Featured Translating OT from Septuagint

Oh...you are wrong there. I very much understand textual studies (I have studied textual criticism, biblical exegesis, and koine Greek at a graduate level).

What it seems is that you do not understand what Scripture means by "inspiration". That is unfortunate, but not unexpected. Biblical literacy has been on the decline in our nation for some time now.

 

Kinda. At the same time we have to realize that there are occasions where the NT quotes from the LXX (and where the LXX differs form the Hebrew text). The interesting part is what we do with the text then? Is the translated Hebrew now inspired by virtue of NT inspiration?

The ultimate issue, however, is with the term "inspiration". That is what I was hoping @SavedByGrace would pick up on in our arguments. Are we to approach "inspiration" as God dictating to a human secretary, or is "inspiration" perhaps more related to a narrative (word choices sometimes being a reflection of the human author)?

I suppose it goes back to how one believes Scripture to be "God breathed". If it means "dictated" then I would agree that there are problems and we can absolutely not trust any copy of Scripture to be inspired or without error (infallible, perhaps, but not inspired). But if it "inspired" refers to ideas and truths communicated by God then even modern translations are inspired - not that the translated words are inspired but that divine inspiration transcends translation methods and word choices based on the nature of what is being communicated.

 

Yes. Just like you said I was wrong I say you are wrong.

That is what I was trying to get at - not an insult context but discussing how each of us differ in our understanding of what it means that Scripture is inspired.

We do not even have to stop at the LXX going back. Language develops over time. Was the Genesis account read in the 5th Century BC inspired given that it was most likely not the exact words first recorded? What if Genesis was first handed down orally? Does that make it uninspired?

I believe that "inspiration" goes to what is "God breathed" or what "comes from God" in terms of what God intends to communicate to man.

Textual Criticism is a bit different and applies to any ancient text. I remember reading the Ephesian Tale. I somehow ended up with a translation from the 1960's which would have been OK except they kept using 60's slang....which was for me a distraction. While it really did not alter what Xenophon was communicating (at least superficially) I do not think it would stand up to any type of textual criticism.

 

I disagree. I have heard the claim but there are too many phrases in the Greek that are word for word LXX (and that differ from the Hebrew). We can chalk it up to coincidence, I suppose, but I would question the practice. And it does not matter as even the Hebrew was different from what was originally recorded (one of the strengths being that the "errors" were carried over....not, I think, unnoticed).

 

I think we ultimately have to decide if we have God's Word or not. If the only divinely inspired Word of God is the originals then we do not have God's Word. Not only do we not have the original Hebrew, but we only have a human authored New Testament. We do not really know as a fact that Christ rose from the grave. MLK could be right - that part was just later disciple's interpretation of what they observed and an attempt to communicate the truths of Christ did not perish with the man.

But if we do have God's Word then we have a standard for our faith because we have what God intended to communicate to His People.

 

I am not familiar with their erroneous human KJV-only reasoning/ teaching, but I doubt it because of the "erroneous" part.

 

No, it shows your lack of understanding regarding divine inspiration.

Are you familiar with how (historically) people have differed in their view of Scripture as "the Word of God"? If so then you may want to revisit your assessment.

 

Yes, I have. The way the NT "quotes" the OT is one support of my view of divine inspiration and the Word of God. What you have to consider is if the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is a translation of the Bible. I contend that it is not.

Your reasoning is extraordinarily flawed for one who otherwise seems a logical fella. Since you believe that the Bible is a combination of infallible truths and human ramblings, void of divine inspiration, do you advocate removing the Bible from churches?

 

Don't worry about it. I don't think too many noticed you were talking foolishly.

But they have noticed that you evaded the question.

 

So I take it you can't answer the question. That's fine. It is often an issue that arises when Christians reject divine inspiration.

For the record (and for clarification) I am NOT taking a Barthian position here. But I am saying that what God intended to communicate to man is, IMHO, communicated through various translations of Scripture and that we therefore have an inspired Bible (whether we rely on a Greek text, a KJV, or a NASB). Part of this does imply that I do not believe God intended to communicate as if He were a Lawyer dictating to a scribe but rather as a Father instructing His children. The difference is (or should be) plain in what is actually communicated.

And to be fair, my view may be a little towards Barthian theology than the legalistic position some may take. While I do not believe that Scripture becomes the Word of God, I do believe that the Word of God is essentially communicated though the words of Scripture.