Archie the Preacher
Member
So is the NET Bible I read reliable or not? Does the text therein afford me the actual message God intended for me to read-hear-understand?
-
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!
What Does "Inspired" Mean, Relative to the Bible?
- Thread starter Archie the Preacher
- Start date
- Status
Two points and then I'm gone.
1. There are two types of miracles. Miracles of the first order are miracles of creation. When Jesus healed the lame man he created bone and muscle tissue that gave the man the ability to take up his bad and walk. Or, as mentioned above, both bread and fish were created to be sufficient to feed the 5000.
The second type of miracle is when God bends the laws of probability so out of shape that what is just barely possible, but highly improbable, comes to pass.
2. Back to the OP. Time for the definitive answer.
The following are the positions our spiritual forbears held on the doctrine of inspiration upon which we have built.
Inspiration is defined as that work of the Holy Spirit of God upon the minds, souls, and bodies of the Scripture writers which makes their writings the record of a progressive divine revelation. When God determined to give to His creation the Self-revelation that we today call the Bible, He selected the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament, and through the agency of His indwelling Holy Spirit so over came the sin nature of these men that the words which He selected from the reservoir of the culture, education, experience, and personality of the man were His chosen words, and no others. This process of inspiration was two fold: Verbal, the very words that God selected were the very words that best revealed the mind and will of God to His creation. Thus, every word so inspired was in fact, the Word of God. Plenary, the collection of words that we call the Bible is, in its whole, the complete Word of God, without error of fact or contradiction. The entire Bible, regardless of subject matter, is the infallible, unfailing, Revelation of God.
Now let's look at some of the various theories of inspiration that have been common in historic Christendom.
The Intuition or Natural Theory is held by the typical Modernist today, who believes that inspiration is merely a higher development of that natural insight into truth which all men posses to some degree. In other words, the Bible is merely a book by men with highly religious motivation, and is similar to a book about science written by men with highly scientific motivation. This theory, holding as it does that natural insight is the only source of religious truth, involves a serious self-contradiction; if the theory is true, then one man is inspired to utter that which another man is inspired to condemn. The Koran and the Bible cannot both be inspired Truth, as they contradict each other. This theory reduces moral and religious truth to the subjective - a matter of private opinion - having no objective reality apart from the opinions of men.
The Illumination or Mystical Theory regards inspiration as merely an intensifying and elevating of the religious perceptions of the believer, the same in kind, though greater in degree, as the illumination of every believer by the Holy Spirit. This position holds that the Bible is not the Word of God, but only contains the Word of God, and that not the writings, but only the writers were inspired. Of course, we must admit that there is an illumination of the mind of the believer by the Holy Spirit as we look into the Word of God, but this illumination only allows us to understand that which has already been written, and cannot impart new truth.
The Dictation or Mechanical Theory holds that inspiration consisted in such a possession of the minds and bodies of the Scripture writers by the Holy Spirit, that they became passive instruments, not participating in any way in the process of inspiration. This theory fails to explain the medical terms used by Luke, the military and sporting terms used by Paul, and the distinct differences between the books written by the various Old and New Testament writers. Of course, we must grant that there are instances when God's communications to mankind were in an audible voice, and took the form of spoken words, and that sometimes God commanded men to commit these words to writing for the edification of all men. However, the Dictation Theory would force this occasional event upon all of Scripture, quite apart from the evidence to the contrary.
The Dynamic or Conceptual Theory states that inspiration is not simply a natural, but also a supernatural fact, and that it is the immediate work of a personal God in the soul of man. This theory holds that the Scriptures contain a human as well as a divine element, so that while they present a body of divinely revealed truth, this truth is shaped in human molds and adapted to ordinary human intelligence, and is thus conceptual (the idea, or thought, or concept is inspired) rather than verbal (the very words are inspired) in its view of inspiration. This is the view held by many fundamentalists and evangeliclas today, and is the basis for the proliferation of the many English language translations of the Scriptures now on the market, each one trying to put into different words the inspired thought, or idea, or concept of the original, while glossing over or even ignoring the words inspired by God.
The Verbal and Formal Inspiration position believes that first of all the Holy Spirit worked in the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament in such a way that the very words of God were selected from the vocabulary of the man, taking into account his culture, education, and experience, and that not only the very words, but also the forms of the words, such as noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, singular, plural, etc., were written at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. This view is, in my opinion, the only one that can give us a completely inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved Bible, as well as account for such statements as Paul saying that the very form of a word was inspired by God for a specific purpose as in Galatians 3:16, and Christ saying in Matthew 5:18 that not only was each word inspired, but every letter of every word was inspired. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the perfect mirror of the Lord Jesus Christ, which reflects Him and leads us to Him. Authority resides in the Scriptures just as it does in Him. Just as all authority is given to Christ (Matthew 28:18), the living Word, all authority is bound up in the Scriptures, the reflection of Him, the written Word of God.
Inspiration applies to the original manuscripts, or autographa.
Preservation applies to the copies of the autographa called apographs or apographa and to the copies of those copies wherein the inspired nature of those words was preserved.
Translation applies to the versions translated into a receptor language that translates the preserved examples of the inspired words of the original manuscripts.
Orthodoxy. Try it. You may like it.
Which view do you agree with?
hebrews states to us thatits by FAITH we know God created the Universe, and that Jesus was resurrected, so ther are things God does that NO amount of science will fully explain how was done!
yes, but would also recommend using amore formal translation such as the Nasb/Kjv/Nkjv also!
Archie the Preacher
Member
What do you mean by 'more formal'? What makes the ones you mention 'more formal' than the NET Bible?Yeshua1 said:
net more of a dynamic translation then those I mentioned!
Archie the Preacher
Member
Different questions, Yeshua
These are two different questions, but linked in some ways. God certainly explains the 'why' we are here part. I am also curious - and not me alone - about the 'how' we are here question. Simply saying 'God did it' is rather easy, but not very useful.
Yes, God Created the Universe. The Bible does not expand much on the mechanism or technique of such Creation.Yeshua1 said:
These are two different questions, but linked in some ways. God certainly explains the 'why' we are here part. I am also curious - and not me alone - about the 'how' we are here question. Simply saying 'God did it' is rather easy, but not very useful.
Absolute bunk TC. Name any translation where the translators say they do not hold to the verbal plenary doctrine of inspiration.
Your favorite Bible translations try "to put into different words the inspired thought,or idea,or concept of the original." Your favorite versions do not gloss over or ignore the words inspired by God --and neither do the versions that are not on your favored list.
Since translation involves a transfer from one language to another --certainly different words are going to be used. LOL! But there is no standardized list of absolutely sanctified words that are set in stone with alternatives being less than desirable.
All versions use English glosses --which has nothing to do with glossing over anything.
It is particularly galling for you to say that versions other than your favs "ignore the words inspired by God."
Within your post you stated some true things --but the untrue items negated the value of the false.
God performs miracles, like the bread and fish in Matthew that to us defy that laws of nature. Raising Lazarus from the dead. Turning the water into wine. These events, including the Events about the sun in Isaiah happened. Someone misinterpreting doesn't make an event not happen.
We are imperfect people. People always misunderstand Scripture. That's not God's fault. If God only wrote words that wouldn't be misunderstood by anyone, He wouldn't have written anything.
he just was misinterpreting the Bible. It's that simple.
I saw this after posting. guess we were thinking a like.
I have no problems with either the Dynamic or Conceptual Theory or the Verbal and Formal Inspiration theory. I too prefer a more formal translation methodology but sometimes it is necessary to be more dynamic or conceptual in order to make sense in the receptor language.
Archie the Preacher
Member
Sorry Yesh ...
I wasn't ignoring you, I just missed this post.
I wasn't ignoring you, I just missed this post.
By more 'formal', you mean a closer 'word for word' translation - not how the English language is arranged. Is that correct?Yeshua said:
Archie the Preacher
Member
JBH, you still avoided the real question
The problem is the original text of Isaiah in Hebrew - prior to any translation - records that the Sun moved backwards. That is exactly what the text says. But you ignore it, pretend it isn't there and instead say people made mistakes. For instance
Then - at some point after the Galileo grand error - Christianity decided the Earth orbited the Sun. So why did Christianity change from the literal reading of Isaiah 38 to assuming the facts as we know them? Are you afraid to address that? Are you afraid the Lord can't keep up? (He can, relax.)
However, there are several very serious consequences of actually looking and seeing and attempting to find out why it was done that way. Which is quite scary to any number of modern Christians.
No one said it didn't happen. At least I didn't say such a thing - if you had paid attention to the post, you'd have known that already.jbh28 said:
The problem is the original text of Isaiah in Hebrew - prior to any translation - records that the Sun moved backwards. That is exactly what the text says. But you ignore it, pretend it isn't there and instead say people made mistakes. For instance
But in this case - Isaiah 38 - they did not misunderstand, did they? Why are you so afraid of actually looking at it and seeing what it says?jbh28 said:
Then - at some point after the Galileo grand error - Christianity decided the Earth orbited the Sun. So why did Christianity change from the literal reading of Isaiah 38 to assuming the facts as we know them? Are you afraid to address that? Are you afraid the Lord can't keep up? (He can, relax.)
However, there are several very serious consequences of actually looking and seeing and attempting to find out why it was done that way. Which is quite scary to any number of modern Christians.
No. A formal translation is one that maintains the grammatical form of the Greek word when it is translated into English. A singular in the original remains a singular in the receptor language. A noun remains a noun. A pronoun remains a pronoun. Etc.
Archie the Preacher
Member
Mr Cassidy, nice to see you again.
I find the 'dynamic' theory quite acceptable - as you may have gathered. It can - if the translator isn't being very careful and prayerful - lead to some 'liberties' in wording. (The Cotton Patch version comes to mind. The CPV was a special purpose, 'niche' Bible and I like it!) However, presuming a translator working honorably with God's leading will not change anything of import. By that I mean of doctrinal or theological meaning.
The 'formal' theory can be deceptive at times. For instance, the Hebrew phrase "... forty days and forty nights..." has caused some consternation in English which need not arise. (And the bit about Adam 'knew' his wife Eve gave me some pause as a child. I was pretty sure shaking hands didn't cause pregnancy, but I wondered for a while.)
I even find the 'Living Bible' to be true to the intent and quite useful. (When they were twenty-five cents a copy they were quite useful indeed!) That Bible is of course a 'paraphrase'. Horrors! (I knew a couple gentlemen a number of years ago who would hardly say 'paraphrase' out loud. I found that humorous in some regards.)
All in all, God Almighty takes care of His Word. He makes it work in spite of human error.
I find the 'dynamic' theory quite acceptable - as you may have gathered. It can - if the translator isn't being very careful and prayerful - lead to some 'liberties' in wording. (The Cotton Patch version comes to mind. The CPV was a special purpose, 'niche' Bible and I like it!) However, presuming a translator working honorably with God's leading will not change anything of import. By that I mean of doctrinal or theological meaning.
The 'formal' theory can be deceptive at times. For instance, the Hebrew phrase "... forty days and forty nights..." has caused some consternation in English which need not arise. (And the bit about Adam 'knew' his wife Eve gave me some pause as a child. I was pretty sure shaking hands didn't cause pregnancy, but I wondered for a while.)
I even find the 'Living Bible' to be true to the intent and quite useful. (When they were twenty-five cents a copy they were quite useful indeed!) That Bible is of course a 'paraphrase'. Horrors! (I knew a couple gentlemen a number of years ago who would hardly say 'paraphrase' out loud. I found that humorous in some regards.)
All in all, God Almighty takes care of His Word. He makes it work in spite of human error.
Don't mistake language of appearance for a mistake. We still use similar language of appearance today.
I am sitting here watching The Weather Channel. Our local forecast came up on the screen, and along the bottom it said "Sunrise" and "Sunset" and gave a time for each.
We all know that the sun does not rise nor set, but that the Earth rotates under it, but we still use the language of appearance.
Archie the Preacher
Member
Thanks, but...
I directed the question to Yesh and want his answer to make sure I know what he was intending.
Okay. That's what I understand as being 'word for word'. But I am aware of shades of meaning and 'definitions' in different schools of thought on the same subject. (As in 'translations are not inspired, they are preserved'. Sounds like a government manual writer who feels the need to justify their salary.)TCassidy said:
I directed the question to Yesh and want his answer to make sure I know what he was intending.
Archie the Preacher
Member
You are correct, but I don't.
However, Isaiah 38:8 says the "...Sun returned [so far]". That is NOT an idiomatic expression or 'appearance of language'. And in my not so humble opinion, God put it there on purpose.
Some of us refer to those usages as 'idiomatic expressions'.TCassidy said:...The Weather Channel... said "Sunrise" and "Sunset" and gave a time for each.
We all know that the sun does not rise nor set, but that the Earth rotates under it, but we still use the language of appearance.
However, Isaiah 38:8 says the "...Sun returned [so far]". That is NOT an idiomatic expression or 'appearance of language'. And in my not so humble opinion, God put it there on purpose.
Time To Quote From One Of My Favorite Books
"How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth" by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.
"Formal equivalence also seeks to reproduce the grammar or syntax of the original text as closely as possible (this is called syntactic correspondence). If the Greek or Hebrew text uses an infinitive,the English translation will use an infinitive. When the Greek or Hebrew has a prepositional phrase, so will the English. Again, this goal cannot be achieved perfectly, since some grammatical forms don't exist in English (like certain uses of the Greek genitive case or the Hebrew waw-consecutive), and others function differently from their English counterparts." (p.26)
"Accuracy in translation relates to equivalent meaning, not equivalent form." (p.27)
"Even translations that claim to be essentially literal constantly modify Hebrew and Greek forms to express the meaning of the text. Consider the Greek phrase that begins Mark's Gospel ...Most beginning Greek students would consider this to be simple Greek,which can be translated, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ'...Yet even this is not a 'literal' translation. The Greek grammatical forms are NOUN + GENITIVE PHRASE + GENETIVE PHRASE. The grammatical forms of the English translation are DEFINITE ARTICLE + NOUN + PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE + PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE. Almost all of the grammatical forms were changed to produce this supposedly 'literal' translation. Furthermore,the phrase could have been translated,'The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah'(TNIV). What seems at first to be a simple and direct translation is in fact an interpretation using different English forms to express the same meaning. This kind of intrepretation occurs in almost every sentence in the Bible.
"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement), their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain meaning)." (p.28)
"How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth" by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.
"Formal equivalence also seeks to reproduce the grammar or syntax of the original text as closely as possible (this is called syntactic correspondence). If the Greek or Hebrew text uses an infinitive,the English translation will use an infinitive. When the Greek or Hebrew has a prepositional phrase, so will the English. Again, this goal cannot be achieved perfectly, since some grammatical forms don't exist in English (like certain uses of the Greek genitive case or the Hebrew waw-consecutive), and others function differently from their English counterparts." (p.26)
"Accuracy in translation relates to equivalent meaning, not equivalent form." (p.27)
"Even translations that claim to be essentially literal constantly modify Hebrew and Greek forms to express the meaning of the text. Consider the Greek phrase that begins Mark's Gospel ...Most beginning Greek students would consider this to be simple Greek,which can be translated, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ'...Yet even this is not a 'literal' translation. The Greek grammatical forms are NOUN + GENITIVE PHRASE + GENETIVE PHRASE. The grammatical forms of the English translation are DEFINITE ARTICLE + NOUN + PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE + PREPOSITIONAL PHRASE. Almost all of the grammatical forms were changed to produce this supposedly 'literal' translation. Furthermore,the phrase could have been translated,'The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah'(TNIV). What seems at first to be a simple and direct translation is in fact an interpretation using different English forms to express the same meaning. This kind of intrepretation occurs in almost every sentence in the Bible.
"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement), their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain meaning)." (p.28)
Well, God created it from out of nothing, so why assume that he cannot do things that we will NEVER be able to fully explain?
- Status