Spiritual Famine (Thlaraua Ṭamna)

‘Bible-a Rapture Thuring le Hrillâwkna Bêbâwm’  lekhabu 2025 a ka ziek Bung 9na- Khawvêl Khaw Tieng Am A Pan Pei A? tia inthawka lâksuok a nih.

Spiritual Famine (Thlaraua Ṭamna)- A Spiritual Prophecy

Lalpa PATHIEN chun, “Ngai ta u, nihai chu a hung tlung mêk a nih, chuong nihaia chun rama chun ṭâm tir ka ta, bua ṭâmna ni loin, tuia ṭâmna ni loin, LALPA thu hrietnaa ṭâmna lem chu (Amos 8:11)

The Great Chinese Famine (1959-1961) kha khawvêl record-a chu ṭâmna râpthlâk tak nia hriet a nih. "Three Years of Great Famine" tia hriet nisenkhawm hming dang pahni a nei sa: "Three Years of Natural Disasters" ti le June 1981 khan "Three Years of Difficulty"  tiin an thlâk a nih. Mihriem 15 to 55 million vêlin an thipui a nih. A tuorhla tak biel hai chu; Anhui (18%), Chongqing (15%), Sichuan (13%), Guizhou (11%) and Hunan (8%) an nih. Bracket sûnga percent zât hi mihriem um zât a inthawk 100 peia an thipui zât a nih. [1]

Fâk le dâwn a ṭâmna  leiin mi tamtakin an thipui hlak. Amiruokchu, Ṭâmna  po poa ṭiumtak chu Thlaraua Ṭâmna  hi a nih. Zâwlnei Amos chun huoisen takin bung 4:12 a, ‘I Pathien tuok dingin insiem zo rawh’ tiin Israel chu vauna khirtak a pêk a. Zâwlnei Mika khawmin vauna a lo pêk, “Chuleiin, inlârna in nei naw hielna dingin in kuomah zân hung tlung a ta, ai in sân thei nawna khawpin in kuomah inthimna hung tlung a tih; zâwlneihai ta ding chun nisa liem a ta, sûn khawm an chunga chun khaw inthim nîng a tih” (Mika 3:6). Thuthlung Thar a, Tirko Paula in hieng hin a tih, “Chun, hi hi hre rawh, ni nuhnungahai chun hun khirtakhai hung um a tih… inchûk rawp sia thutak hre phâk ngai naw an nih” (2 Tim.3:1, 7b). Hieng ang hi ei khawvêl pal mêk a hin hmu ding a um ta zing annaw maw? Hei enta u, hei ngha vêl inla, ei hmu phâk chin a dâm, chanchin ei hriet le dawng dân hai hin ṭâmna  chi dâng dâng hin a mi’n huol vêl an ta. Khawpna dingin ei inhûk rak rak a, ei tlan zawr zawr a chu khawpna tak tak hmu si lovin, lungawina tluontling, hadamna hmu lovin ei inlap inlap a ni deu tak. A pawimawtak thutak inkhêl theilo Pathien Thua ṭâmna  le châkna ei inhmang si hin chu buoi rawp ei tih.

Psalm ziektu in “Kan inchiknahai chu kan hmu ta nawh a, Zâwlnei hrim hrim an um ta nawh a, a sâwt dingzie hre hrim hrim khawm keini lai an um nawh” (Ps.74:9) a lo tih. Hmu ding tak hmu lova inlap rak rak chu umzie a um nawh. Khawvêl a lekhabu sutsuok râwntak chu Bible a nih. Bible print dawk zât char hi hriet thei a ni ta nawh, tamtak a nih. Sienkhawm, British and Foreign Bible Society chun 2021 khan Bible sutsuok zât hi  5 - 7 billion copies ni ta-in an hril. United Bible Society chun hi sutsuok zât hrila um hi a lo pawm nghet bawk a nih. British and Foreign Bible Society (founded in 1804) sût dân chun 1815-1975 sûng ringawt khan 2,458,000,000 copies sutsuok a ni an tih. Guinness World Records chun Bible hi khawvêl a lekhabu zawr dawk râwn tak record siemtu a ni a tih. [2] Wycliffe Global Alliance in a hril dân chun khawvêl ah ṭawng 7, 396 a um a, mihriem 8.2 billion ei um a, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), Ethnologue dungzuiin mihriem 7.45 billion in ṭawng hmang bîk ei nei an tih. Bible pumpui (Thuthlung Hlui le Thar) nei ṭawng hi 756 ei um a, Thuthlung Thar Bible nei 1, 726 ei um a, Thuthlung Thar a rêng ni lova inlêt bîk nei hi ṭawng 1, 274 ei um a, Bible a rêng a ni naw khawmin ṭhenkhat bêk Bible tiem thei ṭawng nei hi 3, 756 ei um tah, chu umzie chu 7.3 billion (98% khawvêl mihriem pumpui) in Bible tiem thei an um tah tina a nih. [3] A hnuoia data hi Wycliffe Global Alliance hai resource a mi ei belkai a nih.

Technology hmasâwntak a hin Internet fe thlenga Bible ṭawng dang danga tiem theina khawvêla um ei ni ta leiin a ropui ta hlê. Zâwlnei Amos khan bua ṭâmna ni loin, tuia ṭâmna ni loin, LALPA thu hrietnaa ṭâmna lem chu a ti sia, Bible hlak chu tiem senglo le tiem thei tam tak a um ta bawk sia, ṭâmna  iengtin am ni thei a ta? Ṭâmna  hrim hrim chu mamaw tak umnaw lei a ni hlak si a. Hi ṭâmna hi ‘Mimal thil (self-inflicted) ṭâmna’  a nih. A.W. Tozer chun, “Bible-a mi ropui hai leh Kristien chanchina mi ropui hai hin Pathien thua dangchârna le phîngṭâmna  nasatak an nei a, an beisei angtakin Lalpan a nghâk in khawpna a pêk hlak, tu ruok hin chu mi tamtak Lalpan a nghâk dawk zo lo, nghâka ṭangkaina nei lo ei tam bêk bêk” tiin Pathien Thua dangchârna le ṭâmna  neia Pathien pan nachâng hre lo ei tam hlê thu a hril.[4] Hudson Taylor khan hieng hin a ti, “Ka hmua, ka zawng hlak, ka dit êm leiin ka nei bawk a nih” tiin Pathien le a thutak a ngainat zie a hril. Khawvêl a missionary ropui a ni ang bawkin Pathien Thu le Thlaraua dangchârna le ṭâmna  neia Pathien a thlathlam naw zie ei hmu thei.

Bible a hin Pathien ngai ngawi ngawi a, Thlaraua ṭâmna  neia zawng ding ei ni zie tamtak a um:

LALPA kuomah thil pakhat ka hnih a, chu mawl chu zawng ka tih, LALPA mawizie hmu ding le a biekina thu indawn dingin, Ka dam sûng poa LALPA ina ka um zing theina ding chu (Ps.27:4).

Sakhi vadungte tui châka ân thuok hlawp hlawp angin, Aw Pathien, ka hringna hi nangma châkin ân thuok hlawp hlawp a nih. Ka hringna hi, Pathien châkin, Pathien hring châkin a dangchâr a nih: Iengtik am Pathien hma tlung ka ta, inlang ka tih aw? (Ps.42:1-2).

Aw Pathien, nang chu ka Pathien i na, zîngkâr zawng ka ti che; Ram ṭâwl chautak, tui um nawna hmuna hin, Ka hringna hi nangma ngaiin a dangchâr a, ka tisa hin a ngai che a nih. Chuong ang bawkin hmun inthienga chun ka en zing che kha, I thilthawtheina le i ropuina hmu dingin (Ps.63:102)

Sherwood Eliot Wirt chun, “thlarau ṭâmna  le taksaa ṭâmna  hi danglam le kâr hla tak a ni, taksa ṭâmna  chu fâkin ei châkna a sukrea phîngṭâmna  a sukbo hlak, thlaraua ṭâmna  ruok chu thlarau bu ei fâk râwn po leh ei ṭâmna  a nasa deu deu hlak; Pathien hmangaina ei hriet râwn po leh… ei hmu râwn po leh a nêka tam, a nêka thlum hriet ei nuom a, khawp tâwk nei thei a ni nawh” a tih. [5] D.A. Carson chun, “Mi tamtak hai hi thienghlimna, ṭawngṭaina, thuawina tienga Pathien Thua le Ringnaa hîp-in ei um ngai naw a, inchalrempuina tieng a mi lên phât ‘tuortheina (dawtheina)’ ei tia, thuawinawna tieng lên hmangin ei um phât ‘zalênna’ ei ti nâwka, thilmak tak tak a hîp-in ei uma chu chu ‘ringna’ ei ti nâwk hlak. Mani inthunun theilo khawp hiela nun ei ngaihlutna hi ‘hadamna’ ei ti a, ṭawngṭai inthladana neiin Krista awiawtu ei hril vûm raka, Pathien ngaisaknawna neiin ei zalênna ei hmang suol a nih” a tih.[6]

Ei khawvêl hi Thlarau-a ṭâmna  a nasa deu deu a, zawng nachâng hre si lo, hmu tuma ṭhangkhaw um si lo, khawvêl tieng thila khawpna zawng dawp dawp, thlarau tieng thil ruok chu uksak lo ei pung deu deu a nih. Thlaraua bu ṭha hun tâwk dawng pha lo leia thlaraua piengsuol, inṭhang theilo ei tam tah. A hming mei meia Kristien (nominal), a tak taka Krista hnungzui pei si lo, Pathien Thu tiem pei derlova thabona suol in a khuopdet, ṭawngṭaina ngaipawimaw ta der lova Kohran ṭhuoitu nihai dâm, Kristien sûngkuoa seilien ni sia Lalpa Ṭawngṭaina chau hril tah Kristien an um pei.

The Barna Group hmusuoktu George Barna chun, “Evangelical Kohran sûng a ngei khawm hin, mi tamtak ringna indiklo Bible le inhme angna nei, inkal si, fepui tu ei um pei tah” a tih. A hrilpeina chun, “Bible hi inkhêl theilo, Pathien Thlarau inthuokkhum a ni ti chu ei pawm dân a ni, sienkhawm, mi tamtak in mani dit dân a keihêm le sukdanglamin an hrilfie a, mihriem lekha ziek ang el a ngai le pawmtu (liberal) ei pung deu deu” a tih. Hi tak hi ‘A ṭha naw zâwnga Siemtharna a thar (a new reformation) hung suok a nih” a tih. [7]

Ei ramah ngei khawm Sâwma Pakhat hrilhnuol-a Prosperity Gospel le thuhmun-a ngai pâwl ei um tah. Sâwma Pakhat hi indawivêtnaa ngaia Thuthlung Hlui dân a ni tia ziektu le ngaidân nei tamtak ei hung suok mêk. Krista chau hi lampui ni lo dinga pawmtu Kristien hai lai ngeia khawm ei hung um peia (Pluralism). Ṭhalai lekhathiem tak tak khawpuia umhai in nun zalên taka an um thei na dingin Secular Culture an ngaizâwng a, Kristienna chu inkhuopna, mani nuom dân a um thei nawna chikhat (New Colonialism) inawpdênaa ngaiin tisa tieng ei tlân lem tah. Ei ramah Kristien hai laia Research ṭhatak in thaw inla chu Bible tiem hlak hi mi 10a 3 ei tling diem aw!!!. Bible ringhlatu khawm ei lo inkatnuk el thei bawk. 

Covid-19 a’nlang dân (symptom) kha rim hrietna (smell) le an hnik le an hniknaw dân (taste) hrietnaw kha a nih. Pathien Thu le Thlarau tieng thil rim hrim hrim hriet thei naw le a thlum dân chen khawm hre thei taloa suol natna in a mi mande ei ni rawi el ta am? Covid lai khan mi pakhat chu rim hrietna a nei, an hnik le hniknaw hrietna khawm a la nei, amiruokchu, thil fâk châkna hrim hrim a nei der nawh (lost of appetite). Hme inhnik tak tak rim hrie si, sa tuihnai taka siem hmu bawk, a rim hrie bawk sia fâk châkna nei derlo chu, a vângduoi thlâk hlê. Hieng ang hin Pathien Thu ṭhatna khawm hrie êm êm si, Bible tiem châkna le peina nei derlo, ṭawngṭai thafânna nei bawk lo, Inkhâwm phurna le thathona khawm nei ta lo kut le ke zawi el tah ei ni chun ṭhanghar a hun a ni hriet a ṭha.

Thlaraua ṭâmna  hun a hin, hrisêl taka ei um theina ding chun Tirko Paula in “ringna le inchûktirna ṭha tu chena i la zâwm thuah châwm i ni ang khan” (1 Tim.4:6) a ti angin ringna le inchûktirna ṭhaa châwm (nourished) tlat ei ni chun chau el lovin um ei tih. Pathien Thu hi ei innghatna bulpui nisien, thlarau ta dinga bu, lungril ta dinga khuoizu anga thlum, thahrui ta dinga hrâtna, hrietna dinga varna a nih. Ei ke ta dinga khawnvar, ei lampuia dinga var a ni a, khawlâi hmunah khawm chawi thei, naupang la puitling lohai ta dinga khawma hrietthiem thei khawp a awlsam taka man thei, mi var le mi thiem ta dinga inril le inthûk êm êm nisi a nih. Hieng po po nêka hlu lem chu ‘Chatuon Hringna Lekhabu’ a nih. Chu chu nang le kei a ta ding khawmin iengtiklai khawm hmu thei a nih. Isu’n “Mihriem hi bei chauin hring naw ni hai a, Pathien baua thu tin suokin hring lem an tih” (Mt.4:4) a tih.

Peter in “Chuleiin, chuong thil chu hrein, thutak in kuoma uma chun in det dea chu chuong thil chu inhrietthartir cheu ka tum zing hlak a…Anih, ka fe suok hnunga chuong thil chu in hriet zing rawp theina dingin..” (2 Pet. 1:12,15) tiin Peter hin khawvêl lo suoksan ding ni sienkhawm, thutak hi um zing sien, hieng thil hi hrezing hai sien a nuompui a nih. Chanchinṭha hi inzau pei sien, khawvêl hmun tina hrilin um sien, thlaraua ṭâmna  hi dangkîr le dodâlin  um sien, thlaraua khawp le tlaia um hi a nuom tak pa a nih. Ei khawvêl pal mêk a hin, hi lungril inṭawmpuitu kristien le kohran ei ni pei hi a pawimaw.

Thlaraua ṭâmna  huna hin phurrik a neia, invawina inthûktak ei nei a pawimaw. Peter hin anvawina le phurrika nei in, Pathien ngaisak nawhai umna khawvêl tui suklêtin a um thu hrilin, Noa mi fel le mi dang pasari leh sandam an ni thu a hrila, Sodom le Gomorra khuohai chu Pathien ngaisak naw la hung um dinghai in entirna dingin a hmang a, vuta inchangtirin, sukbohmangin thiemnaw ân changtir thu le Lota mi fel, mi suolhai umdân hurtak leia lungngai bêk bêk chu a sandam tah tiin Sandam ei ni ve theina ding le Noa hun lai le Sodom le Gomorra khuo hai anga hurna suol le Pathien ngaisaknawna leia an bohmang ang kha ei tuok naw na dingin a mi lo infui a nih. (ref. 2 Pet.2:7-8)

Peter ang bawkin Paula ngei khawmin, Pathien ngaisaknawna hi lungril invawina a nei zie chu Athen khuoah a um lai khan a chieng hlê. Paulain Atheniah an ni chu a lo nghâk laiin, khuo chu pathien lima sipin a hmuh a, a lungril a lunginzîng ta hlê a (Tt.17:16). Isu ngeiin Jerusalem anvawi êm leiin a ṭapkhum a, “Aw Jerusalem, Jerusalem! zâwlneihai thattu, i kuoma an hung tirhai lunga lo dêng hlumtu, ârpuiin a têhai a thla hnuoia a awp khâwm angin, i nauhai vawi iengzât am awp khâwm ka tum a! Nisienlakhawm, in nuom si nawh” (Mt.23:37) ti ei hmu.

Thlaraua ṭâmna  hi invawina le phurrik a, ei nei naw chun sukkieng nêkin zuol tieng a pan pei ding a nih. Bob (Robert) Pierce kha Youth for Christ a rawngbâwltu (evangelist) a ni lai khan China ramah 1947 khan rawngbâwl nuomna le invawina nasatak a nei a. Kha lai huna khan Honolulu (Hawaii) chen chau tlung theina ticket man ding a nei. Phurrik taka a nei leiin China chen fe theiin Lalpan rem a ruot pêk a, sâng tamtak (China mi ) Krista kebula an hung pan kha a hringnuna inchiktlâk tak niin a hril. Hi nêka a lungril them êm êm tu chu, thlân hmun pakhat a sirnaa chun, hi hmunah thi tamtak naupang ṭhangsa-in fâk ding neiloa an thipui thu thuziek; ‘Phîngṭâmin saruokin ṭhangpuitu nei lova thiin, naute nene nelai hrisêl tak tak chenin an thipui’ ti a hmuin a sungril meichawk anga hlieutu um ang elin a kawinawi a. Hi ni a inthawk hin khawvêl ah fâk ding nei lova phîngṭâm el ni lovin thlarau ṭâmna  nasatak leia bohmanghai sansuok le ṭhuoisuoka an um theina dingin World Vision le Samaritan’s Purse rawngbâwlna ropui tak a hung hmusuok (indin) pha a nih.[8] Ei khawvêl sietak a hin ‘Krista hmangaina chun keini a mi tirlui a nih’ ei ti thei ve hi a ṭul hlê. Samari miṭha anga mi dang ṭhangpui ngaihai taksa le thlaraua ei ṭhangpui ve ngei theina dinga ṭhang laa, inmûtchawktuo ei ṭul hlê.

Charles Swindoll chun, “Ṭâmna  hi thil pawimaw um naw tawp ni lovin mamaw tâwk um naw lei a nih. Thlaraua ṭâmna  hi thlarau châwm thei ding tâwk ei hringnuna hin tlâksam a nei lei a ni, mimal insûnga khawm bâksam leia mamaw hun tâwk um naw lei a ni hlak. Tulai (khawvêl) hin thlarau bu tâk tling si lo, a puopa fast food anga thlarau bu hrisêllo tam taluo lei hin mi tamtak a fâksiet a, Youtube, Facebook le Social Media dang dang fethlenga ‘fast food spiritual snacks’ hai lei kuhin thlaraua thau ṭhalo in a mi bâwm leiin ṭhalai tamtak a suksiet tah. Ei pawimaw tak chu hringna thlâkdanglam thei khawpa thutak bu ṭha Pathien Thu a nih” a tih.[9]

Lalpa Pathienin ei ta dinga bu ṭhatak fâk châkna mi pe sien, ei khawvêl pal mêk danglam tak a hin a hmangruo ni a, thlaraua ṭawlna le ṭâmna , sûngtieng kuruokna sukbittu le sukhrâttu in mi hmang thar raw seh!

---

[1] https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/great-chinese-famine/, accessed on 10 July, 2025 at 2:10 PM.

[2] https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/best-selling-book-of-non-fiction, accessed on 10 July, 2025 at 2:20 PM.

[3] https://www.wycliffe.net/resources/statistics/, accessed on 10 July, 2025 at 2:30 PM.

[4] A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publication, Inc., 1948), 17.

[5] Sherwood Eliot Wirt, A Thirst for God (Minneapolis, MN: Worl Wide Publication, 1989), 29.

[6] D.A.Carson, For the Love of God, Vol.2 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), January 23 devotion.

[7] https://churchleaders.com/news/383605-george-barna-another-reformation.html#:~:text=A%20new%20report%20released%20Tuesday%20by%20the%20Cultural,George%20Barna%2C%20Director%20of%20Research%20at%20the%20CRC., accessed on 10 July, 2025 at 3:30 PM.

[8] https://www.worldvision.org/christian-faith-news-stories/women-inspired-bob-pierce, accessed on 12 July, 2025 at 2:50 PM.

[9] Charles R. Swindoll, Good Morning Lord, Can We Talk? (Carol Streal, IL: Tyndale House, 2018), 13.

Continue Reading

Pathienni/Thonâwkna Ni/Lalpa Ni/Châwl Ni

THILTHAWHAI 20:7

Chun, ni saria ni hmasataka (Pathienni) chun, bei khawi dinga kan um khâwm laiin, Paula chu a zînga fe el ding ani leiin ṭhahnemngaitakin thu a hril a; zân ril chenin thu a hril pei a.

1 KORINTH 16:2 

Ni saria ni hmasatak (Pathienni) peia chun mi tinin, malsâwmna in hmu zie ang peiin siekhâwl seng unla, ka hung phaa thawlâwm dâwl hrim a um nawna dingin.

THUPUONGSUO 1:10 

Lalpa nia (Pathienni) chun Thlarauin ka lo um a; chun, ka hnung tiengah, tawtawrâwt ri ang, rawl inringtakin.

Pathienni ei inser tak hi Lalpa Isu thina hnea a thonâwkna ni, ni ropuitak a nih. Inthim (suol) hnea ngamna ni a nih. Ps.118:24 in 'Hi ni hi Lalpa Ni ruot chu a nih, hi ni hin hlim in lâwm ei tiu' (This is the day the Lord has made) ti hi Thonâwkna Ni ropui le hrilkawp thei a nih. 

Achungah Pathien Thu ei suklang ânthawk hai hin Kohran hmasaa inthawk dai ta in Pathienni hi Pathien chawimawia, inpâk le Pathien Thua inpâwlkhawmna (fellowship) annei ta ti a sukchieng. 

Thlarau Thienghlim tlung ni (Day of Pentecost) tak khawm Thonâwkna ni a inthawk tiemin ni 50na tak hi Pathienni pei a nih. Kohran inṭan ni a ni leiin Pathienni hi Kohran ta ding chun ni pawimaw tak a nih. 

Juda dâna chun Sabbath (Inrinni) an inser thienghlima, chawlni in ursun takin an hmang. Juda dân ang ni naw sienkhawm Lunginsietna dâna khawm karkhata ni khat Pathien nia (Lalpa Ni) hmang chu Lunginsietna Thuthlung Thar a khawm a la fe peia. Kohran hmasa (Thuthlung Thar huna kohran) in Pathienni-a an inkhâwm an inser hi sunzawm peiin AD 321 khan Rom lal Emperor Constantine ringtu a hung ni hnung khan Sawrkar (State) tieng po po khawm Chawlni, Lalpa Ni a hmangin Kristienhai ni pawimaw hung ni ta peiin, khawvêl pumpui in ei hung sawm (hmang) tung pei a nih. 

Reformation (Siemṭhatna) inṭan tira John Calvin le Martin Luther haiin 'Pathienni hi Pathien tadinga hmang ding, sukthienghlima chawlnia hmang ding, ni ruk sûng mani sin thawhai chawla Pathien leh inpawlna bîka hmang ding, insûng le khawtlang (society) ṭulna makmaw a ni naw chun thildang po po sie thlâka insera Pathienni hi khun taka hmang hlak dingin' inchuktirna anlo pêk a nih.  

Khawtlang le Sawrkar in Viksit Bharat—Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025, or VB-G RAM G Act (ni 125) le inzula thlalak khawm Pathienni a nei pei dinga anti a ni khawmin Kohran chun do ngam sien, hlaw hmuna dinga thaw a ni leiin sum chen khawm hmulo ngam khawpa ringna kengkaw tlat hi ringtuhai thaw ding a nih. 

Isu'n 'tukhawm mi zui a nuom chun mani inhnawlin, nitin Kraws putin mi zui raw se' a ti hin Pathienni thlalak naw ngam hin a huom ve a ni ti hi ei hriet dingin a ṭha awm deh. 

ROM 13:1 

Mi tin an chunga rorêltuhai thu thuin um raw se. Pathien thu lovin tukhawm rorêltu an um ngai si naw a; rorêltua umhai hi Pathien iruot an nih.

A umzie hriet a pawimaw: A thu fepuitak chu khuo le tui ṭha (Good citizen) a nih. 

Sawrkar in Pathien thu le inkala ro a rêl chun an thu zawm ding a kawk nawh. Thawluina hmanga Pathien sukbawrbangna leh Pathien kala rorêl hrim hrim chu kal ngam le do ngam ding a nih. 

Hi char hi ringtu hmasa (kohranhai) khan an lo thaw leiin ringnaa mi huoisen ti Hebrai 11 ei hmuhai kha an nih. 

Thuneitu/rorêltu an do le an kal leiin lunga dêngin an um a, thingâtnaa ât bawngin an um a, thlêmna an tuok a, kâwlhnâma sât hlumin an um a, berâm vun le kêl vun silin an invai a; rimsitakin, rinumtakin, suknawmnatin an um a (Heb.11:37) ti hi ei hmu. 

Lalpa leh a ram ta dingin Krista Sipai huoisen ei ni pei nuom a um.

Pathienni/Chawlni inser dân thua ruok hin chu Juda dân ang taka thaw (Sabbatarianism) ruok hi chu Protestant Evangelical kohran ta dingin sui tham a tlinga, Ziek ding a tam leiin ziek kim chu harsa hlê ring a um.

Sabbath le inzawma Pathienni hi Kristien pawm dân hi an chen naw nuola, ṭhenkhat Strict Sabbatarianism an uma, ṭhenkhat Semi Sabbatarianism, ṭhenkhat Non-Sabbatarianism an um bawk. 

Strict Sabbatarianism hai hi chu Dân Sâwmpek palina ang taka Sabbath a ni dân anga insertuhai (Seventh Day Adventist le inzawmna neihai) 

Puritan (Pathien Chibai bûkna le Doctrine thua vawng thienghlim pâwl) haiin Westminster Shorter Catechism-a lo inziek 'Decalogue (Dân Sâwmpêk) palina zulzuiin Lalpa Ni (the Lord's Day) hi Kristien Sabbath (Christiann Sabbath) a ni leiin chawlna ni (rest day) a hmanga inser ding a nih ti hi an lo fepui nasa leiin tuchen khawm hin chuonganga fepui zing an um bawk. Hienghai hi Semi Sabbatarianism an tih. 

Non-Sabbatarianism hai chu Dân Sâwmpek palina (the fourth decalogue) hi Ceremonial Law (Ser le sâng Dân) a ni leiin Kristienhai a huom ta nawh. Kristaa iengkim an fâwkkhawm ta leiin dân (Mosaic Law) sukfamkimtu a ni ta leiin a thina le thonawkna hrietzingnaa Pathien Ni-a Kohran inpâwlkhâwmnaa hmang hi an pawm dân a nih. 

Reformation ṭhuoitu ropui Martin Luther le John Calvin haiin iengtin am an inchûktir a?

Martin Luther in 1520a 'A Treatise on Good Works' a zieknaa chun 'Hebrai ṭawnga Sabbath umzie chu chawl (rest) a nih. Chun, Pathienin ni sari nia chun a thilsiem chu a thaw zo a; ni sari nia chun a thilsiem po po chu a châwlsan ta a. Chuongchun, Pathienin ni sari ni chu mal a sâwm a, ân ser ta a (Gen.2:2-3) hi Sabbath inṭanna chu a nih. Dân a pêk a khawm a palinaa 'Chawlni inser rawh' ti hin hmun pawimaw tak a hluo. Eini hai (Kristien) ta dingin Sabbath ang chu Pathienni (Sunday) a hung ni taa, ni ruk danghai po chu Sin thaw ni (Work Days) a na, ni hmasatak Sunday ruok chu Chawl ni (Rest Day) a nih. 

John Calvin in Institutes of the Christian Religion lekhabu a ziekna (Book 2, Chapter 8) a hieng hin a ziek:

Mosie dân sâwmpek palina ang taka Judahai anga Sabbath inser/chawl hi Krista in a sukbo taa, Lalpa Ni-a(The Lord's Day) thlakin a um ta lem, hi ni hi Pathien chibai búkna ni le ama ta dinga chawlna ni, mani sinhai chawla Pathien thu lunglut taka ei pêkna ni a nih. Sabbath hi Kristien hai ta ding chun 'Shadow Rite' (Ser le sang limthla/hlimthla) chau a nih' tiin. 

Pathienni, Chawlni, Thonàwkna ni, Lalpa Ni tihai hi ei hmang kawp vawnga andik thei seng bawk. Dictionary anga a hming tak hi chu Pathienni ti hi ni tak dingin anlang. Pathienni hi Lalpa Thonawkna ni ropui a ni a leiin Lalpa Ni a ni a, Pathien chibai búka ama hminga kohran inpàwlkhawmna ni bîk a ni leiin Chawlni ti a ni bawk.

Puritan haiin Semi Sabbatarianism anga an pawm ang lawm lawma Pathienni a motor khawm khal lo ding, inkhawma fe khawm riek pei ding, Kohran thila Inkhawmpui hai khawm a darkar huom sung chu chang lo tawpa, zanril nghak ding tihai hi Sabbath anga Pathienni hmang nuomtuhai inser thienghlim le chawlna pumhluoma pawmtuhai sersuok a ni tak. Inkhâwmpuia Pathienni Zân 12 nghak ṭal ṭal hi Pathienni ei inser zie suklangna chu ṭhatak nisienkhawm Isu'n "Mihriem Naupa hi Châwlni Lal a ni si a,” a ta (Mt.12:8; Mk. 2:28; Lk.6:5) a ti angin Krista nekin a Pathienni inser ei siechunghnung lem chun fe suol thei a nih. 

A pawimawtak chu Pathienni a ni angin Lalpa ta dinga hun hmang, Pathien chibai bûk le Pathien Thua insukhratna ni, siemtharna ni, thil dang lungril la peng theituhai po po thethlaa Pathien Ni ang taka hmang hi a nih.

Continue Reading

How Do the Dead Sea Scrolls Show the Reliability of the Old Testament Text?

How Do the Dead Sea Scrolls Show the Reliability of the Old Testament Text?

Written in the three languages of Scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), the Dead Sea Scrolls represent a collection of at least 1,000 manuscripts dating from 250 BC–AD 68. However, some of these, written by Jews, are from the later period of the Jewish revolts against Roman occupation (AD 68–73, and 132–135). The earliest of these documents were written and/or preserved by the members of a Jewish sect that established a community (Qumran) by the Dead Sea during the late Second Temple period (c. 100 BC–AD 70).

These ancient manuscripts, written on either parchment (animal hide) or papyrus (plant used as an early form of paper), are comprised of Jewish literature: two-thirds are nonbiblical texts (Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha) and sectarian texts (personal letters, deeds, community documents and commentaries on biblical texts), and one-third are biblical texts (Old Testament). Among these caches, there were unique scrolls that predated the Qumran sect and had a quasi-scriptural authority (Temple Scroll, 11Q19) and one, a treasure map, engraved entirely on copper (Copper Scroll, 3Q15). Only a few of the scrolls (Great Isaiah Scroll, Temple Scroll, Copper Scroll) are complete, and all are damaged.

The vast majority of the documents found in the 11 caves known to have contained scrolls are fragmentary (between 25,000-50,000 small pieces). Remarkably, scholars have spent more than 50 years piecing together these fragments in order to study and publish their contents.[1]

What Is the Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the Land of Israel, and at the time they were found, they were the first known documents from the Second Temple period. They are uniquely important to those who study this period and especially to students of the Bible (both the Old and New Testaments).

This can be seen by the fact that the scrolls cover a transitional period in Jewish history from the time of the Maccabean rule through the Roman occupation. This period of time includes the life of Jesus, the formation of the church, the writing of much of the New Testament, as well as the turbulent period of the second century, during which there were Jewish revolts and exiles (events that sharpened the divide between Jews and Christians).

Interestingly, the scrolls provide previously unknown information about historical figures, political situations, and legal, religious, and social practices only dimly echoed in the much later rabbinic writings (Talmud, Mishnah).[2] They also give new insights into the languages spoken by Jesus and His disciples, as well as the cultural conditions and conflicts that produced Jesus’s parabolic method of teaching. In addition, much is learned about His debates with so-called establishment Judaism,[3] as well as the religious background of issues addressed in the Pauline letters.[4] Of particular importance is their contribution to our understanding of the messianic and eschatological beliefs of Jews during this period.[5] The scrolls show us that the developed messianic interpretations found in the New Testament were not the unique provenance of early Jewish Christianity, but the shared interpretation of Jews whose expectations were centered on the prophetic revelation of the Old Testament.

Moreover, the scrolls also provide a pre-Masoretic body of texts that can be compared with other existing texts, such as the Septuagint (LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) and the Samaritan Pentateuch. What is more, the Dead Sea Scrolls offer material necessary for an accurate understanding of the transmission of the Hebrew text and for modern translations of the Bible.

What Old Testament Books Were Found Among the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The biblical texts represent the oldest known portions of the Old Testament and contain every book of the Old Testament except the book of Esther (although it is reflected in other writings among the scrolls). There are no New Testament manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls because most of the New Testament was written toward the end of the time of the community’s existence. Moreover, because Jewish Christians do not appear to have been a part of the community, it should not be expected that the New Testament would have been distributed to this strictly Jewish sect. The chart on the next page shows the number of manuscripts of each book of the Old Testament discovered until today.[6]

This chart indicates which books of the Bible were considered the most popular among the Dead Sea Scrolls—namely the books of the law, the Psalms, and the prophets. Among the books of the law, the book of Deuteronomy has the most copies; Isaiah and Daniel stand out among the prophets, and Psalms among the Writings. It is interesting that Deuteronomy was also one of the books most cited by Jesus, and that the Psalms, Isaiah, and Daniel played an important role in Jesus’s messianic teaching as well as in the rest of the New Testament’s defense and explanation of the messianic program.

How Were the Dead Sea Scrolls Preserved?

The Dead Sea Scrolls were placed in sealed ceramic jars and stored within caves near the community’s settlement, today called the site of Qumran, situated on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, about 19 miles from Jerusalem. Scrolls from the later period of the Jewish revolts come from regional caves stretching some 33 miles southward from Qumran to Masada (particularly Wadi Murabba’at, Nahal Hever, En-Gedi, and Masada). For the Qumran community, the purposeful hiding of these scrolls may have been simply to preserve them, as suggested by God’s direction to the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 32:14). However, the revolt period scrolls were left behind in caves that were used as hiding places by soldiers and as living quarters.

Two types of caves were used for the storage of the scrolls:

(1) manmade marl caves surrounding and in the sides of the broad plateau upon which the community’s buildings were situated, and (2) natural fault caves located in the limestone cliffs that line the western shore of the Dead Sea.

These cave repositories often had rock-cut niches where the jars containing the scrolls were stored.

The Qumran sect may have gained a reputation as caretakers of valuable documents, and it is possible that people from Jerusalem, Jericho, and other nearby cities brought their scrolls to the community for safekeeping. Most likely, many of these scrolls were removed before the Roman army invaded area and destroyed Qumran, but it is believed that others could not be removed due to their remote location and the sudden nature of the Roman attack, and thus they remained in these caves until modern times.

While there are some ancient accounts of biblical scrolls being found in this area, the discovery of these texts is best known from Bedouin (local nomadic Arab shepherds) looters who found jars in some of the caves from the late 1940s–1950s and subsequently sold the contents on the black market. In 1993, the Israel Antiquities Authority launched Operation Scroll and sent hundreds of archaeologists throughout the Judean Desert to locate and identify caves that had the potential to house scrolls. Though these caves were numbered and survey trenches were made in many of them, no excavations were carried out at the time.

In 2017, Operation Scroll was renewed with the excavation of one cave south of Qumran—a cave that was revealed to have contained as many as seven jars that once contained scrolls. Although these scrolls had been removed in antiquity, the discovery provided evidence that many more discoveries await further excavation of the nearly 300 caves in the region.[7]

Therefore, it is possible that our knowledge of Scripture, as based on the scrolls, has only just begun!

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Reliability

There is little doubt the Dead Sea Scrolls constitute the most important manuscript discovery of all time. Their significance lies in their antiquity, their preservation of the biblical text and related Jewish literature, and their description of a Jewish sect that was unknown before their discovery. The scrolls are of great value and significance when it comes to confirming the reliability of the biblical text and examining the transmission of the text so we can better understand textual variants (small differences) that support a more accurate translation and understanding of the text.

Statement of the Divine Origin and Authority of the Biblical Text

While some scholars debate whether Second Temple Judaism recognized a canon (open or closed), the Qumran sect seems to have had an understanding of which books they accepted as Scripture (of divine origin), and which they did not (of human origin). They used the Paleo-Hebrew script (used before the Babylonian exile) for the name of God (YHWH) in the biblical texts, indicating that these texts were accorded greater sanctity and therefore greater authority.[8]This agrees with Jesus’s use of only the authoritative biblical texts from the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; 25:56; Luke 1:70; 16:16,29,31; 18:31; 24:27,44; John 1:45). Importantly, the fact that fragments of every book in our present Old Testament canon existed at Qumran before its destruction by the Roman army in AD 68 reveals recognition of the canonical books from ancient times. This recognition was then passed on to the medieval scribes who produced the Masoretic Text (the traditional biblical text of Judaism).

Evidence of the Careful Transmission of the Biblical Text

The Dead Sea Scrolls also allow us to see how well the scribes preserved the text for us. Until their discovery, our oldest version of the Hebrew text was that compiled by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the tenth century AD.[9]

Our modern-language Old Testaments were translated from these late medieval manuscripts. This tenth-century text was compiled by Jewish rabbinic scribes called the Masoretes (from the Hebrew word masora, meaning “tradition”). Their text has come to be the received or traditional text of Judaism, known as the Masoretic Text.

As old as this text may seem, it is still more than 1,000 years removed from the last of the original texts of Scripture penned by the prophets. This huge gap of time in which there were no Hebrew witnesses to the transmission of the text (with the exception of some verses of the Ten Commandments preserved in the second century BC Nash Papyrus) left a doubt as to the accuracy of the Masoretic Text, since it was compiled from these older yet unverifiable texts. It seemed possible that scribes working from fading manuscripts in which many letters look alike, and having poor illumination and no eyeglasses, could have made mistakes in the course of copying the biblical texts, and that these errors could have passed on to the Masoretic Text from which our Bibles were translated. After all, the Septuagint and other versions demonstrated that significant variants existed from the Masoretic Text. How could it ever be proven that what we have now is what they had then? How could we know if our own Bible text was reliable?

Remarkably, the discovery of biblical texts in Cave 1 at Qumran, and especially the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa), made it possible to finally answer this question. The book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Old Testament (66 chapters) and this copy was dated to 125 BC (although its use as a well-marked study copy can push the date of its text back at least another 100 years). With the discovery of the Great Isaiah Scroll, scholars now possess the oldest and most complete copy of a book of the Bible from this lost period before the Masoretes. In addition, its text could be compared to the much later Masoretic Text from which our Bibles were translated. The result of the comparison between these texts revealed an almost 95 percent level of agreement, with the variations coming from spelling differences and some significant variants (more in 1QIsaa than 1QIsab). This high percentage of agreement was more or less the same for the other fragments of the biblical books found in other caves, especially Cave 4, which provided the greatest number of manuscripts.

From this new knowledge of the text, based on analyses of the scrolls, which reveal a conservative scribal tendency to follow the exemplar in both text and form,[10] we can approach our own translations with greater confidence. We can know the Jewish scribes did a careful job of transmitting the text through time.[11] And most importantly, we can also see that the remarkable consonance with the Masoretic Text indicates that it is a stable text that could serve as a textus receptus (traditional text) for Judaism and as the basis for authoritative translation into other languages.

Textual Criticism with the Dead Sea Scrolls Restores Greater Accuracy

While an examination of the biblical text is known as textual criticism, it is necessary to discover certain details about how various texts relate and compare to each other. This helps scholars to have a more accurate reading, translation (into modern languages), and restoration of the original Bible.

Even though there was essential agreement between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, there were significant variants (small differences) in the Dead Sea Scroll texts that have proved important to textual critics (those who seek to restore the original text). The Great Isaiah Scroll alone had 200 variants,[12] some important to Christian scholars because they are related to messianic interpretation. Having this wealth of textual evidence from different texts (many of which informed the Masoretes in their compilation of a standard text) has allowed scholars to weigh the evidence of these texts as compared to other known texts of the time (e.g., the Greek Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch). This has also enabled textual critics to offer their verdict as to which reading of a particular text was closest to the original.

A comparison of these variants with Old Testament citations in the New Testament has been extremely helpful in confirming the source of the citations.[13] Also, the vocabulary and doctrine of the sectarian (nonbiblical) scrolls, set in a time parallel to the advent of Jesus, as well as the events recorded in the Gospels and the writing of most of the New Testament, reveal that terms and religious concepts once thought unique to the New Testament were in fact in common use in the first century.[14] As a result of this new knowledge, since 1950, every translation of the Bible has utilized this textual evidence in their translation work.[15]

Conclusion

The Dead Sea Scrolls offer evidence to address other apologetic concerns in the Old Testament. These include the unity of the book of Isaiah, the date of the book of Daniel,[16] and recognizing that the scrolls are vital for biblical research, exegesis, and apologetics. This has been forcefully stated by Emanuel Tov:

When we collect data of this kind we realize that the Scrolls do make a difference and they should be taken into consideration, not only in the study of textual criticism but also in the [area of] exegesis, [for] in that area there too the knowledge of the Scrolls is an absolute requirement for anyone studying the Bible critically.[17]

Today, as the search for additional scrolls in the caves around Qumran is underway, new discoveries of manuscripts may be made with the promise of an even greater witness to the reliability of the Old Testament.

---

[1] For a justification of this protracted period of research and publication, see my Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996), 51-72.

[2] See “Why Are the Scrolls Important for Understanding Second Temple Judaism?” in C.D. Elledge, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies 14 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 97-114.

[3] See James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

[4] See Murphy O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth, eds., Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Crossroad, 1990).

[5] See Lawrence H. Schiffman, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 270- 320

[6] From 2006–2015, a number of new manuscript fragments were sold by the Kando family to US institutions (Princeton University, Azuza Pacific University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) and domestic and foreign private collectors (the Green family/Museum of the Bible, Mark Lanier, Martin Schøyen of Norway, David Sutherland of New Zealand). I have also seen unpublished fragments of the Temple Scroll and a number of Old Testament books that remain with the Kando family, including a three-column fragment of Genesis 41.

[7] Operation Scroll was initiated in 1993 to survey the caves in the Judean Desert with the intention of excavating caves with high potential in order to recover more scrolls before the area, then in negotiation, was given over to Palestinian control. These surveys were published in ‘Atiqot 41:1-2 (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority, Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria, 2002). Politics in the region prevented systematic exploration and excavation of these cavesuntil 2017, when Randall Price (Liberty University) and Oren Gutfeld (Hebrew University) codirected the excavation of Cave 53 at Qumran. The discovery there of some seven scroll jars hidden in rock-hewn niches in the recesses of the cave, although without scrolls, but with scroll fragments and scroll wrappings, proved that many of the caves are scroll caves and may yield future manuscript finds. For further information, see O. Gutfeld and R. Price, “The Excavation of a Dead Sea Scroll Cave (Cave 53) at Qumran,” paper presented to the Qumran section of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, MA, November 19, 2017, and Marcello Fidanzio, The Caves of Qumran: Proceedings of the International Conference, Lugano 2014, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 118 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2016).

[8] James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins, 2002), 152.

[9] Both the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex (AD 1008) represent the BenAsher tradition. However, because of the incomplete condition of the Aleppo Codex, most versions of the Masoretic Text are based on the Leningrad Codex.

[10] M. Martin, The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Louvain, Belgium: Publications Universitaires, 1958), 44-45.

[11] For further evidence to support this conclusion, see Bruce K. Waltke, “The Reliability of the OT Text” in “How We Got the Hebrew Bible: The Text and Canon of the Old Testament,” in Peter W. Flint, ed., The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 47-50.

[12] For these variants see Eugene Ulrich and Peter Flint, “Qumran Cave 1: The Isaiah Scrolls,” Discoveries in the Judean Desert 32 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants.

[13] See James D.G. Dunn, “Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium: 1947–1997 (North Richard Hills, TX: Bibal Press, 1998), 105-127.

[14] See Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Cave 4” in Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, eds., Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997): 91-100.

[15] Harold P. Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 27, 107.

[16] For a study of these apologetic issues, see my Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 154-163.

[17] Price, Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 154-163.

Continue Reading

Are the Old Testament Manuscripts Reliable?

Are the Old Testament Manuscripts Reliable?

A total of 39 books comprise what we today call the Old Testament. These books were written over a period of nearly a millennium, from 1400 BC to 400 BC. This raises a crucial question: How did we get these 39 books? And are they trustworthy in their claim to be the Word from God?

How Did We Get the Old Testament?

These 39 books came to us just as Hebrews 1:1 explained: “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets…” Hence, the “various times” covered the extended period from Moses’s day and the next 1,000 years until the last book of the Old Testament was completed—the book of Chronicles[1]

Likewise, the many or “various ways” can be seen in everything from God speaking “face to face” (i.e., He spoke directly) to Moses in Numbers 12:6-8; or to various psalmists, such as King David in inspired lyrics; or through prophets by means of visions, dreams, and the revelation of His word. Moreover, in what is considered by many the oldest book of the Bible, Job, God spoke with Job about pain and suffering in light of His goodness and power. Subsequently, the rest of the 38 books that form what is known as the Old Testament followed the book of Job.

Did the Old Testament Writers Use Any Sources?

In the composition of the earlier part of the divine revelation, we should not be startled by the fact that God also had His writers of Scripture employ sources as they wrote. For example, Luke 1:1-4 acknowledged that Luke used numerous sources that were available to him as he wrote the narrative of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.

However, there are two exceptional instances when we are expressly taught that the inspired record in Scripture came directly from the very “finger” of God, as Moses carefully taught us: “When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18 NIV).

And in another place the Lord taught:

These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me (Deuteronomy 5:22 NIV).

Israel understood that the Ten Commandments represented the very words of God to the people, for they commented: “The LORD our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire” (verse 24).

The second exceptional time was when the Lord communicated in a direct way in the book of Daniel. This happened when God wrote His message directly on the wall of Babylonian King Belshazzar’s banquet hall:

“Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall…The king watched the hand as it wrote. His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his legs became weak and his knees were knocking” (Daniel 5:5-6 NIV).

Because this pagan king had not humbled his heart before God or honored Him, his days would come to an end, as this message indicated, and the Babylonian kingdom cease to exist!

Can We Show the Claims for Divine Authority Are Accurate and Reliable?

So far we have addressed the fact that God employed many different ways at many different times to announce His word to mortals on earth. But that does not address the question of how reliable those claims were. Moreover, the transmission of the text in the Old Testament across three millennia is another cause for deep concern if we are going to talk about the text’s reliability. It leads to questions like, Who wrote these texts? Who copied them? What methods did they use to ensure the integrity of what they wrote by hand-copying accurately the wording that was in the original autograph (i.e., first document that came from the hand of the author)?

To begin answering these kinds of questions, we must recognize the limitations placed on scholars 70 years ago, prior to more recent discoveries. At that time there were only three sources of comparison:

(1)          the Samaritan Pentateuch,

(2)          the Greek Septuagint, and

(3)          the Nash

Papyrus dating from around AD 1000. However, with the sensational discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946–47, our evidence improved by leaping in time from around AD 1000 to, in some cases, the third century BC (much closer to the original documents of the Old Testament). This was based on some 900 exemplars of Hebrew biblical texts of the Old Testament ranging from AD 50 to 250 BC.

Even more fascinating was the discovery of a tiny silver scroll just south of Jerusalem, alongside the Valley of Hinnom, that contained the Aaronic Benediction from Numbers 6:24-26 and dated to the mid-seventh or sixth century BC. The scroll was written in a Proto-Canaanite (or Paleo-Hebrew) script and worn around the neck as an amulet roll in the form of a typical signet seal.[2] The Hebrew text inscribed on this roll was practically word for word the same as what had been transmitted from Moses’s day up until our day in the twenty-first century!

In the book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have another remarkable example of the purity of transmission through the centuries. It represents an unbelievably perfect state of preservation from an eighth-century autograph (original) to our present day. Interestingly, in the entire Isaiah manuscript of 66 chapters, it was discovered that a mere three Hebrew words exhibited a different spelling from that found in our present day copies. This is a fascinating confirmation of accurate hand-copying of a biblical book containing some 100 or more pages of Hebrew text! While this was our best exemplar (compared to other Hebrew texts that had more variations), it is still extremely remarkable the way this text has been accurately passed down to us—a level of accuracy unrivaled in documents from ancient history!

Who or What Criteria Decided What Books Could Be Included in Scripture?

One of the most popular bits of misinformation that has been all too frequently affirmed by many scholars these past two centuries is that a group of rabbinic scholars attended a Jewish council held in Jamnia (AD 90, also known as Jabneh), Israel, to decide which books should be included in the Old Testament.[3] At the council, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, who had earlier escaped from the siege of Jerusalem, was granted permission to set up a school that functioned like the Sanhedrin. But three caveats must be noted regarding the action this school took on two books of the Old Testament, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon:

(1) its deliberations had no binding authority;

(2) only the books of Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon were discussed, though nothing was concluded about their canonicity because their discussion centered only on their interpretation; and 

(3) the books this council recognized as canonical (authoritative) in subsequent actions were the same as those found in the works of the secular Jewish historian Josephus, as well as those in our present Bibles.

Jack Lewis commented on this long history of misinformation when he wrote, “It would appear that the frequently made assertion that a binding decision was made at Jabneh [also Jamnia] covering all Scripture is conjectural at best.”[4]

It is worthy of note that there was a continuous chain of commendations of their predecessors’ contribution to Scripture. For example, 1 Chronicles 29:29 states that the history of David was written in the books of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. This was followed by another such notice in 2 Chronicles 9:29 that the history of Solomon was written by the prophets Nathan, Ahijah and Iddo. Likewise, the work of King Rehoboam was written by the prophets Shemaiah and Iddo (2 Chronicles 12:15), while the history of King Ahijah was written by the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22). This veritable link of verses in Chronicles[5] shows that the prophets passed the baton from one to the other, thus setting forth a steady stream of historical events and theology. As such, it also meant that there was a progressive recognition of what was an authoritative word from God.

But there is more! In Daniel 9:2, the prophet Daniel explained that Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jeremiah 25:11-12), which was written only 100 years earlier, was both the “word of the LORD” and were a part of the “Scriptures” (NIV). In addition, Daniel cited Jeremiah in this text when he predicted that the captivity of the Jewish people would last 70 years. Daniel read that the 70 years was about to come to an end, and he expected God to be true to His word and deliver Israel from captivity.

Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah treated the prophecy of Micah in the same way, for even though Micah had preceded Jeremiah by 125 years; Jeremiah announced that Micah’s prediction that Jerusalem would be plowed like a field would be fulfilled (cf. Jeremiah 26:18; Micah 3:12).

Thus, once again, a later prophet certified the truthfulness and reliability of what an earlier prophet had said in Scripture, and in some cases was able to witness the actual fulfillment of that prediction, thereby guaranteeing its divine origin!

The Threefold Division of the Canon

Both the historian of the Jewish people, Josephus, and Jesus Himself used the threefold division of the Old Testament: the “law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). While there were also other references to a different summary of the Old Testament as containing only two divisions, usually “the Law and the Prophets” (Luke 16:16-17; see also Matthew 5:17), there seemed to be a wider use of the threefold division. For example, the noncanonical and apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus appealed to the same threefold division of the Old Testament in its prologue in 132 BC. The significance of this trifold division is that it allows researchers to project the concept of the present canon of the Old Testament back to the second century BC. Thus, along with the progressive recognition of what books were authoritative, as shown in the prophets’ chain of references, here would be another, even if there were a later formalization of the same canonical concept.

In addition, Moses laid up the books he had written before the Lord in the tabernacle (Deuteronomy 31:26), with Joshua doing the same thing (Joshua 24:26). Later, the prophet Samuel wrote “the rights and duties of kingship” on a scroll and he too deposited them “before the LORD” (1 Samuel 10:25). Thus, the placing of these writings before the Lord (in the temple) indicated the enormous regard and reverence they had for the Scriptures. Namely, they viewed them as being from God, and being fully trustworthy and reliable.

Jesus’s View of the Old Testament

There can be no doubt that Jesus pointed to this same set of 39 books as being the inspired body of authoritative teachings from the Father. While Jesus boldly spoke of the temple being destroyed (a site the Jewish people held in highest regard), He did not treat the 39 books of the Old Testament in the same way. Instead, He declared, “These are the very Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39 NIV).

If some are still doubtful as to just what books Jesus’s affirmation included, then the answer is found in Matthew 23:35 with its parallel in Luke 11:51. In these two passages, Jesus showed what He meant by the “Scriptures”—namely, the identical 39 books we have today as the Old Testament. He did this by pointing to the two texts just mentioned to “all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you [Jews] murdered between the temple and the altar” (NIV). The reference to Abel comes from the Genesis record, the first book in the Old Testament canon.

But the mention of Zechariah is not a reference to the prophet who wrote a book by that name, but to a Zechariah killed near the temple (2 Chronicles 24:20-22). Given that the order of the 39 books of the Old Testament runs from Genesis to the last book in the Jewish order of the books (1 and 2 Chronicles), Jesus was pointing to the very same canon we possess today— even though today, the books are in a different order. Thus Jesus pointed to the first and the last murders recounted in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament was given by the inspiration of our Lord, and it is still useful for teaching, rebuke, correction, and even the way of salvation (2 Timothy 3:15-17). The text is fully reliable and accurate in all its details.

---

[1] For a similar treatment of this same topic, see Bruce Waltke, “How We Got the Old Testament,” Cruce 30 (December 1994), 14.

[2] See the article by the head archaeologist of the cave excavation, Gabriel Barkay, “The Priestly Benediction on the Ketef-Hinnom Plaques,” Cathedra 52 (1989), 37-76.

[3] The best scholarly work on this question was done in a doctoral dissertation and eventually an article by Jack P. Lewis, “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?” Journal of Biblical Literature 32 (1964), 125-130

[4] Lewis, “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?” 130.

[5] I am beholden to my teacher R. Laird Harris for setting forth this concept in his book Inspiration and Canonicity in the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1957), 166-79. This series of prophets and their work is continued in verses such as 2 Chronicles 20:34; 32:32; 33:18-19

Continue Reading