Are Parts of Paul's Writing "Uninspired"?

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
Great. Well, if part of the Bible isn't true, why should I believe that any of it is? [/QB]

As Baptist Believer said, the translators are not inspired - Paul was.

Let's say that I wrote you a letter tomorrow. Another person tries to translate it into Yiddish. Unfortunately, some English words may be a little difficult to translate. For example, I write "Let's hang out sometime" and it comes out fater being translated "Let's commit suicide together." Kind of a silly (or morbid) example, but the fault wouldn't be in the original author, but in the translator.

In the same way, there are many different ways to translate the Bible. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of langauges that people translate the BIble to, all from the original Greek. I do believe that they do the best that they can. Sometimes, though, they mess up. After all, we're ALL human. I believe that the translation of "diakonos" as "servant" does not do justice to the intent of Paul when he wrote the book of Romans due to the plain meaning of the Greek word.

 

[Bro. Jeff]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The simplest answer is being overlooked here. When Paul said "This is what I say, not the Lord," he means that he is not quoting the Christ from his earthly ministry. He is operating under direct revelation. When he says "This is what the Lord says," he is repeating something that Christ said during his earthly ministry. Some of you guys will go to great lengths to get around simple things, it seems to me.

Absolutely. It's clear from the text that he isn't citing a clear teaching by the Lord but is rather giving instruction from what the Holy Spirit within him is saying to the church.

Any other interpretation stretches the context and is more isegesis than ex.