The history that was recorded down to us by the original inspired authors would have always been accurate and correct, so the problem must be than, if any mistake, in the copy made for that passage that is being used in the source texts for the translation.
-
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!
Miscellaneous translation notes.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
That is what I stated, that any historical mistakes would be duet o mistake made in the source texts used for the translation!
37818
Well-Known Member
Ok, then what Stephen spoke was not inerrant.
Maybe not meant to be seen as a literal reconstruction of Jewish hitory until time of Christ, maybe more as a highlight reel leading to the coming of Christ!
Scripture faithfully records lies from Satan. Why could it not do the same for Stephen's possible mistake in recounting history?
When the three friends of Job spoke to him, disagreeing with him, were their homilies inerrant? No, but they were written through inspiration and the content was recorded inerrantly. But God did not mean us to live by their faulty doctrines. To go even further, what Job himself said was sometimes mistaken, but was recorded by inspiration of God, and inerrantly portrayed in Scripture.
Likewise, what Stephen said was recorded by inspiration of God and recorded inerrantly. God never guaranteed to Stephen that what Stephen would not make errors of history. (But of course we can live by what he preached because he preached Christ and Him crucified.) However, when the Bible does record history (as in Acts), that history is inerrant, since it is given as fact and not as the record of someone's sermon.
And again, we are not allowed to change Greek grammar by using English grammar, and we are not allowed to rearrange Greek grammar to fit our presupposition of inerrancy. I believe and stand for an inerrant Bible, but I have to take it as it is, difficulties and all.
Do we have the actually words that Jesus and the Apostles spoke recorded down to us in Acts, or more like the gist of what they said, like a summary statement?
If they spoke in Greek, I believe they were exact words. If they spoke in Aramaic, as Jesus probably did, the Greek words were faithful translations.
37818
Well-Known Member
Truthful record will report truthfully, but may not include every detail or exact quotes. This is through out the New Testament record. I wrongly presumed Stephen inerrantly stated the history. What we got is an truthful report what Stephen spoke, his mistakes and all. John Rice in his commentary on Acts makes mention of this, but does not point out the specifics of Stephen's misstatements.
What I observed is the translation of the Greek para as "of" in the genitive case is little different than if that word was not there. The translation placement of the word "of" could still be placed without the word para being in the text. Since the part of speech in the Greek for para is according the the grammar which follows para in the text. I had not grasp this. Though it is conceivable the hears still understood correctly in spite of Stephen's apparent misstatement at that point.
What I observed is the translation of the Greek para as "of" in the genitive case is little different than if that word was not there. The translation placement of the word "of" could still be placed without the word para being in the text. Since the part of speech in the Greek for para is according the the grammar which follows para in the text. I had not grasp this. Though it is conceivable the hears still understood correctly in spite of Stephen's apparent misstatement at that point.
Last edited:
Isn't there also the truth that per the custom of recording down events of that culture and times, thsat they were able to write down more of a paraphrase of what happened, or re oder around the time/order of the event, and still be considered accurate?
That may be true, but I don't know.
I was thinking like how the Gospel; writers would rearrange their materials in order to prove a point regarding jesus as Messiah.
If you are talking about Q, I don't buy it. Some kind of oral tradition, maybe. But in the end, it's "given by inspiration."
I agree with that!
37818
Well-Known Member
Plural translated as a singular, ". . . And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. . . . ." -- Isaiah 53:9. ". . . in his deaths . . ." Jesus on the cross suffered two deaths, first of His soul, which He finished prior to His physical death (Isaiah 53:12; John 19:28-30).
A singular translated as a plural, ". . . Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. . . ." -- 1 Peter 2:24. ". . . by whose stripe ye are healed . . ." Isaiah 53:5, has ". . . with his stripes we are healed. . . ." The plural.
A singular translated as a plural, ". . . Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. . . ." -- 1 Peter 2:24. ". . . by whose stripe ye are healed . . ." Isaiah 53:5, has ". . . with his stripes we are healed. . . ." The plural.
Lets see:
1) What is the best English translation of anothen? The word seems to have 3 meanings, above or top, from the first or from the beginning and (3) again or anew. At John 3:3, I think "anew" best fits the context. To be born again suggests to be born in the same way, whereas anew opens the door to a different birth, one we have not experienced.
2) I have no position on the difficulty, someone bought the location and the bones were buried somewhere. The difficulty is useful in discussions concerning on whether an errant view can be recorded by someone presenting accurate and trustworthy inspired information.
3) I looked at Biblehub and nearly all English translation have wounds, or stripes, or scars, plural. One version had the singular and the Majority Text appears to be singular. The Critical Text also appears to be singular, so someone else must explain why I see plural in the NASB, at 1 Peter 2:24. I fear the ever helpful translators might have "fixed" the translation to better match Isaiah 53:5.
1) What is the best English translation of anothen? The word seems to have 3 meanings, above or top, from the first or from the beginning and (3) again or anew. At John 3:3, I think "anew" best fits the context. To be born again suggests to be born in the same way, whereas anew opens the door to a different birth, one we have not experienced.
2) I have no position on the difficulty, someone bought the location and the bones were buried somewhere. The difficulty is useful in discussions concerning on whether an errant view can be recorded by someone presenting accurate and trustworthy inspired information.
3) I looked at Biblehub and nearly all English translation have wounds, or stripes, or scars, plural. One version had the singular and the Majority Text appears to be singular. The Critical Text also appears to be singular, so someone else must explain why I see plural in the NASB, at 1 Peter 2:24. I fear the ever helpful translators might have "fixed" the translation to better match Isaiah 53:5.
LOL. Check out this howler from John Calvin where he "re oders" the Bible's chronology:
Bible (Genesis 29:11-12)
11. And Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up his voice, and wept.
12. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebekah’s son: and she ran and told her father.
Calvin (Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis)
"The order of events, however, is inverted in the narration of Moses; for Jacob did not kiss Rachel till he had informed her that he was her relative."