Christian and Jewish Myths

This page last updated: 05/29/2007 09:26 AM

Jesus 'Fulfilled' (terminated) the Law

Law is for the Jews, Grace is for the Church 

Believers cannot 'do' the Law   

Paul 'converted' to Christianity  |  The Law is Jewish

The Church began at Pentecost  |  Believers are not under the 'Old' Covenant

Education beyond Obedience?  |  The New Covenant is the New Testament

Faith is Belief  |  Believers aren't 'mature enough'  |  Caring before knowing

Right Thinking/Right Doing  |  We don't need a 'tutor' anymore

Translational Bias Interferes With Understanding

Hebrew Thinking is Best  |  Hebrew Roots? 

Jews Follow the Law

more coming...

Introduction

A Christian or Jewish myth is a saying or teaching that is common in those circles but has little or no basis in, or support from, Scripture.  Frequently, a myth can be associated with a verse or two, but usually the verses are taken out of context or deliberately misinterpreted.  Lots of times the myth is made up out of thin air with no Scriptural support whatever.  People have lots of tricky ways to avoid what God requires.  Notice, for instance, that many of the myths revolve around God's Law.  I wonder why that is?

Sometimes a myth is created from someone's opinion of what the Scripture says rather than from the Scripture itself, or from what a group of people believes about themselves.  A myth is taken for truth simply because it is heard so often.  We try here to debunk these myths by going right to the Word where needed, or sometimes just injecting a note of common sense or logic.

We like to do something we call 'extend the logic,' which shows weaknesses (or strengths) in someone's concept of the truth.  Truth is something that stays constant and does not change with the circumstances (and matches the Word of God), so extending the logic means to try out the so-called 'truth' in different ways to see if the 'truth' holds up.  For instance, an example of a Christian myth is when someone tells you we "cannot do" the Law.  It is easy to disprove this by doing one of the commands, such as having a lamb dinner on Passover.  Obviously, this proves we can 'do' the Law, so something must be wrong with the myth logic.  This myth might be modified slightly with the thought that we cannot do all of the Law 'perfectly,' but logically this does not prevent a person from doing what is even within our ability to do.  You can see the weakness with this type of mythical reasoning, I'm sure.  Besides, the Word itself says that we can 'do' the Word (see the section below, for instance, on 'Believers cannot do' the Law below).

An example of a Jewish myth is when someone says that Jews follow Torah.  This is not the case.  What Jews follow is tradition, and some of Torah still shows up in some of their traditions.  Another example of a Jewish myth, which is not necessarily propagated by Jewish people, is that Hebrew thinking is better, or that the 'roots' of a believer are Jewish.

Click on a menu choice above to find out more about what we think are myths and the truthful Scriptural antidote for them.

1. Jesus fulfilled the Law, meaning He followed it perfectly, which also means He terminated it and we don't have to do it.

First, fulfill doesn't mean to eliminate.  The word means to 'fill up full' like a cargo ship (Matthew 5:17-19).  The word is also used in Colossians 2:9 (with just a different ending) to describe how Jesus had the 'fullness' of deity in Him.  If 'fulfilled' means to terminate, the Colossians 2:9 doesn't make any sense either.

 

Obviously, fulfill is also set off as opposite of 'abolish,' which would mean to establish or build or make something more firm.  While it is true that Jesus followed the Law perfectly, and we are only saved through His sacrifice, the Law as part of God's Word could never be eliminated (John 10:35).  Second, how are we to understand 'don't have to?'  God did not 'have to' give His Son for us, but He loved us so much that He did.  Our loving response is to find out what He wants us to do and do it.  If that includes what some think of as 'The Law' then so be it.

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19 NASB

Equally obvious is the fact that "heaven and earth" passing away is equivalent to "all is accomplished."  Some people want to make "all is accomplished" equal to His death on the execution stake, but Jesus disabuses us of this notion before we even get started.  Then He goes on to teach us about teaching them and keeping (doing) them.  The hard work here is in messing up the clear statements of our Lord, not in simply reading and doing what He tells us.

2. Law is for the Jews, Grace is for the church.  Law is outdated, Grace is the 'new' way of God.

I don't know about you, but this one kind of chaps my hide.  The reason is that it denies the blessings and benefits of God's perfect discipleship program to the believer.  First, the labels 'Old' and 'New' were slapped on the Book by some guys around the third century.  The Word itself makes no such distinctions concerning what God has instructed.  Second, the very fact that God gives the Law is part of His Grace.  Law and Grace are not opposite ideas, they are the same.  God does not have to intrude on our merry slide into hell, but He chooses to reveal Himself and let us know how we should behave.  His Grace was evident in Law right from the Garden when He told Adam and Eve not to eat of the wrong tree.  We suppose He could have kept His mouth shut and let them guess the standard.  The problem has never been with the Law, it has been with the refusal of people to obey His Word in whatever form it took.  See also the article on Galatians (Grace Chart) and Doctrinal Specifics, as well as the article In Vino, Veritas (especially the Summary) for more information.

3. Believers cannot 'do' the Law.

We only need one verse to debunk this myth.  Philippians 4:13 says that I can "do all things through Him who strengthens me."  Believers have the Spirit which guides into all truth, and God's Word is truth (including the Law).  What we cannot do is earn our salvation by following any rule or Law.  We will never gain sufficient merit, by performing an action, to earn something from God.  But this is a far cry from not being able to do what our Father tells us to do.

If you think about this long enough it should occur to you that when someone says this they are making God out to be a liar.  Deuteronomy 30:14 says: "'The word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."  Then Paul quotes this section in Romans 10:8-10 when he says, "But what does it say?  'THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, in your mouth and in your heart,' that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."  Why would Paul connect the Deuteronomy passage, which obviously talks about the Law, with the word of faith he was preaching?

The answer is that the preaching of the Law and the preaching Paul (and the apostles) did were the same thing.  Law is not opposed to Grace, Law is Grace (see our Doctrinal Statement or the Law Primer for more info on this).  God does not have to speak to us.  The difference is in the individual's perspective, not in what is preached.  Hebrews 4:2 says that "For indeed we have had the good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they had did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard."  What!  The message preached at Mt. Sinai is the same as the "good news?"  The only difference was faith?  Gee, that means the Law is the 'good news' if we accept it in faith!

4. The Law Is Jewish

This myth is actually circulated by Jews as well as Christians.  However, the Law is neither Jewish nor Gentile (or Christian).  There are no Jews in the first five books of the Bible, and Christians don't even appear until around the first century (and very late in the Apostolic Scriptures (NT)).  The Bible is the Word of God, not the word of the Jews.  Oh certainly, our Jewish brothers and sisters have the lead role in receiving and preserving His Words. They have developed a lot of wonderful ways of living them out in a daily walk.  They even understand them perhaps better than Christians in some ways.  Without a doubt in our minds they have the lead role in helping to understand and disseminate His Words.  But that doesn't mean that the Word of God becomes Jewish words.  The 'Hebraic' or 'Jewish' roots teachings unfortunately give the impression that the root is the Jews, when in fact the Root is Messiah (although He was a Jew also, as a matter of fact more pointedly so because He is from the tribe of Judah).

The Law or Word of God is delivered to any person who desires to follow Him.  Any person who follows Him is part of His remnant.  This remnant has existed from the beginning and is composed of all sorts of people including Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.  Membership in the remnant is based solely on receiving God's Words by grace through faith (trusting obedience), not on genetics, religion, or culture.  The Law is for all of His people, regardless of limitation.

5. We don't need a 'tutor' anymore.

This is a nicely contrived myth based on Galatians 3:23-25.

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

At first glance this seems to be a fairly straightforward truth, and it looks like the myth-makers are right.  However, as usual with the Bible text, things are not always what they seem, especially if one merely yanks and twists a verse out of context.  So let's look at the context, and see if we can't pick up some clues as to the proper interpretation of this section.

First, there are at least two important points Paul makes prior to this.  One is that in 3:19 Paul explains that the Law was added because of transgressions, which is why even now our secular government adds laws.  In other words, people keep coming up with creative new ways to break the law, so a law has to be made by the legislature to keep people from using the loophole to do what they want.  You've heard of the phrase, "there's no law against it," which means that unless we are told exactly and specifically that something is wrong we feel 'free' to do it.  The second important point to note is that in 3:21 Paul says that the Law is not contrary to the promise of God.  The Promise of the Messiah is a huge part of Paul's gospel and can be found all throughout his writings, and if you have the eyes and ears all throughout the entire Bible too, including the Law.

In the broader context, that of the whole letter, Paul is referring to justification by faith as opposed to justification by earning it. He contrasts the opposing ideas of faith (trusting God and doing what He says) and works (doing something and expecting a wage or reward for doing it).  See also Romans 4:4.

Granted, the Law cannot save (justify) anyone and never has.  That's why Paul says in 3:21 that a law hasn't been given that imparts life.  This is because it was never meant for justification, but for a lifestyle after one is justified.  Given these points, and the ones above, it seems clear that the Law is not bad or eliminated, but misused to gain merit before God.  Paul is dealing with the heart and the motivation for following God, not with the validity of the Law.

A tutor is someone who guards a youngster against his or her own foolishness, until the time he or she thoroughly learns the adult principles (which the tutor teaches) they need to live by.  After a child moves on from the custody of the tutor (becomes an adult), the principles that the tutor taught are still in force.  The difference is that an adult lives by them without having to be forced, while a child has to continue to be forced by the tutor.  In this way the Law functions as both the adult lifestyle and the tutor, because it contains both the principles and the penalties.  When we are small we learn that we shouldn't play with an electrical outlet.  When we are adults we still do not play with an outlet, we just don't have to be smacked for trying.  The principle (of the Law) is still in effect, we just relate to it differently when we reach maturity.

Most youngsters think that being 'grown up' means you can do what you want.  If they are fortunate they learn very soon that the privileges of being an adult also come with heavy responsibilities.  Being 'free' in Christ doesn't mean there are no rules, but it does mean hopefully that the externally imposed principles are now internal, and what once was forced behavior is now natural.  In many ways the followers of our God and Messiah still need the help of the Law as they pursue maturity.  We don't know of a person on the planet who can truly say they are so mature they don't need the Word.  We certainly don't see a bunch of people getting translated like Enoch because they are 'walking with God' perfectly.  How sad it is when people are so arrogant that they think true maturity is the absence of God's Word!

6. Believers are not 'under the OT' but under the 'New Covenant.'

Wrong again.  Usually this statement is used to dismiss the Old Covenant as 'Law.'  But 'Law' is part and parcel of the New Covenant.  If you hear this from someone, just ask them if they know what the New Covenant is and where it is found.  We haven't run across anyone yet that can answer correctly.  The reason they can't answer is that they just use this idea (it's just something they heard) to avoid obedience, and stop short of actually studying the Word and doing the Word.  The New Covenant is found in the Old Testament (the Tanakh) in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord , "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the^ covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I ^took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord.

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This scripture is kind of a drag for people who want to believe they don't have to change their actions.  First, the parties involved are God, Israel, and Judah.  If you'll notice, Gentiles are not mentioned.  Where are they?  Just keep reading and by the time you get to Romans 11 you will figure out that we are grafted in to this covenant.  We do not displace anyone and can in fact be displaced ourselves if we are not careful.  Second, as part of the new covenant God is going to write His Law on our hearts.  Whoops, so much for not under Law, huh?  Third, the 'new' part of the covenant is that everyone will know Him.  Nationally, Israel will obey for once.

7. Paul 'converted' to Christianity and taught that this new religion replaced Judaism.

If Paul converted to some supposed 'new religion' and taught that Judaism had been replaced then he was a hypocrite worse than he accused Peter of being.  A cursory examination of the book of Acts shows Paul observing feasts (20:6,16), and fasts (27:9); making vows (18:18; 21:23-26); observing Sabbath (13:14,42,44, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4); participating in circumcision (16:3) and temple worship (22:17, 24:11,17,18); teaching from the Law and the Prophets (28:23), and keeping the Law (21:24, 22:3, 23:6, 24:14).

To add further consternation to those who insist that Paul converted to a new religion, he teaches traditions to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 11:2), the Galatians (Galatians 1:14), and the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). It seems plain from Galatians 1:14 that he must be teaching them his 'ancestral' traditions, that is, his people's traditions, probably those that held closely to the written Word rather than the word or doctrines of men.

8. The Church Began at Pentecost

Nothing could be further from the truth than this myth.  The word for 'church' (in Greek ekklesia, Hebrew kahall), means a gathering of people or 'congregation.'  Stephen tells us that the gathering of Isra'el at the foot of Mt. Sinai was the 'congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness' (Acts 7:38).  Hebrews 4:2 tells us that this group had the 'good news' (gospel) preached to them also.  There is only one people of God and one method of salvation.  The remnant of God's people has always existed and has such illustrious members as Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Gideon, the Apostles and so on.  All who have ever trusted and obeyed God are a part.  To teach that there is a separate group from this called the 'church' just isn't scriptural.

Did you know that the King James Bible initially was not accepted by Protestants because it had the word 'church' in it (among other things)?  Its origin is uncertain, probably coming from the Latin word 'kirke' meaning circus, but that wasn't the main problem.  The big issue with Protestants was that the use of the word in the KJV translation was seen to be reinforcing the power of the Catholic Church!

9. People don't care how much you know till they know how much you care.

This is more of a logic problem than a scriptural problem, although there isn't any Scripture to back it up either.  It sounds good, at first, until you think about it a little.  This myth first assumes that once a person knows how much you care they will instantly respond in the best way possible to what you know.  Hmm.  The obvious drawback to this myth is that generally people know how much God cares (at least from the message of Christmas or Easter) yet do not respond to Him very well at all.

This myth is so full of B.S. (blame shifting) that it ranks right up there with the statements of Adam and Eve in the Garden (champion blame-shifters if ever there were some.)  The implied thought is that if a person doesn't respond to the truth of what you are saying, then it must be because YOU don't care instead of the listener not caring.  Let's face it, most people know how much God cares.  There's Christmas stories and songs, Easter stories, and if nothing else almost everyone has seen the reference for John 3:16 between the goal posts.  Does knowing how much God cares mean instant repentance for these people?

Another implication of this myth is that people are basically good and loving but just need to know you are too, and once they know this they will listen better.  The attempt at imparting knowledge, or even knowledge itself, is blamed for the lack of listening.  This part of the myth can be seen as obviously false as soon as you try to tell people who have known you for years, AND know how much you care, that you have learned something new from Scripture.  If what you learned is not according to their taste, then the rejection is fast and hard.  Never mind how much you care.

Gee, if this myth was actually truth, then I suppose Jesus wouldn't have been dragged out and crucified, would He?

10. We don't want to educate people beyond their ability to obey.

And the companion statement:

11. The congregants are just not 'mature' enough to chew on meat.

These two are usually dragged out and trotted around whenever a question is asked about the fact that the Word doesn't match up to something a teacher in a congregation is teaching.  Aren't these great shut-down statements?  Sounds like someone is really concerned for the health and welfare of the sheep, doesn't it?  But let's look a little closer.

The first one is seen to be a myth because the Scriptures themselves tell us otherwise.  For instance, as we stated above in the section on 'Can't Do The Law,' Paul tells us that God's kids can do anything.  I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.  (Philippians 4:13 NASB95.)  God says of the laws that they are not beyond our ability in Deuteronomy 30:14ff, and Paul repeats this theme again in Romans 10:8-10.  It's not a matter of education, it's a matter of will (which the Scriptures also speak about frequently).  The problem is never with the Word of God, it is always with people who don't want to receive it.

Which brings us to the second statement.  Usually this statement is intended to stop a person from talking about supposedly 'advanced' concepts from the Word out of concern for the rest of the congregation.  But contemplate it for a moment, and ask yourself, "Why is it that sheep who have been listening to a pastor, usually for years, do not have enough maturity to listen to or understand more of the Word?"  Isn't this a little strange? 

A normal person would think that sheep who have been in a rich pasture and protected from predators for a while would be nice and strong, and able to defend themselves using the very Words they have been taught for so long, wouldn't they?  Does it truly take decades to become mature enough to hear more of the Word?  Or is it that they've been used to having their ears tickled for so long, and have been denied the meat of the Word for so long, that they are weak and malnourished?  If the congregants really aren't that mature, isn't that the fault of the so-called 'shepherd?'

12. Faith is Belief

All myths have some poison in them, but this is a myth that has a particularly virulent form.  The reason is that both terms are misunderstood, so to make them equivalent is impossible unless they are defined according to the Word of God.  In this modern age belief means a mere 'mental agreement' to some principle or other.  This robs faith of it's substance and value.  But Biblical belief or faith includes both mental agreement AND an action resulting from the mental assent.

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.  But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”  John 5:46,47

Biblical belief or faith includes a commitment to action, as well as mental understanding.  Faith is 'trusting obedience,' which encompasses both.  If you were to find yourself standing on some train tracks, and you believed (or had faith) that a train was coming, then your belief (or faith) should cause you to get off the tracks.  If you refused to move, then one would have to assume you did not really believe (have faith).  We trust God (believe) in the same way.  Because we know Him, and we believe His Word to us, it would follow that we would change our actions to accommodate this belief.  If no change in actions were forthcoming, one could reasonably assume that our belief (or faith) was worthless.

But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.  James 1:19 NASB

Faith is only meaningful when it is placed in God.  We can have faith in something else but it will not last, nor will it continue to be effective.

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works;" show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?  James 2:17-20 NASB

13. Right Thinking/Right Doing

Another hugely false Christian myth is sometimes stated obliquely instead of directly.  It is found, for example, in statements such as those frequently heard in defense of a person's Christmas practices, after being informed of, and acknowledging, the paganism in the practices.  "As long as I think about Jesus, it's okay," goes the defense (and the myth).  So, according to this thought, as long as one is thinking of Jesus then it's okay to do whatever one wants.  We are apparently allowed to do wrong as long as we think right.  With this kind of thinking who needs logic?  (Or the Scriptures for that matter).

Does this mean that as long as a guy is thinking of his wife it's okay for him to commit adultery?  Can we justify stealing as long as we tithe part of the money?  Is murder okay as long as we do it 'in His name?'  Let us get this straight.  As long as we 'think right' we don't have to 'do right?'  Where does one draw the line?  This emphasis on right thinking over right doing has been one of the primary causes of the demise of the professing Church (they're dead, they just don't know it yet).  The Scriptures grant no such license to act any way we choose as long as we think right.  As a matter of fact it should be plain that if one is thinking this way, one is definitely not 'thinking right' in the first place.  Our God requires right actions, and takes the time to spell out for us what those right actions are.  Including avoiding pagan practices such as those in Christmas and Easter, even if we are emotionally attached to them.

14. Jews follow the Law.

This is an easy myth to believe, because religious Jewish people frequently really do follow many of the Laws of the Old Testament.  But we have to realize that Jewish people fall into many different classifications, just like non-Jewish people.  For instance, a large number of people who are born Jewish aren't religious (don't believe in God).  So a Jewish person can be Jewish without following the Laws at all.  Of the Jews that we could call religious or followers of God, there are still many different flavors of beliefs such as ultra-orthodox, orthodox, conservative, reformed, and liberal.

In addition to many different belief systems common to Jewish people, a close look at religious practices reveals that much of what religious Jews appear to follow is from rabbis rather than Scripture.  Many religious Jewish practices depend on advice from the rabbi, or are traditions handed down that have a vague relation to the Law but are really not Laws at all.  For instance, orthodox Jewish men will separate themselves from their wives during the time of her cycle for two weeks.  This is not a part of the Law, but is just very loosely based on a rabbinical interpretation of it.  Another example is the small hat worn by the male which is nowhere found in Scripture, or the practice of separating meat and dairy. 

There is a large difference between the Law as read in the Bible and Judaism (or more accurately, Judaisms).  In general, many religious Jews do practice many of the actual Laws (such as refusing to eat pork), but there is also a large amount of extra-biblical or even non-biblical practices involved.

15. Hebrew Thinking is Best.

Some people want you to believe the myth that Hebrew thinking (and the Hebrew language) is better than other ways of thinking or other languages.  In particular, these myth-makers contrast Hebrew thinking with Greek thinking, since that is the other major language in which Scriptures are written, and assert that the Hebrew way of thinking and speaking is best.

There is an actual difference between the way Hebrews think and the way Greeks think, and Greek thinking has in fact influenced much of modern western culture.  However, it is clear from the Scriptures that both ways of thinking would come under the heading of 'man's thinking,' which is not God's thinking.  Hebrew thinking is mentioned this way in some parts of the Word.

8“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9 NASB95)

Sounds like it doesn't matter whether a person has 'Hebrew thinking' or 'Greek thinking,' does it?  Whatever man is thinking, it's obviously not 'God's thinking.'

Besides, having 'Hebrew thinking' didn't keep the Jewish religious leaders from handing over Jesus to be killed, did it?  And did it help them with their behavior toward God?  (Not to read the Scriptures, it didn't.)

Didn't the Hebrews have the tablets written by the finger of God, probably in Hebrew?  Didn't they have the Torah, written by Moses, presumably in a language they could understand?  Didn't they have prophets who spoke and thought in Hebrew?

Hebrew thinking didn't help the Hebrews very much, did it?
 

16. Hebrew or Jewish Roots?

Another strong myth that has gotten a hold of a number of people is the myth of a Hebrew or Jewish 'root' to biblical faith or belief.  The root of Christianity is supposed to be Jewish, according to this myth, and in order for the believer to fully understand the Bible they must understand the 'Jewish root' of their faith.

Hmm.  Sounds like something worth investigating, until one remembers that the root of believers is actually the Messiah, not Jewishness (even though Jesus is a Jew).  Jewishness or Judaism has never been the point and never will be.  Jewish people can accept the Messiah just like Gentiles can, and birth doesn't matter at all.

All things Jewish are not necessarily bad (or good, for that matter).  It is, however, helpful to realize that much of what is taught in the Word is geared around Jewish understanding and practices.  We don't need to reject the baby with the bathwater at all.  We just need to pick and choose what is good from the general human tendency (Jewish or otherwise) to mess up the good things God gives us.

17. Translational Bias Interferes With Understanding

Translational bias means that translators of the Bible had certain ideas that influenced the translations.  In a sense, this is true.  Some translators might've had a bias against, say for instance, Judaism, and so had a tendency to either misunderstand or deliberately translate so as to minimize whatever they didn't like.  But translation bias happens all the time, even when simply reading.  This is because we all have ideas about the Bible before we even start reading.  The believer's growth process in understanding the Word is under continual adjustment because of these preconceived ideas.  So in a sense translational bias does exist and does affect how we see the Word.

So why is this a myth?  Well, the myth part is that somehow God must be lacking in power and knowledge, so He can't make sure we get an uncorrupted text which tells us what He wants us to do.  I guess under this theory God doesn't know enough or have enough power to edit books, or something.  This myth conveniently lets ourselves off the hook for understanding and doing what God asks.

The effects of translational bias (as well as our own biases when attempting to understand) can be softened by first of all reading the entire text.  Other remedies include comparing translation with translation, and comparing Scripture with Scripture.  If the believer applies him or herself to labor in the Word, meaning will become very clear in short order.  Of course, then this means we have to do something about the meaning, which is a rather unpleasant prospect whether translational bias is a factor or not!

18. The New Covenant is the New Testament

Whoopsie.  The people who peddle this myth must not read the Word at all.  Even a little bit.  Try asking and you will find that the average Christian not only doesn't know what the new covenant is, they also don't know where it is.

The New Covenant is mentioned about six times in the New Testament (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25 Paul quoting Jesus in the Luke passage, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8-13, Hebrews 9:15, and Hebrews 12:24), and in each case it is referring to verses in the, um, Old Testament.  The full text of the New Covenant is actually in places such as Jeremiah.  Here it is for your reading pleasure.

31“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34“They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34 NASB95)

Hebrews 8 quotes this passage directly when mentioning the New Covenant, and all the other passages are referencing this section also.

The so-called 'New Testament' is a label put on the writings of the apostles by men.  Nowhere in the New or Old Testaments is this label found.  The naming was done to try and put distance between the believers in Jesus and conventional Judaism (check your history).  It wasn't necessary, and maybe even kind of dumb, but since the Garden people have always been sticking their fingers into places where they shouldn't go in order to help God out.

Oh by the way.  Did you notice that the thrust of the new covenant is that The Law would be written on the heart?