Featured How to Sound Like a Bibliology Scholar

Well, those in the KJVO camp show themselves to be the most serious violators of sound bibliology!

 

Yes, and I am still with some reservations on how one can hold to a verbal inerrancy view, and also agree with DE translation methods!

 

I know that we cannot have an absolute word for word translation, but since the Holy Spirit inspired down to the very word themselves, why we not try to do translation as a Formal one?

 

I fully approve of that approach to the understanding of the Bible, but am not sure it is the way to interpret it.

I'm not splitting hairs, or moving off topic. We do need that strict approach to understand & teach the plain meaning of the Word of God. The arguments reported in the epistles show the way e.g. a "Jewish" understanding of Scripture resulting in preaching another gospel whereas Paul's understanding by revelation resulted in the true Gospel.

Thus Paul shows that God's dealings with Abram had an eternal significance that was overriding compared with God's dealings with Moses. Likewise the teachings of the Apostles are the key to understanding & interpreting the OT Law & the Prophets, particularly in relation to Christ as the fulfilment.

 

The Jewish leaders had a non biblical salvation, as paul showed in Romans and Galatians, but their views on eschatology was still valid, its just that they mixed up the first and second coming as to what Messiah would do and be!

 

You are badly in need of the NIrV.

 

And JJ replied with :"Same here."

Shame shame JJ.

In your thread How do you know it's Dynamic Equivalence? you said :

"My method is also strongly influenced by verbal plenary inspiration. If every word is inspired, why not be careful with every single word of the translation? By this statement I am not accusing you or anyone else who prefers DE of not believing in verbal plenary inspiration. I've never said that and have never believed or even thought that." (2/4/09)

Yeah, right. I challenged you then that you indeed doubted those who used a DE version believed in VPI. And now you openly admit.

"My belief that the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration in the original Hebrew and Greek should naturally lead to a more literal method of translation. And I once again give the disclaimer that I don't mean people who translate with the DE method or who read such translations are denying this doctrine." (2/15/09)

JJ's disclaimer was false.

 

Did the Holy Spirit word for word, or thought by thought than?

 

Thanks, but find my ESV and Nas quite enough!

 

Or just take the kjv, and state that it is already perfect, no need to ever translate again!

 

My son, unqualified in plumbing, gas and water, electrics or electronics, inspected the church central heating system.

The qualified installer had had no idea electronics or how to program the thermostat. Pastor was controlling it manually.

Son Jason checked it all, installed and programmed the wireless thermostat. It's been trouble free for seven years.

He then replaced our CH system doing a lot of replumbing and installed the same thermostat as the church and explained it to me.

Both systems are in good running order.

Brilliant!! Try to find a guy qualified in all the skills AND willing to fix someone else's failed installation.

Translation, Pastoring, preaching, interpretation are different gifts/ skills. An agreed translation does not lead to agreed interpretation. The KJV was the agreed translation for centuries, and many sects and heresies arose.

The past century has seen a massive translation "industry" and a multiplication of interpretations.

Expertise as a translator does not imply sound doctrine. And sometimes translations can be guided by doctrine, rather than the reverse.

E.g. I hold to Reformed, Baptist, amillennial teaching. I would question a translation used to teach contrary doctrine. People often say, "the correct translation is ......"

 

No, but my sixty four year of Bible reading & study & worship listening, discussing & preaching with the indwelling Holy Spirit does give me competence to teach, & to challenge contrary doctrine.

I hope you don't take the attitude, "I'm the Greek & Hebrew expert, therefore my understanding/interpretation of Scripture cannot be challenged."

 

In order to be able to do that, think that one needs to really know the Greek and Hebrew used in the originals! And also be well versed in textual criticism....