1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Reader Response vs. Authorial Intent

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, May 7, 2020.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 4
  1. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The author of a Pop song has many reasons to mislead the public as to their intent.
    One song I enjoyed as a youth was “Brand New Key” by Maloney
    Clearly it relates to young sexually (although I didn’t interpret it as such when I was younger). The author denies any connotation of sexuality. If it was admitted it never would have made it past the censors, radio playtime would end and there would be no royalties. To continue the ruse in later years only adds to the songs longevity.

    There is a balance in every translation. If translators do not consider the reader they might fail to communicate the proper message.

    Rob
     
    #21 Deacon, May 7, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Communicating the "proper message" might be in the eye of the beholder. There are those that claim begotten means not begotten, glorified means not yet glorified, saved through faith actually means born anew (regenerated) then given faith. There is no limit for those who fix scripture.
     
    #22 Van, May 7, 2020
  3. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,760
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
    Article VI
    We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
    We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

    Article VII
    We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
    We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

    Article VIII
    We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
    We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
     
    #23 Deacon, May 8, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  4. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7,953
    Likes Received:
    708
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't think "original" speaker or audience understanding is trustworthy. An example would be Elijah showing up as John the Baptist. Or the Kingdom of God showing up as spiritual in the times of the Roman Empire instead of Physical as most expected. So I don't draw too many conclusions on the OT until I gather what the NT says first.
     
    #24 1689Dave, May 8, 2020
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,638
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good points.

    But I have to say that "Puff..." was not a rock song. Peter, Paul and Mary were part of the folk movement of the 1960's (though they sometimes did rock, too), and this song in particular had none of the characteristics of rock: syncopation, heavy bass, drums, undue repetition, etc. The Beatles, though, that's another story.... :Cool He could have used a better example there.
     
    #25 John of Japan, May 8, 2020
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,638
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't think you are understanding authorial intent. Do you disagree that God had an original intent when inspiring the passages you have mentioned?
     
    #26 John of Japan, May 8, 2020
  7. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7,953
    Likes Received:
    708
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes but often misunderstood. The NT interpreted the original for us. God even said he spoke to Moses directly but to the other prophets in less discernable terms.
     
    #27 1689Dave, May 8, 2020
  8. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,638
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good point. I remember Peter, Paul & Mary's other song, "I Dig Rock and Roll Music" where they say, "But if I really say it, the radio won't play it, unless I lay it between the lines." But I do think "Puff..." is an example of authorial intent being innocent.

    Well, yes. I teach my students that their translation must be understandable. However, "reader response" goes beyond this. The main point here is, are we making the original author the authority, or are we making the modern reader the authority? Sometimes the reader (of any era) is not going to be able to understand clear Scripture, even when translated well, because it is spiritual, and they are not heeding the Holy Spirit.
     
    #28 John of Japan, May 8, 2020
  9. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,638
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The point of authorial intent is not, is it understandable in modern terms? But, what did the original divine/human authors intend us to know?
     
    #29 John of Japan, May 8, 2020
  10. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7,953
    Likes Received:
    708
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They themselves did not know for the most part. The did not know they were speaking in symbols until Jesus reinterpreted their claims. Only the born again like Abraham realized the land promises symbolized Heaven. The carnal minded understood them as written.
     
    #30 1689Dave, May 8, 2020
  11. MartyF

    MartyF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2018
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    194
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What is your definition of neo-orthodox? Please expand on the definition fully.

     
    #31 MartyF, May 8, 2020
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  12. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,638
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Good question. Neo-orthodoxy is the theological adaptation of the secular philosophy of existentialism. This philosophy teaches that personal experiences are what are important rather than epistemology. What counts to the individual is, am I living authentically (in Heidegger's term)? In Bible translation, Nida's "reader response" theory is the practical outworking of his neo-orthodoxy. (This is not my idea, it is what he himself said. See the quotes in the OP.) To the neo-orthodox believer, the Bible is not the Word of God, but becomes the Word of God as it is experienced.

    I like what Francis Schaeffer said about it, which applies here: "The heart of neo-orthodox existential theology is that the Bible gives us a quarry out of which to have religious experience, but that the Bible contains mistakes where it touches that which is verifiable--namely history and science. But unhappily we must say that in some circles this concept now has come into some of that which is called evangelicalism" (The Great Evangelical Disaster, by Francis Schaeffer, p. 49).

    Again, Erickson wrote, "In the neo-orthodox view, since there are no revealed truths, only truths of revelation, how one person interprets an encounter with God may be different from another person's understanding. Indeed, even the interpretations given to events by the authors of Scripture were not divinely inspired. What they wrote was merely their own attempt to give some accounting of what they had experienced" (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed,m 222).

    Added in another Nida quote:
    “Neo-orthodox theology has given a new perspective to the doctrine of divine inspiration. For the most part, it conceives of inspiration primarily in terms of the response of the receptor, and places less emphasis on what happened to the source at the time of writing.”
    Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964), 27
     
    #32 John of Japan, May 8, 2020
    Last edited: May 8, 2020
  13. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,638
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I assume you mean the human writers of Scripture did not know "for the most part." (I certainly wouldn't put it that way.) But surely you will admit that the divine Author knew what He meant. Thus, authorial intent in Scripture is based on verbal inspiration.

    And by the way, surely you are not saying that the writers of Scripture were not all saved, are you?
     
    #33 John of Japan, May 8, 2020
  14. 1689Dave

    1689Dave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2018
    Messages:
    7,953
    Likes Received:
    708
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course, God knows what he meant. Jesus explained it to them.
     
    #34 1689Dave, May 8, 2020
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why wouldn't God breath the scriptures to each individual word written?
     
    #35 Yeshua1, May 8, 2020
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He did the same thing in each word being inspired...
     
    #36 Yeshua1, May 8, 2020
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This part about symbolic at first and then Jesus had to clarify seems strange wording to me!
     
    #37 Yeshua1, May 8, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Except that you are asserting here your own problems with those issues!
     
    #38 Yeshua1, May 8, 2020
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So those who read and heard the OT had no way of understanding it until coming of Jesus?
     
    #39 Yeshua1, May 8, 2020
  20. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,745
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Once again, the denier of scripture tries to shift the blame., just as the Obama Justice Department spokespersons try to shift the blame to the Trump Justice Department. There is no limit when folks become untethered from truth.

    Begotten does not mean "not begotten."

    Glorified does not mean not yet glorified.

    Saved through faith means our faith, if credited by God, provides our access to the grace of salvation.

    Y1 teaches the reciprocal message, which is bogus.
     
    #40 Van, May 8, 2020
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 4
Loading...