if we hold to Verbal inerrancy, should we not use Formal translations?

Seems that would be the logical choice to make!

 

Googled "Verbal inerrancy" and found the following.

What is the difference between verbal plenary inerrancy and non-verbal plenary inerrancy?

Verbal plenary inerrancy means that one believes all of the Bible is inspired down to the very words of Scripture. The belief in non-verbal plenary inerrancy would mean that one believes all the Bible is inspired, but only as to its concepts—not all the words—meaning that it might contain historical errors.
​

So according to the above definitions, I agree that verbal inerrancy requires the use of formal translations.

 

We should use both. Formal translations are still not the original.

 

Just seems that if one holds to verbal inerrancy, the translation principles should follow!

 

true, but the Formal ones should be the preferred/primary ones used...

 

Honestly I think you and @Rippon2 should give this issue a rest.

 

I am willing, but he seems to like piling on!

 

You don't have to continue though.

 

"I happen to believe that verbal inspiration is valid, but any such verbal construct relates only to the original text, not to a translation. To suggest, as some have, that such a view of inspiration mandates a particular approach to translation is (I'll try to be 'nice'!) foolishness." [Rod Decker formerly of Bible Baptist Seminary from his website N.T. Resources 6/23/2011 -- not an article. What I quoted above was his entire post.]

 

The Holy Spirit inspired word for word, why should we not translate the scriptures word by word when possible?

 

There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation. Besides, every translation omits thousands of words found in the original.

 

Formal translations of what inerrant text?

 

The Textus Receptus, of course ... it is the RECEIVED TEXT of the AUTHORIZED VERSION. [You don't get more "official" than that!] ;):Biggrin:Laugh:Roflmao

 

There no no thouhght for thought translations, so what else but word for word left?

 

Authorized by just whom though? Would say can use TR/MT/CT and get a good formal translation!

 

Seriously Y-guy. Get your act together.

 

:p

Is it perfect and without error. If not, the outcome will be the same. So...'round & 'round we go.

 

There is a valid point in the OP, namely, theology affects translation. Eugene Nida, the inventor of dynamic equivalence, was neo-orthodox, and his theology did affect his theory of translation. Dynamic equivalence aims at the reader having an existential experience, which in the theory is called reader response. Nida defined his method. "dynamic equivalence: quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR is essentially like that of the original receptors” (Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation, 1982, 200).

On the other hand, various authors have written that verbal inspiration demands a literal method. Greek scholar Stewart Custer wrote that the literal method “is based on the idea that the Greek of the New Testament is verbally inspired and that therefore every word, as well as the exact word used, is important because its use was directed by God."
Stewart Custer, Good News for Modern Man, a Critique (Greenville: BJU, 1970), 19.

Nida himself denigrated any literal method, since he did not believe in verbal inspiration. His colleague and friend wrote, “In the translation studies perspective of Bassnett and Lefevere, the Jerome model rests on a particular conviction about the nature of the Bible itself. This conviction, also held by many later translators, asserted that God had inspired the words, idioms, and grammar of Scriptures, so translators should retain these words, idioms and grammar to the maximum degree possible."
Philip Stine, Let the Words Be Written (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 159.

 

Thanks for that post John

 

"We would argue that a translation that places the priority of meaning over form is much more in keeping with the doctrine of inspiration, since at issue always is the 'meaning' of the inspired words. The translation that best conveys that meaning is the most faithful to this historic doctrine....the Christian doctrine of divine inspiration, concerns words not in isolation, but the meaning of those words in context....An English translation remains God's Word when it faithfully reproduces the meaning of the text. And since languages differ in terms of word meanings, grammatical constructions, and idioms, translation can never be about simply replacing words. The Hebrew and Greek text must first be interpreted --- word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase, clause-by-clause --to determine the original meaning. Then this meaning must be painstakingly reproduced using different words, phrases, and clauses in English. The translation that most closely adheres to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is the one that reproduces the total meaning of the test, not just its words." ( taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss, page 36)