Shouldn't we value the original autographs above any mere translation?

TC,

That asks a lot of questions.

1. Scripture is inspired and inerrant in that what it says is what God is communicating to us.

2. What Paul wrote 2000 years ago is indecipherable to the average believer. It is error-free to be sure - but of what benefit is that for the believer? The non-Greek-reader can with the aid of the Holy Spirit undertand the HCSB - but the other will be "Greek" to him/her (heh heh).

3. Yes what paul wrote in those letters was perfect - but again - where is it? The manuscript varinats owing to human frailty of which you speak comprise our Bibles (English and Greek).

4. I think you know quite well that I didn't say this. Paul didn't write errors. On the other hand the Greek of Revelation is pretty sloppy - but that reflects the fact that John was not a native Greek-speaker and did the best he could.

5. I think this has already been answered (see last post).

6. I assume you know the story behind Hermas - it enjoyed popularity in many circles and was attached to several early manuscripts - after Revelation however I think. It's popularity waned by the 4th century and it was not included in the final canon. I have no doubt God did not intend for it to be handed down as His inspired word.

7. Translators inspired? That's tricky. Certainly not in the same sense as the authors of the NT - but I believe that we have to seen God as having protected translation efforts in order to allow us to have English Bibles.

 

But that's the problem!

Greek words, like English words, don't have fixed meanings - they have ranges of meaning. The English "like" and "love" arguably have different meanings (although similar) - but there is enough overlap that to say that "love" is always stronger than "like" would be unjustified. It is the same with Greek (consider Jesus' discussion with Peter at the end of John's Gospel). As such a novice Greek student could "see" a distinction that is not really there!

I (an avid student of Greek - and Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, German, Spanish, and Aramaic) never said that Greek learning was not of value - but rather that there is a big difference between knowing some of a language and having real colloquial mastery of it.

 

Frank,

Yes these are true. And I love the original languages. But I also realize that high level comprehension of them is not attainable by the average churchgoer. Thus I have a problem with someone asserting that somehow our Bibles today are of lesser quality - that seems, to me, to diminish God's ability to provide Hisnpeople with His word.

 

May you find grace to deal with brothers that are trying to reason in the Word.

 

Thank you for your kind response, I do need grace.

I have no problems with your convictions concerning BV's- whatever they be- but I do with taking Scripture out of context to try to prove them.

2 Timothy 2:15- Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (ESV)

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion... :godisgood:

 

Why wouldn't being called to translate those "Original" manuscripts from the Greek or Hebrew be an inspired calling, be it into English, German, Spanish, French, Tabagwan or any of all 100s of languages and dialects that span the globe. It is, after all, the mandate of Christ.
Luke 24:45-47
45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Now how can this be done except they hear and read it in their own language?
I am willing to wager that the Tabagwan tribe of the Philippines love their translation as the Word of God even though it was translated out of an English Bible.
In like manner I love and reverence the KJV whereby I heard and responded to the Word of God onto salvation and if I responded then others will as well.
If this is strange to you then count me as a fool and wash your hands of me and let God correct my foolishness.
If I am in error and therefore a child of God I will submit to His chastening rod not your retorts.

 

Frank,

Very reasonable questions. I offer 2 points, one practical and the other philosophical...

The first is that an exegete has the potential to do damage by misinterpreting based on limited knowledge of Greek. In my opinion a fairly high level of knowledge is necessary to attain a good level of competence. And I think that much of language study in conservative Christian circles has paid too little attention to general and functional linguistics and too much attention to 19th century diachronic language study.

The second point relates to the original autographs. We don't have them (which much be God's will) and even if we did we would still have arguments about grammar and syntax issues. I agree that they were by definition inerrant and infallible - but I fail to see the significance of distinguishing the inerrancy of the autographs from that of the manuscripts and Bibles we do have. The original manuscript from Paul's hand (or that of Tertius or whomever...) was still written in a human language which is by definition limited by that language.

In addition it seems that many scholars "skirt" issues on inerrancy by saying that the autographs were 100% inerrant but our other manuscripts may have some insignificant scribal errors. The Bibles we have stem from the non-autograph manuscripts so what good does the concept of an inerrant autograph do us? It just seems like a way of avoiding some of the difficulties in defining inerrancy. I admitted before that I am an inerrantist in the way that Dan Wallace is.

And yes I would also love to see an original autograph. I would admire it but I would not be looking to read it and find "extra" revelation in it.

 

Also valid questions. And without good answers, I'd say, as well.

Ed

 

Responding to your first point - Can not one do the same real "damage" with "limited knowledge" of English, Spanish, or Mandarin, to list the three most widely spoken languages in the world? And why not Hebrew, and/or Chaldee/Aramaic? Why is Greek the usual "whipping boy" of Biblical languages?

My alter ego personna on the BB is that of Language Cop. Yet I'm fairly sure that there are some here with far greater knowledge of the English langauge (as well some with less), than I happen to possess. And there are dialetical differences, as well. One from England, South Africa, India, Canada, or Australia probably has a different 'dialect' than the "redneck" version that I speak. Which one is 'corrrect'?

Point two. While I guess one could argue some about grammar and syntax, even if posessing the autographs, I would certainly say there would be far fewer 'arguments', were that known. But how do you make the unstated, but implied "leap of faith" from a "limited" 'Biblical language' to one that does not have the same 'limitations'? That is inconsistent, at best.

Try this humorous 'illustration' for what I mean -

Anonymous Christian: "What do you think of the Greek syntax?"

Language Cop: "I think that Greeks should have to pay a 'sin tax', just like every other nationality!"

Point three. It is a known fact that no two known manuscripts are exactly identical in every detail. Does not this fact, alone, signify something? Errata has somehow arrived. And, IMO, some questions are far from "insignificant". I would place the questions of canonicity and whether or not Mk. 16:9-20 are 'genuine' in the 'significant' category, personally. Still, how did the errata that we can see, come to be the case?

FTR, I have read nothing by Dan Wallace, so have not a clue here, nor do I make any pretense at being any sort of a "scholar".

I did one time hear a comment attributed to the late Cornelius van Til, about this, however, as to the underlying "support". He likened this to a case of an individual driving along a road during a rainstorm, and crossing a bridge over a swollen muddy river. He brought out the point that one was not actually 'driving' on the bridge, not even on the asphalt, or the mud overlaying the asphalt, but the tires of the vehicle were in fact making contact with a thin patina of water, on a thin layer of 'mud' on top of the asphalt surface, on the bridge structure, itself. So one was not technically driving "on the bridge", but driving on muddy water, overlaying a few inches of asphalt.

He supposedly then went on to say that it made a great deal of difference, however, as to whether or not the bridge was actually there. I agree! And it is a very important point, IMO.

Ed

 

I agree.
Mastery of the languages is unattainable for most of us.
At best, my studies in the original languages have allowed me to follow the reasoning of those more learned.

But as I study through the Psalms, I can better appreciate the attempts of various translators as they try to convery the poetry of the original language while also communicate the meaning.
Particularly in the Hebrew wisdom books the quote, "translation is like kissing the bride through the veil" is apt.
One cannot fully appreciate the beauty and concise artistry of the psalms without learning at least the rudiments of the language.

Rob

 

Good stuff, Franklin. :thumbs:

 

Frank,

Very well said. I was trying to get at this but you have phrased it much better.