Differences in books

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this belongs in the translations thread, because it has to do with how God spoke through the original authors and how it came down to us.

    Just how much do you feel that God allowed the author to have his own style of writing in the originals?

    I keep hearing how God's words have to be exactly perfect even in the translations (which we know cannot happen--even though they say God can do it anyway--and He probably could, but did not elect to.)

    It appears that the authors had a lot of leeway in the way they wrote, the style, etc. For example, Luke's works tend to have medical references, (blood and water from Jesus' side, etc.) while John deals with a more "loving" and "emotional" side; while Luke dealing more with factual evidence as if writing a doctor's report.

    John the gospel was obviously quite different, even in the Greek than Revelation. Whether or not it was the same John, there are obvious differences in the style of Greek used.

    Paul had his own way of writing, as did each other writer.

    Did God implant His word into the mind of the author allowing humans to use their own brains to put it into words? It would still be inerrant assuming that God chose to make certain the original was correct.

    This theory would also throw another small wrench in the KJVo "word for word accuracy" theory. Obviously, it is WHAT the person is saying, not the individual "wording". This being the case, many translations into English can say the same thing without error.

    What say you?
     
  2. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think God did it because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote the gospel based on their respective professions and experience and they are ALL true accounts.

    There's bound to be ONE of them that everyone can relate to and understand!

    ┬žue [​IMG]
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In writing against the mechanical dictation view of inspiration, Peter Ruckman wrote: "Do you realize that Peter, James and John and Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all believed everything that God revealed to them about the New Testament and agreed on what was to be said and what was not to be said, but there were not any two of them that even sounded alike. They didn't speak alike. ... The Holy Spirit never forces any man to talk like another man. When the Holy Spirit spoke through Peter, James, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, He did not lead any of them to say the same thing the same way. They kept their individual styles and wrote in their own individualistic ways" (THEOLOGICAL STUDIES: BOOK FIFTEEN, p. 10).

    Why doesn't Ruckman apply his own reasoning to the Bible translation issue? Does he not want all translators to be forced to be just like the
    styles of Church of England scholars in 1611?
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Reading the Greek of Peter (3rd grade education) vs. John (high school diploma) vs. Paul (Ph.D.) you can readily see the differences.

    God could have dictated His Word. He did this on occasion.

    God could have just inspired "thoughts" and let each guy wing it, but would the written product then be God's "word"?

    God did allow each man to write, but carefully guided the words to be just the perfect and exact chosen word for that verse.

    Hence holy men of old were "superintended" by the Spirit (II Peter 1) as they wrote the Word.

    And hence why the WORDS are so important. And a formal equivalence of those exact WORDS makes the best translation into our language today.

    Like the 1901 ASV. Or NKJV.
     
  5. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Got to disagree with your ordering there. Peter, especially 2 Peter, is some of the hardest Greek in the NT. The easiest is John, then Mark, Then a good tie between Paul's prison epistles, Matthew, and Luke, then the harder letters, then Peter, then Hebrews, the toughest mama of all.
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    II Peter's Greek is one of the reasons why I think that Peter may have been dictating that letter instead of writing it himself. It's just too different from his first epistle. Still inspired, of course! [​IMG]
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I essentially agree with Dr. Bob. But, also let me add (back to my original post), that God was concerned about exact words and no doubt God made sure it said what He wanted, but He obviously allowed the characteristics of the person to come through. This makes people relate better to the different book, IMHO.

    It is also interesting that the Bible (not so much the gospels as the Old testament and some of the epistles) show people with their flaws--and not just Holy all of the time.

    For example: Paul being upset and not allowing a missionary to go with him because he bailed out before. Paul (in my opinion) may have been a little out of line here, but then again, we don't know the full story.

    But, it does show that people are humans and still make human decisions, even when described in the Bible.

    A little off thread, but ties together with the idea of personality in the writings.

    Yes, I agree that each and every word should be translated as exactly as possible, unless you just want a Bible like the NIV to present thought-for-thought dynamic translation for study.

    This is one reason I enjoy both my NKJV and ESV. It seems that both have done fairly well with their different background texts.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I've often commented about while as a cop i had to deal with many written accounts by "eyewitnesses" who wrote differing accounts about the same event. Defense lawyers try to destroy the case against their clients by placing these differences under a spotlight in court, while the prosecution is reminding people that Witness A was at the corner of 3rd and 8th while Witness B was across the street and couldn't possibly have seen the exact same things as Witness A, nor could A have seen what B saw, but that both accounts are true.

    A&B had different writing styles and abilities also.

    We know Paul often used a scribe to whom he dictated his letters, but we don't know whether the other apostles used scribes or not. It is a very real possibility, though.

    However it was done, it was under the auspices of GOD, who preserved each of the writings for all future generations as He chose. The KJVO simply cannot accept the fact that God has, and will continue, to present His word to man as HE chooses, and not how WE may choose.
     
  9. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Robycop makes a good point. If 3 of us viewed the same incident...

    Say there is an accident at 4th and Main. Dr. Charles Meadows is there. I'm there and a fella who is a body shop owner.

    We all saw the same accident but Dr. Charles sees it as a physician and so might emphasize the severity of the injuries. I'm a mother and grandmother and might be more concerned about the children in the vehicle. The body shop owner might describe the damage to the vehicles. Even tho we all saw the exact same thing, we saw it from our own place in the order of things. [​IMG]
     
  10. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    A preacher once gave me an illustration of why there are differences in the four Gospels. The illustration was of a large, tall mountain and four people at ground level looking up at it: one on its northern side, one on its eastern side, one on its western side, and one on its southern side.

    You will get different descriptions from all four of them, yet all four of them are accurate descriptions--just from different perspectives.

    Also, the emphasis (or purpose) of each Gospel writer was different. Matthew seems to emphasize the fact that Jesus was the promised King of the Jews, Mark focuses on Jesus being the Servant, Luke stresses the humanity of Jesus, while John centers on Christ's deity.

    Since their purposes were different, they chose different events to include or omit from their narratives. The writer of John alludes to this fact in John 20:30-31.

    The same would hold true for the epistles. Some people have supposed that there's a contradiction between the Apostle Paul's teaching of salvation by grace through faith and that which James discusses in his epistle. I see no contradiction, just different perspectives.

    Even Paul says in Philippians 2:12 to "work out your own salvation." I take that to be similar to "working out" a garden in order for it to bear fruit....the kind of fruit to which James refers.
     

Share This Page

Loading...