards and self-serving perverts (those 'waterless clouds', as Judas calls them, being 'utterly bereft of the Spirit') ... *OR* you can submit your heart and mind to the Word of God, and so make an honest and determined effort to rightly understand the message and warning that the prophet Judas desires to place before us. So then, will you gladly follow the diseased and corrupt traditions of blind and ignorant men? Or will you pay heed to the truth revealed by the inspired prophet of Egypt?

/ Ng > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Fantastic Forum > Fantastic Pub > Religion & Metaphysics / 17 Dec 2011 /

In the ancient Greek script long compound sentences were common, and some could easily include several hundred words before coming to a belated stop. In Jude v.24-25 we have an example of a relatively short compound sentence, but even so it is able to produce a massive amount of confusion that seems out of proportion to its size. This confusion is reflected in the wide variety of translations available in the different English versions of the book of Jude. But rather than examine all these versions, and their various merits and demerits, let us start with the literal translation that is nearest to the actual Greek text:
.
"Now to the one being able to guard you without stumbling and to set [you] before the glory of him blameless, with exultation, to [the] only God [the] savior of us through Jesus Christ the Lord of us [be] glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the age and now and into all the ages, amen." [Jude 24, 25 / New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament]
.
So what the heck is going on here anyway? Is this a doxology? A blessing? A desperate plea for recognition? A vain hope for a better future? Just what is the prophet Judas trying to say here? ... Well, one way to try and make some sense out of this literary mess is to reduce the sentence to its most essential elements. And we can do this by carefully removing the unnecessary literary embellishments and flourishes that fog up the core message, and generates so much confusion for the bible translators:
.
"Now to the one being able to guard you without stumbling and to set [you] before the glory of him blameless, with exultation, to [the] only God [the] savior of us ... [be] glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the age and now and into all the ages."
.
And reduce again:
.
"Now to the one being able to guard you without stumbling and to set [you] before ... [the] only God [the] savior of us ... [be] glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the age and now and into all the ages."
.
And reduce again:
.
"Now to the one being able to guard you without stumbling and to set [you] before ... God ... [be] glory, majesty, dominion, and authority ..."
.
Now this puts us in a much better position from which we can begin an approach towards the author's intention. Let us start by paraphrasing the sentence into something more intelligible to modern readers:
.
"As for the one who is able to guard you [from errors and heresies], and sets you before God without [you] stumbling [along the way], grant that one glory, majesty, dominion, and authority."
.
Here then is the meaning of the sentence. It is a plea for authority. The author wants believers to recognize and approve the authority of "the one" who guards you, and sets you before God. And who is this 'one'? Is it the pope? No, for there was no such animal in the second century. Is it the scriptures perhaps? No, for the scriptures can be easily abused and misunderstood by foolish believers who twist the scriptures to conform to their own preconceived notions and theologies. Is it then the priest, who is the nominal leader of the assembly? No again, for the priest is merely the dispenser of the sacraments, a specialist in rituals and priestcraft (which cannot save anyone). So if the one is none of these, and is neither bishop nor council nor Neo, then who remains? The saints maybe? Well, no; for sainthood is not so much a vocation as a rather vague measure of holiness (whatever that is). So now we are left with only one remaining possibility ...
.
For Judas 'the one' is the "slave" of God and JC (see v.1, Jm 1:1, 2Peter 1:1), who is none other than the Christian prophet. Now Judas' plea for authority came at a time (mid-second century CE) when the priests were taking control of the churches, and forcing the prophets out. By the end of the third century they had pretty much succeeded in their quest to take the churches for themselves, and henceforth the prophets were seen as obsolete, or worse, as dangerous heretics. And this view remains in force even today, despite the fact that the Word of God is sufficiently clear in stating that the prophet's authority goes "into all the ages". It's no wonder then that so many christians would much prefer it if the book of Jude was quietly removed from the canon, and quickly forgotten; for today's post-modern believers are obviously so much more superior to the early greek-speaking christians that they no longer need any one to guard them from errors and heresies. Oh so obviously ...