Did God Inspire "Words" or "Thoughts"

[Jim1999]

I prefer the Dynamic Eqivalence theory of inspiration. Great passages of time passed before anything was committed to writing, and the word was passed down from age to age as oral history. This is not to say that accuracy of the word is sacrificed. We have the joint venture of the divine guidance and the human recording.

There are places in scripture where God commanded that some things be written. There are times when God so influenced His people that the thoughts appeared to emminate from themselves......Moses said,,,,,Paul said.....and these became the word of God as if God had dictated the actual words.

The old adage still applies: Where the bible makes common sense, seek no other sense. We must always consider the people speaking, the people addressed, their cultural and historical setting, and then determine the meaning of the message then and now. In this sense, if we lean on every word, I think we miss the boat, and lose the essence of the message of the word.

I am not sure that any one system fits the bill. Just as God employed different means, so ought we to employ all possibilities to derive at the truth.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
I prefer the Dynamic Eqivalence theory of inspiration.
Jim

Look at what errors of DE I found here:

Lamb == seal pup
Fig tree == Banana tree
Blood == death
Snow == coconut
and more!

How would you use DE as above when you are a translator for English Bible versions or foreign Bible versions?

DE twists God's Words, substituting man's thoughts for God's words.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Look at what errors of DE I found here:

Lamb == seal pup
Fig tree == Banana tree
Blood == death
Snow == coconut
and more!

How would you use DE as above when you are a translator for English Bible versions or foreign Bible versions?

DE twists God's Words, substituting man's thoughts for God's words.

Please show us these errors so we can look at them. I already asked you that about one of them and you have not yet done so. Let's put the evidence on the table so we can examine.

You have to realize the DE can be abused as can FE. People make mistakes in translation like translating a word as "strain at" when it should have been translated "strain out" or translating a word "faith" when it should have been "hope." These kinds of mistakes are made. That does not render a particular method or philosophy invalid. It renders a particular verse or passage weak.

 

[Artimaeus]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
in teh words you have the thoughts. There is no difference between them.[/QUOTE]

What thoughts? Thought aren't physical, I can't see them, I can't verify them. I agree that without thoughts the words are meaningless, but you must agree that without words the toughts aren't much either. You make it sound as though the thoughts are independent of the words and that somehow you know the thoughts without the words. If the words do matter then tell me what they were (in English, as best you can).

The purpose of translation is to communicate. If the literal translation does not communicate (as I showed above), it makes no difference what was said. It is not understood.

The purpose of translation is to communicate correctly. Who gets to decide what God's thoughts were? All we know for sure is what He said (and we even argue about that). If He told us to "watch our P's and Q's", who are we to say that that really means for us to be careful in our penmanship. And then have the nerve to say that that is what He said.

He didn't say anything in English, most certainly not 'one i.' What he said was in Aramaic.

Here was a percect opportunity to tell me what He said. You told me what He didn't say "one i", yet, when I looked up "jot" in Strong's I am told...

Strong's 2503. ijw`ta ioµta; of Semitic or.; name of the Gr. letter corresponding to the tenth Heb. letter, yod; iota:— letter(1)

you have people arguing that he was talking about individual letters.

An Individual letter was not the point of the conversation but, an individual letter was the illustration used by Jesus to make his point.

This is a false dichotomy. If I tell you what he said and then I have to explain what he meant, that is a step that was unnecessary in what he said. You have effectively added to it. That is not what translation is for.

The dichotomy is there, acknowledged or not. DE is actually guilty of the same false dichotomy. You have Greek translated into English and then modified to reveal the perceived essence of what was said. THAT is the extra step that changes it from a translation to something other than a translation.

[qbIn the bottom line, a judicious use of DE is what I believe is appropriate. We do not need a wholesale use of it. There is no reason for it. [/qb]

I could wrap myself around this statement and say a rousing "AMEN" with this understanding. FE's do use DE judiciously (rare and only when necessary) KJV, NKJV, NASB, and others. Volumes dedicated to DE do not (NIV and others).

[ July 05, 2003, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Artimaeus ]

 

[neal4christ]

Look at what errors of DE I found here:

Lamb == seal pup
Fig tree == Banana tree
Blood == death
Snow == coconut
and more!

Could you please give the references to where these are found? Thanks!

In Christ,
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

Just a thought. I find it amusing how many are strongly opposed to the NIV and its DE philosophy. I used to be like that. But, upon review, the NIV is nowhere DE extreme as many paint it out to be. Many times, it is just as accurate or more so than some FE translations.

God Bless,
Neal

 

[Jamal5000]

Hi Dr. Griffin,

I believe that God inspired thoughts that were written down as words.

As for FE and DE, I know very little about translation philosophy.

From a layman's (i.e. somebody who pracitically knows nothing about it) point of view, FE translations (like the NASB and KJV) render the original languages for our grammatical studying while the DEs (NIV) render the word for more clarity and focus.

I'll check out the authors and books that other members have suggested so that I can understand more fully the entire debate at hand.

Never really thought about this before.

 

[Jim1999]

Askjo, Read my entire post and you will see my qualifier. If common sense does not prevail, then we miss the boat altogether, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
What thoughts? Thought aren't physical, I can't see them, I can't verify them. I agree that without thoughts the words are meaningless, but you must agree that without words the toughts aren't much either. You make it sound as though the thoughts are independent of the words and that somehow you know the thoughts without the words. If the words do matter then tell me what they were (in English, as best you can).

You have it backwards. I am the one insisting that the thoughts need words and that the words are useless apart from thoughts. You are the one trying to argue that the thoughts can be separated from the words. The bottom line is that the words and the thoughts are inspired. But the words are useless unless we understand what they mean.

The purpose of translation is to communicate correctly. Who gets to decide what God's thoughts were?

God does. And he inspired to author to write them in words that would be understood by those who read them. Therefore, the translator must use words that convey the thoughts into words that we can understand what they mean.

If He told us to "watch our P's and Q's", who are we to say that that really means for us to be careful in our penmanship. And then have the nerve to say that that is what He said.

Becuase that is what "mind our Ps and Qs" means. We have all the authority to say that because that he is what he said. An idiom (like "son of x years") has meaning in a language. If that meaning is not communicated, than the translation is bad.

Here was a percect opportunity to tell me what He said. You told me what He didn't say "one i", yet, when I looked up "jot" in Strong's I am told...

Strong's 2503. ijw`ta ioµta; of Semitic or.; name of the Gr. letter corresponding to the tenth Heb. letter, yod; iota:— letter(1)

But you have missed the point. No matter what Strong's says, Jesus did not say "one I." He didn't say anything in English. Once you translate, you have automatically and necessarily given up the words that he used. That is my point. You have admitted that the words are dispensable for the sake of understanding.

An Individual letter was not the point of the conversation but, an individual letter was the illustration used by Jesus to make his point.

Much in the way that "Mind your Ps and Qs" or "cross your Ts and dot your Is" makes a point, neither of which has to do with actual letters. So you have made my point.

The dichotomy is there, acknowledged or not. DE is actually guilty of the same false dichotomy. You have Greek translated into English and then modified to reveal the perceived essence of what was said. THAT is the extra step that changes it from a translation to something other than a translation.

I hope when I preach in a foreign country (as I have) that the translator translates what I mean. My words that work in English may or may not work in another language. In fact, I have already shown that they do not always work. DE is an absolute necessity.

I could wrap myself around this statement and say a rousing "AMEN" with this understanding. FE's do use DE judiciously (rare and only when necessary) KJV, NKJV, NASB, and others. Volumes dedicated to DE do not (NIV and others).

Wrong. The NIV is a good example (for the most part) of good translation. Like every version there are problems. But by and large, they have done a very good job, particularly in the OT.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
Look at what errors of DE I found here:

Lamb == seal pup
Fig tree == Banana tree
Blood == death
Snow == coconut
and more!

Please show us these errors so we can look at them. I already asked you that about one of them and you have not yet done so. Let's put the evidence on the table so we can examine.
</font>[/QUOTE]Lamb == seal pup - (Wycliffe translation in Eskimo)
Fig tree == Banana tree (Wycliffe translation)
Blood == death (TEV)
Snow == coconut (United Bible Societies translation)

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Jamal5000:
I believe that God inspired thoughts that were written down as words.

The inspiration refers to the Scriptures, not thoughts because the Scriptures refer to "written down" words.

 

[Jim1999]

If the words were written down years after oral tradition had been passed along, who can assure the words are the same?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Lamb == seal pup - (Wycliffe translation in Eskimo)
Fig tree == Banana tree (Wycliffe translation)
Blood == death (TEV)
Snow == coconut (United Bible Societies translation)

This doesn't mean anything at all. You have given us no verses to check and see if you are telling the truth. Quite honestly, I don't trust you. You have shown a willingness to be loose with the facts before and there is no reason to believe anything different this time. Give us the verses so we can check this out and quit playing these little games.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jamal5000:
I believe that God inspired thoughts that were written down as words.

The inspiration refers to the Scriptures, not thoughts because the Scriptures refer to "written down" words. </font>[/QUOTE]You just aren't listening here are you????? I have said time and time again that those words mean nothing without the thoughts. To make a dichotomy between thoughts and words is simply unworkable. Without one, you do not have the other. The words serve one purpose: To communicate to us the mind (thoughts) of God.

 

[Haruo]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
IF God gave "xyz" words to Paul or Moses et al, wouldn't the most accurate translation of the words into a receptor language be to find exactly the same words?

I don't "think" abstractly, I "think" in words. That is probably why I am attracted to the Formal Equivalence position.

Does anyone NOT "think" in words?

Be that as it may, anyone who is thoroughly fluent in two languages frequently finds, in looking at their own speech, that the words they would use in language A to convey a particular thing in a particular context are not formally equivalent to the words they would use in language B in the same situation (or as near the same situation as the difference in linguistic milieux would allow).

Haruo

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
Lamb == seal pup - (Wycliffe translation in Eskimo)
Fig tree == Banana tree (Wycliffe translation)
Blood == death (TEV)
Snow == coconut (United Bible Societies translation)

This doesn't mean anything at all. You have given us no verses to check and see if you are telling the truth. Quite honestly, I don't trust you. You have shown a willingness to be loose with the facts before and there is no reason to believe anything different this time. Give us the verses so we can check this out and quit playing these little games. </font>[/QUOTE]Romans 3:25, Isaiah 1:18 and others are what you look for.

 

[Haruo]

DE twisted God's words such as Romans 3:25 in the KJV "blood" == TEV "death",

If you mean the same version that is sometimes called the "Good News Translation", then according to Crosswalk.com it reads

God offered him, so that by his blood F4 he should become the means by which people's sins are forgiven through their faith in him. … …

where "F4" is a footnote reference, the note in question reading "F4: by his blood; [or] by his sacrificial death."

Haruo

 

[Artimaeus]

Pastor Larry, let me try this again, from a different angle, with a different verse.

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.” NASB

John 19:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. KJV

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world is gone after him!" NIV

Look up "you are not doing any good", in the Greek.
and you will find that "ye prevail nothing", is saying the same thing, although with different synonyms and a little different style. Now look at "this is getting us nowhere". It is a completely different phrase. "nowhere" isn't even hinted at in the Greek (neither is "us"). They could have said, "This is a complete waste of time", or, "We are just beating our heads against a brick wall", or any other phrase which might have communicated, in essence, the same thought. The point of the discussion is, "Did God inspire the words?". The FE's tried to tell me what the Parasees actually said (not perfectly, but I am confident that they were doing their best). The DE's change (on purpose) what was actually said into what they think it meant, even when it is unnecessary, as in this case. As I have said before, it is not a big deal, when we are only talking about a few instances and it is a matter of opinion about a specific word here or there. The actual words used in the original languages are significant and every effor should be made to convey those into English. BTW the word "whole" isn't in the Greek either and is totally unnecessary.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Romans 3:25

I already addressed this although I can't find any translation that does what you say it does. If someone translated the word for blood as death, it is a bad translation of that verse. However, it appears that you are not telling the truth since I can't find it and I have access to all the major versions. If you are telling the truth, then tell us which version you are talking about here.

Isaiah 1:18

There is no version that I can find that reads anything but snow here. Again, your unwillingness to support these wild assertions leads us to doubt your credibility. Put the facts on the table and quit playing these little games.

and others are what you look for.

And other what?? I am just to take your word for it?? We have already established that you are loose with the facts on this matter. Do not just give us "others." Tell us what the "others" are so that we can check them out.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
John 12:19

Let's have a look ...

theoreite oti ouk opheleite ouden

The translation of opheleite is what is under consideration. The word means to gain, profit, achieve, help, benefit, aid, be useful.

First an idea of "prevailing" is noticeably absent here though one might shoe horn it in. However, if you shoehorn "prevail" in, you will have a hard time keeping "getting us nowhere out." You can't have it both ways.

"nowhere" isn't even hinted at in the Greek ).

Actually it is the word ouden, a negative that takes a wide variety of meanings such as nothing, nowhere, noone, neither, etc. The idea is certainly there.

The point of the discussion is, "Did God inspire the words?".

Yes. He inspired the Greek words.

[qutoe]The FE's tried to tell me what the Parasees actually said (not perfectly, but I am confident that they were doing their best). [/quote]Not really because the Pharisees spoke in Aramaic, which Matthew wrote in Greek which is translated in Englihs. So at best, you have what the Pharisees said twice removed. Plus, what we have is the ipssissima vox, not the ipssissima verba.

As I have said before, it is not a big deal, when we are only talking about a few instances and it is a matter of opinion about a specific word here or there.

I agree that it is not a big deal and it is largely a matter of opinion. But some sure get uptight about it.

[qutoe]The actual words used in the original languages are significant and every effor should be made to convey those into English.[/QUOTE]But again, I would argue that the words are significant only because of the meaning they convey. Apart from that meaning, the words are useless. The words that we use in English should reflect the idea and meaning of those used in the Greek. Quite often a FE translation does not do that.

John 12:19 in the NIV is not the way I would have done it. But it is not inaccurate. There is no perfect translation.