Bible Study Job

[Jim Parker]

I'll refer to a few NT verses that refute your view. I don't have the time to go through a plethora of OT verses.

• 'If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me ' (Jn 5:46 NIV);
• 'Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them"' (Rom 10:5 NIV; from Lev 18:5);
• 'Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, “I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding”' (Rom 10:19 NIV; from Deut 32:21).
• 'Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts' (2 Cor 3:15 NIV).

The first says absolutely nothing about authorship. Moses wrote the Law which God authored.

For "Lev 18:5" see Lev 18:1 "Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,..." Notice that is in the 3rd person and that it was God's speaking not Moses'?

AS I attempted to point out, referring to "The Book of Mses" or just to "Moses" refers to the texts which are identified by the words "The Book of Moses" Just as out modern dictionary can be identified as "Webster's" dictionary. It is not an authentication of mosaic authorship.

But, it it makes you feel better to believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (including the parts after he dies) then enjoy. It doesn't mattter to me because, whether Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch of not, it is God's word.

 

[stovebolts]

SB,

In general, I agree with these sentiments. However, I am sceptical of, say, an Adventist Adventurer [who] Claimed to Have Found Ark of the Covenant Beneath Crucifixion Site.

View attachment 5939
See deathbed confession of Ron Wyatt on the Ark of the Covenant 'discovery'. There is a refutation of Wyatt's 'discovery' in Holy Relics or Revelation (Standish & Standish 1999).

Wyatt's discovery has been denied by Hebrew scholars and I understand the book has been requested to be withdrawn from the market. So credibility of the author is an important issue, where such authorship can be recovered.

Francis I Andersen's Tyndale OT Commentary on Job provides this info about the authorship of Job:

We do not know who wrote the book of Job or when he lived. Nor do we know where. If several persons were involved, we still know nothing about them. Unless the author was a professional Wisdom teacher, we have no idea of his place in society. And even then, as a member of the intelligentsia, we cannot discover any institutional setting for the composition of such a work, whether the royal court, a shrine whose officers could read and had books, or, later, the synagogue (Andersen 1976:61).​

The question of the date of composition is a 'vexed' question and 'a wide range of dates has been proposed' according to Andersen.

Other OT scholars such as Keil & Delitzsch consider that the dating of Job could belong in the time of the exile and be a pattern for the people of the exile. However, it may 'seem far more probable that the book of Job is older than that period of Israel's suffering' (Commentary on the Old Testament: Job, vol 4, p. 20) - Google the last phrase on this website if you want to know more about their understanding of the authorship of Job.

Oz

Sure, I understand. Again, it is a Mashal, which means it can hold both fiction and non-fiction. In the Jewish mind, it doesnt matter if its factual or made up or even a combination of the two.

Most Jewish scholars agree that chapters 1, 2 and the later part of 42 are the original story, and the rest is a poem added later. Most Jewish scholars believe the text had been altered by pious scribes.

My point is this, there are a lot of issues with Job regardless of which discipline of exegesis one uses. It's simply a train wreck.

This brings us back to Mashal. The more you study the meta data, the more you find out it's a mash of ideology. Nobody will nail its date or author down because it wasnt written with that intent.

That being said, Jewish tradition ascribes Moses as the original author, and then pious scribes altered it in their zeal for God. This seems to work for me.

 

[stovebolts]

Alright you two. OzSpen ozand Jim Parker jim
Let's ratchet this down a notch and be respectful toward each other. Let's not start jumping to conclusions and use hard language.

 

[OzSpen]

Sure, I understand. Again, it is a Mashal, which means it can hold both fiction and non-fiction. In the Jewish mind, it doesnt matter if its factual or made up or even a combination of the two.

Most Jewish scholars agree that chapters 1, 2 and the later part of 42 are the original story, and the rest is a poem added later. Most Jewish scholars believe the text had been altered by pious scribes.

My point is this, there are a lot of issues with Job regardless of which discipline of exegesis one uses. It's simply a train wreck.

This brings us back to Mashal. The more you study the meta data, the more you find out it's a mash of ideology. Nobody will nail its date or author down because it wasnt written with that intent.

That being said, Jewish tradition ascribes Moses as the original author, and then pious scribes altered it in their zeal for God. This seems to work for me.

SB,

I wish you would document your statements from 'most Jewish scholars' and ' Jewish tradition ascribes Moses as the original author'. Who made these statements?

If 'it's simply a train wreck' (your language), does Job belong in t he God-breathed, infallible Scriptures - in the original language?

As for Moses being ascribed the original authorship, OT Hebrew scholars, Keil & Delitzsch's research concluded:

The opinion that Moses wrote the book of Job before the giving of the law, is found in the Talmuds (jer. Sota V. 8; b. Bathra, 15a). This view has been recently revived by Ebrard (1858). But how improbable, all but impossible, that the poetical literature of Israel should have taken its rise with such a non plus ultra of reflective poetry, and that this poem should have had Moses the lawgiver for its author? "Moses certainly is not the composer of the book of Job," says Herder rightly (Keil & Delitzsch n.d. Job, p. 18).​

​

Oz

 

[stovebolts]

SB,

I wish you would document your statements from 'most Jewish scholars' and ' Jewish tradition ascribes Moses as the original author'. Who made these statements?

If 'it's simply a train wreck' (your language), does Job belong in t he God-breathed, infallible Scriptures - in the original language?

As for Moses being ascribed the original authorship, OT Hebrew scholars, Keil & Delitzsch's research concluded:

The opinion that Moses wrote the book of Job before the giving of the law, is found in the Talmuds (jer. Sota V. 8; b. Bathra, 15a). This view has been recently revived by Ebrard (1858). But how improbable, all but impossible, that the poetical literature of Israel should have taken its rise with such a non plus ultra of reflective poetry, and that this poem should have had Moses the lawgiver for its author? "Moses certainly is not the composer of the book of Job," says Herder rightly (Keil & Delitzsch n.d. Job, p. 18).​

​

Oz

Hi Oz,
When I get home next Sunday, give me a reminder and I'll dig out my sources.

By train wreck, I mean in terms of trying to date it, let alone figure out who authored it.

Like others have said and as I've said, the meta data isnt important. A Mashal doesnt have to be technically correct. What matters is the storyline and intent. So yes, I do accept it as canon.

 

[Jim Parker]

If 'it's simply a train wreck' (your language), does Job belong in t he God-breathed, infallible Scriptures - in the original language?

"God breathed" is one of two standard translations. The other is " given by inspiration of God".

When Paul wrote that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16) the scripture commonly used was the LXX which is a translation from earlier forms of Hebrew. That's the scripture that Paul quoted.

The LXX is flawed. F. F. Bruce wrote that Paul corrected it when it deviated from the Hebrew but most people of his time were not capable of reading the "Original language."

And I find it strange that people hold up as a standard that which does not exist: the original monographs or the scriptures "in the original language." We don't have those documents available to read. And if they were readily available, how many people could actually read them? I certainly could not. How about the average high school graduate?

So, as far as I can see, the "inerrancy standard" is a non-starter.

What is meant by "inerrant"?
Does being "inerrant" mean that it is exactly the words which God spoke and which someone wrote down as God spoke them in some ancient language that is understood by a very small number of highly trained specialists?

If that is what is meant, what happens when those words which God spoke are translated into Greek and Latin and Late Middle English (KJV) or Modern American English (NIV)? A major problem with "inerrancy" arises immediately because it is impossible to translate from one language to another without subtly changing the meaning. That process is further impeded by the subtleties of language which are the artifacts of the culture within which the original was written. Those cultural colorings are almost impossible to bring from a near eastern, bronze age, nomadic, herdsman culture into the language of a 21st century, western, industrialized, information-age culture.

And if inerrancy is that important but can only be "found" in the original monographs, then why should I care? There are no original monographs available. All the average person has access to is the Bible he got at the book store. It's in his native language. (English, German, Urdo, Russian, Japanese, Swahili, Spanish, Hungarian,....) How could such a Bible possible retain it's inerrancy?

I believe that the modern, western, English translations of the ancient, near eastern, Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek, texts are "inerrant" in their ability to lead someone to and encounter with Jesus Christ which results in that person being born again into the kingdom of God. I believe that the average person can bet their eternal life on the fact that the translation they read in their native language is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17)

At that point, how important is it if the book says "God breathed" or "given by the inspiration of God."? (OR πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸςἐλεγμόν πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ?)

Why do I need to believe in some long lost, "inerrant", document in the original language? IS God not able to speak to us today in our own tongues like He did on that first Pentecost?

Jesus is inerrant.

That's Who I met reading the NIV back in 1981.

Just my personal opinion.....

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

"God breathed" is one of two standard translations. The other is " given by inspiration of God".

When Paul wrote that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2Ti 3:16) the scripture commonly used was the LXX which is a translation from earlier forms of Hebrew. That's the scripture that Paul quoted.

The LXX is flawed. F. F. Bruce wrote that Paul corrected it when it deviated from the Hebrew but most people of his time were not capable of reading the "Original language."

And I find it strange that people hold up as a standard that which does not exist: the original monographs or the scriptures "in the original language." We don't have those documents available to read. And if they were readily available, how many people could actually read them? I certainly could not. How about the average high school graduate?

So, as far as I can see, the "inerrancy standard" is a non-starter.

What is meant by "inerrant"?

Does being "inerrant" mean that it is exactly the words which God spoke and which someone wrote down as God spoke them in some ancient language that is understood by a very small number of highly trained specialists?

If that is what is meant, what happens when those words which God spoke are translated into Greek and Latin and Late Middle English (KJV) or Modern American English (NIV)? A major problem with "inerrancy" arises immediately because it is impossible to translate from one language to another without subtly changing the meaning. That process is further impeded by the subtleties of language which are the artifacts of the culture within which the original was written. Those cultural colorings are almost impossible to bring from a near eastern, bronze age, nomadic, herdsman culture into the language of a 21st century, western, industrialized, information-age culture.

And if inerrancy is that important but can only be "found" in the original monographs, then why should I care? There are no original monographs available. All the average person has access to is the Bible he got at the book store. It's in his native language. (English, German, Urdo, Russian, Japanese, Swahili, Spanish, Hungarian,....) How could such a Bible possible retain it's inerrancy?

I believe that the modern, western, English translations of the ancient, near eastern, Hebrew, Chaldean, Greek, texts are "inerrant" in their ability to lead someone to and encounter with Jesus Christ which results in that person being born again into the kingdom of God. I believe that the average person can bet their eternal life on the fact that the translation they read in their native language is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2Ti 3:16-17)

At that point, how important is it if the book says "God breathed" or "given by the inspiration of God."? (OR πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸςἐλεγμόν πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ?)

Why do I need to believe in some long lost, "inerrant", document in the original language? IS God not able to speak to us today in our own tongues like He did on that first Pentecost?

Jesus is inerrant.

That's Who I met reading the NIV back in 1981.

Just my personal opinion.....

iakov the fool

Jim,

What does theopneustos mean? (2 Tim 3:16).

Theos = God
pneustos is from pneuma = breath or spirit.

So theopneustos = God-breathed. It can't come from God without containing no lies, being inerrant.

So do you take God speaking to us today to be of the same 'inspiration' as Scripture?

My former colleague who lives now in NZ wrote to me last week (she attends a charismatic-pentecostal church). She wrote:

Someone prophesied that they saw a massive angle sitting on the top of the building.... he was a visiting AoG pastor. I always thought it was Christ over His church....so I did not accept this prophetic word either. Why do people do this?​

This 'prophecy' came from someone who pursued your advice, Jim: 'IS God not able to speak to us today in our own tongues like He did on that first Pentecost?'

My response to my NZ friend was:

As for the pastor and his 'prophecy', this is what happens when a church does not conform to biblical order when the gifts of the Spirit are manifested.
This is the biblical requirement for prophecy:

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people (1 Cor 14:29-33 NIV).​

It seems that this did not take place in your church when this prophecy was given: 'others should weigh carefully what is said'. Unless congregations 'weigh carefully' (consistency with Scripture and sensible application of Scripture) what is prophesied, your kind of situation will be repeated.

From what you said, you knew this prophecy was out of order and you should have spoken up if your church gave the opportunity to 'weigh carefully'. Dare I suggest that this is another issue of disorder that is happening in your church. Why doesn't your pastor know the biblical requirements of judging prophecy? These are some of the other Bible translations of the meaning of 'weigh carefully':

• 'let the rest judge' (Douay-Rheims);
• 'weigh' (ESV);
• 'others should evaluate' (HCSB);
• 'let the others pass judgment' (NASB);
• 'the others discern' (NABRE);
• 'Others should decide if what is being said is true' (NIRV). This is the NIV for lower literacy level - New International Readers' Version.

When this is not done with prophecy, you have what happened in your church (end of what I wrote).

I agree with your statement, Jim, that 'Jesus is inerrant'. However, where do we learn that Jesus told the truth and never lied (Jn 14:6)? From 'all Scripture' (1 Tim 3:16 NIV). So we can't get to an inerrant Jesus without going through the inerrant Bible.

To expect an inerrant Jesus through Jesus' speaking to me today, leads today to a fallible situation (see my illustration above).

Jesus was without sin, pure and righteous. We learn that from the inerrant Scripturec (Hebrews 4:15; 1 John 3:3; 2:1).

You stated:

A major problem with "inerrancy" arises immediately because it is impossible to translate from one language to another without subtly changing the meaning.

That's why I conclude the original documents are inerrant. You appreciate no Bible translation can be inerrant because of what you've stated here - including the RSV.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Sure, I understand. Again, it is a Mashal, which means it can hold both fiction and non-fiction. In the Jewish mind, it doesnt matter if its factual or made up or even a combination of the two.

Most Jewish scholars agree that chapters 1, 2 and the later part of 42 are the original story, and the rest is a poem added later. Most Jewish scholars believe the text had been altered by pious scribes.

My point is this, there are a lot of issues with Job regardless of which discipline of exegesis one uses. It's simply a train wreck.
This brings us back to Mashal. The more you study the meta data, the more you find out it's a mash of ideology. Nobody will nail its date or author down because it wasnt written with that intent.

That being said, Jewish tradition ascribes Moses as the original author, and then pious scribes altered it in their zeal for God. This seems to work for me.

SB,

What causes you to believe the book of Job is 'a Mashal (Hebrew: משל), which
is a short parable with a moral lesson or religious allegory' (source)?

Have you completed a meta-analysis of Job to conclude that it is a Mashal?

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

What does theopneustos mean? (2 Tim 3:16).
Theos = God
pneustos is from pneuma = breath or spirit.
So theopneustos = God-breathed.

I did take Greek in seminary but do nor consider myself able to correct those whose field of expertise is the translation of Biblical languages. Most translations use the word "inspired" rather than the literal "God Breathed."

KJV: given by inspiration of God NKJV: given by inspiration of God
NLT: inspired by God CSB: is inspired by God NASB: is inspired by God
RVR60: inspirada por Dios NET and RSV: inspired by God ASV: inspired of God
DBY: divinely inspired WEB and HNV: by inspiration of God
vs.
NIV: God-breathed ESV: breathed out by God

"God breathed" is a literal translation but there are issues with strictly literal translations.
For example:
Luke 9:44 "Let these sayings sink down into your ears:" (KJV, NKJV, NSV, NASB)
We understand that the meaning is to pay attention and remember those words as in the NLT: "Listen to me and remember what I say"

So, what exactly does "God breathed" mean? I have never heard or seen anyone who "breathed words." Breathing and speaking are two different actions. So the term, "God breathed" must be understood as a Greek, idiomatic expression and the best understanding would be, IMO, "inspired" as in "God inspired".

So to say scripture is "inspired by God" rather than the literal "God breathed" is probably a more accurate rendering of "θεόπνευστος" than "God breathed" particularly since the part of the word rendered "breathed" (πνεύματος) also means "spirit."
So: "What does theopneustos mean?"
I think it means "Inspired by God."

This 'prophecy' came from someone who pursued your advice, Jim: 'IS God not able to speak to us today in our own tongues like He did on that first Pentecost?'

Sorry, I don't get your point.
Is God NOT able to speak to us today in our own languages?
I don't understand what you are trying to say.

That's why I conclude the original documents are inerrant. You appreciate no Bible translation can be inerrant because of what you've stated here - including the RSV.

Which brings me back to the question, "Why even talk about inerrancy in the original writings.?
We don't have them.
Very nearly no one could read them if we did have them.
Every translation from them is a "best attempt" to convey the message.

And the word, "message," to me, is the element which must be inerrant.
The message contained in the multitude of translations must be inerrant.
1) The message must conform to what the Church has taught everywhere and at all times.
2) It must not contain any or the errors of the great variety of heresies which the Church identified as false teaching.

We can say that most of the various translations (not the JWs' New World Translation for example) in the many languages into which they have been translated contain that inerrant message. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son the whosoever should believe in Him would have eternal life and there is no other name but Jesus under heaven given by which we must be saved.

That is the message and it is inerrant.
You can bet your eternal life on it.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

"God breathed" is a literal translation but there are issues with strictly literal translations.
For example:
Luke 9:44 "Let these sayings sink down into your ears:" (KJV, NKJV, NSV, NASB)
We understand that the meaning is to pay attention and remember those words as in the NLT: "Listen to me and remember what I say"

jim

​

Jim,

When I went to high school in Australia in the 1950s-60s in English classes, I learned that to interpret any document literally, I need to note that 'literal' interpretation includes figures of speech.

'Johnny lives like a pig' is a simile and that's included in literal interpretation.
Jesus to disciples: 'You are the light of the world' is a metaphor and that figure of speech is accommodated in literal interpretation.

In seminary I used Berkley Mickelsen's text for hermeneutics, Interpreting the Bible. He confirmed what this old fella learning in high school:

Literal interpretation always allows for inclusion of symbols and figures of speech. Literal ‘means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of “door” in that context would be obvious. although metaphorical, this obvious meaning is included in the literal meaning’ (Mickelsen 1963:33).

I don't find any issues with strictly literal interpretation because it includes figures of speech and symbols.

The example you gave from Luke 9:44 is perfectly accommodated in literal interpretation.

You stated:

And the word, "message," to me, is the element which must be inerrant.
The message contained in the multitude of translations must be inerrant.
1) The message must conform to what the Church has taught everywhere and at all times.
2) It must not contain any or the errors of the great variety of heresies which the Church identified as false teaching.

We can say that most of the various translations (not the JWs' New World Translation for example) in the many languages into which they have been translated contain that inerrant message. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son the whosoever should believe in Him would have eternal life and there is no other name but Jesus under heaven given by which we must be saved.

That is the message and it is inerrant.
You can bet your eternal life on it.

That sounds persuasive and I've encountered it many times over the years.

The problem I have with that view is that the 'message' of any writing, whether the local newspaper, here online, or the Bible, is that there can be NO 'inerrant message' without:

• words with specific meanings;
• sentences;
• grammar (see HERE);
• syntax.

An 'inerrant message' cannot be delivered without,

• inerrant words;
• inerrant sentences;
• inerrant grammar;
• inerrant syntax.

So why not get straight to the point and support verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible? Don Stewart explains the meaning:

Verbal Means Every Word​

Verbal means that every word of Scripture is God-given. The idea is that every single word in the Bible is there because God wanted it there.​

​

Plenary Means Fully Authoritative​

Plenary means that all parts of the Bible are equally authoritative. This includes such things as the genealogies of the Old Testament. All parts of the Bible are of divine origin. Jesus said (source).​

Blessings,
Oz

Works consulted

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[Jim Parker]

The problem I have with that view is that the 'message' of any writing, whether the local newspaper, here online, or the Bible, is that there can be NO 'inerrant message' without:

• words with specific meanings;
• sentences;
• grammar (see HERE);
• syntax.

An 'inerrant message' cannot be delivered without,

• inerrant words;
• inerrant sentences;
• inerrant grammar;
• inerrant syntax.

So why not get straight to the point and support verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible? Don Stewart explains the meaning:

Verbal Means Every Word
Verbal means that every word of Scripture is God-given. The idea is that every single word in the Bible is there because God wanted it there.

Plenary Means Fully Authoritative
Plenary means that all parts of the Bible are equally authoritative. This includes such things as the genealogies of the Old Testament. All parts of the Bible are of divine origin.

Do we have available to us the original words that "God wanted there"?
When God gave the words He wanted there, in what language were they given?
If a Hungarian reads his Bible in his native tongue (which is not an Indo-European language), is it still the exact word that God wanted there or is it an approximation of the word God originally wanted there?
How about Japanese? Maori? Bantu? Navajo?
Do those languages have "inerrant verbal inspiration"?

And, as for "all parts of the Bible are equally authoritative", which Bible? The 1611 King James Bible with apocrypha?

When I look up "Verbal Plenary Inspiration" I find:

1. Verbal Plenary Inspiration means that the very words of the original manuscripts were directly inspired by God, although he did not change the author's intelligence or understanding while doing so. Meaning, that God choose, inspired and sovereignly guided the biblical authors who were equipped by Him to write the very words of scripture.

2. "theopneustos" - God so moved the authors of Scripture that the resulting product was the Word of God written, totally without error in the autographs, in every area including theology, history, geography, and science.

Problem #1 (once more) We do not have any of the original manuscripts.
Problem #2 (Also, once more) The vast majority of believers do not read the scriptures in the original languages.

So: ALL translations (every last one) FAIL to meet the standard of Plenary Verbal Inspiration because
(a) no modern translation is an exact copy of the original autographs and
(b) every translation is an approximation (a very close approximation) of the communication of the original language.

Problem #3: The concept of Plenary Verbal Inspiration suggests that God is unable to or simply does not communicate His thoughts to anyone in any of the modern languages.

And to further muddy the waters, there are those who insist that the only Plenary Verbal Inspired documents are to be found in the Textus Receptus and the KJV. That is an absurdity that does not merit discussion.

God speaks to me in whatever translation I happen to be reading and I never read the "original autographs" because I don't have them and, even if I did have them, I am not fluent in the languages in which they were written. I'd need a translation.

So, as far as I am concerned, the insistence on Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the original manuscripts is moot. My Modern English translations are not "original autographs" in the original languages but they are the word of God and I can trust them to be the vehicle by which God communicates to me and to whoever reads them.

People insisting that they know what happened between God and the writers when the original documents were created is, IMO, a waste of energy.

I trust the Bible I have in my hand.
It's not the original monographs.
But, it's all I have so I'm going to go with it just like the apostles went with the LXX because that was what they could read and it was in a language that most people in the Roman Empire and beyond understood.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

Do we have available to us the original words that "God wanted there"?...

And, as for "all parts of the Bible are equally authoritative", which Bible? The 1611 King James Bible with apocrypha?

God speaks to me in whatever translation I happen to be reading and I never read the "original autographs" because I don't have them and, even if I did have them, I am not fluent in the languages in which they were written. I'd need a translation.

So, as far as I am concerned, the insistence on Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the original manuscripts is moot. My Modern English translations are not "original autographs" in the original languages but they are the word of God and I can trust them to be the vehicle by which God communicates to me and to whoever reads them.

People insisting that they know what happened between God and the writers when the original documents were created is, IMO, a waste of energy.

I trust the Bible I have in my hand.
It's not the original monographs.
But, it's all I have so I'm going to go with it just like the apostles went with the LXX because that was what they could read and it was in a language that most people in the Roman Empire and beyond understood.

jim

Jim,

You didn't answer the problem I raised with the theory of an 'inerrant message', which comes through,

• inerrant words;
• inerrant sentences;
• inerrant grammar;
• inerrant syntax.

There is no 'inerrant message' without these inerrant components.

As for,

ALL translations (every last one) FAIL to meet the standard of Plenary Verbal Inspiration because
(a) no modern translation is an exact copy of the original autographs and
(b) every translation is an approximation (a very close approximation) of the communication of the original language.

I find it illogical to state that 'no modern translation is an exact copy of the original autographs' when the original languages were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It is absolutely impossible for any modern translation (English or Deutsch or Tetum) to be an 'exact copy of the original autographs'. That statement violates a fundamental of translation.

How would we know this is a truthful statement since we don't have the originals? You are measuring it against a non-existent standard you haven't seen and you have come to a rigid conclusion: 'ALL translations (every last one) FAIL to meet the standard of Plenary Verbal Inspiration'. Therefore, I don't consider you have the evidence to take to task Verbal, Plenary Inspiration.

Problem #1 (once more) We do not have any of the original manuscripts.

That's no big deal. Like you have done here, Jim, people commonly say to me: But we don’t have the originals so it is pointless to talk about the inerrancy of original documents we do not have. Do you think so?

I have found R. Laird Harris’s explanation helpful in explaining the need to have authoritative original documents behind the copies, even though we currently do not have access to the originals (autographa). He wrote:

‘Reflection will show that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is worthwhile even though the originals have perished. An illustration may be helpful. Suppose we wish to measure the length of a certain pencil. With a tape measure we measure it as 6 1/2 inches. A more carefully made office ruler indicates 6 9/16 inches. Checking with an engineer’s scale, we find it to be slightly more than 6.58 inches. Careful measurement with a steel scale under laboratory conditions reveals it to be 6.577 inches. Not satisfied still, we send the pencil to Washington, where master gauges indicate a length of 6.5774 inches. The master gauges themselves are checked against the standard United States yard marked on platinum bar preserved in Washington. Now, suppose that we should read in the newspapers that a clever criminal had run off with the platinum bar and melted it down for the precious metal. As a matter of fact, this once happened to Britain’s standard yard! What difference would this make to us? Very little. None of us has ever seen the platinum bar. Many of us perhaps never realized it existed. Yet we blithely use tape measures, rulers, scales, and similar measuring devices. These approximate measures derive their value from their being dependent on more accurate gauges. But even the approximate has tremendous value—if it has had a true standard behind it' (Harris 1969:88-89).​

​

None of us has seen the original NT papyrus or vellum MSS. Does that make any difference? Very little. The approximate Hebrew & Greek texts and various language translations have special value in the 21st century. Why? It's because of the standard behind them.

I have an A$10 note in my wallet that is based on the original in the mint in Canberra. I've never seen the original, but I know my $10 bill is worth that value because it approximately measures the mint currency.

Problem #2 (Also, once more) The vast majority of believers do not read the scriptures in the original languages.

As I've explained all along, they don't need to. A sound, committee translation of the Greek and Hebrew testaments is adequate for people today, whether that be the ESV, NIV, NLT, RSV, etc. See above.

God speaks to me in whatever translation I happen to be reading and I never read the "original autographs" because I don't have them and, even if I did have them, I am not fluent in the languages in which they were written. I'd need a translation.

So, as far as I am concerned, the insistence on Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the original manuscripts is moot.

Is God speaking to you through a Bible translation as authoritative as what God has recorded in Scripture?

I don't find it 'moot' at all as you claim it's the 'inerrant message' that's important.

There is no inerrant message without inerrant words, sentences, grammar and syntax. When it gets down to tin tacks, to get what you want - an inerrant message - you need verbal, plenary inspiration. There is no other way to get it.

Oz

Works consulted

Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[Jim Parker]

You didn't answer the problem I raised with the theory of an 'inerrant message'

"Plenary, Verbal, Inspiration/inerrancy" is a human construction.
I don't see the need for it.
I believe the scriptures reveal what God want's us to know.
I believe I can trust that the various translations do a good job of expressing that revelation.
I'm not at all concerned about whether the words that the original writers wrote were the exact words that God wanted them to write. We can't know that so why make it an essential doctrine?

The concept is not of interest to me.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

"Plenary, Verbal, Inspiration/inerrancy" is a human construction.
I don't see the need for it.
I believe the scriptures reveal what God want's us to know.
I believe I can trust that the various translations do a good job of expressing that revelation.
I'm not at all concerned about whether the words that the original writers wrote were the exact words that God wanted them to write. We can't know that so why make it an essential doctrine?

The concept is not of interest to me.

jim

Jim,

• Your view of the need for an 'inerrant message' also is a human construction. That doesn't make it wrong, but the implications need to be pursued.
• The need for it is that the Bible teaches that 'all Scripture' is inspired by God. That's right down to all words, sentences, grammar and syntax.
• I also believe the Scriptures reveal what God wants us to know, but he delivers that through human beings who wrote adhered to the meaning of words, sentences, grammar and syntax.
• Most translations do a pretty good job of conveying the meaning of the content of the original languages - except the New World Translation of the JWs. I don't find the KJV of 1611 helpful overall in language that is appropriate for the 21st century. I can quibble with words and constructions in some of the translations (e.g. CEV, AMP, NIV, NRSV, etc), but we have an excellent array of translations in English that are broad-stroke 'reliable'. It sure beats this statistic:

Scripture & Language Statistics 2017

http://www.wycliffe.net/statistics

Wycliffe's assessment is:

At least 1.5 billion people do not have the full Bible available in their first language. Over 652 million of these have the New Testament; others have portions or at least some level of translation or preparatory work begun.​

There is known active translation and/or linguistic development happening in 2584 languages across more than 170 countries​

As of 1 October 2017, over 114 million people, speaking 1636 languages, are likely to need some form of Bible translation to begin (source).​

​

That there were 114 million people in the world (in 2017) who had not a word translated in their 1636 native languages is a deep concern to me. That's why I've supported a Bible translator over a number of years in East Timor.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

the Bible teaches that 'all Scripture' is inspired by God. That's right down to all words, sentences, grammar and syntax.

Except for possibly, but not necessarily, the non-existent "original monographs", I do not agree.

I can quibble with words and constructions in some of the translations (e.g. CEV, AMP, NIV, NRSV, etc), but we have an excellent array of translations in English that are broad-stroke 'reliable'.

That's how I see it.
Why be concerned about the "original monographs" which could have actually been Oral and not have been written down for multiple generations.
I don't care to devote very much energy in speculation about "all words, sentences, grammar and syntax".
It is my view that God gave us His revelation in a form that could be translated into a multitude of unrelated languages and still convey His message. Therefore, I view that message as more important than "all words, sentences, grammar and syntax".

I heard an interesting anecdote from one of my seminary professors about the experience of a Wycliffe Bible Translator couple working in the south Pacific islands. The island was mostly jungle and the tribe for which they were creating a written language and translating the scriptures had no concept of sheep. So, "Behold the lamb of God..." had no meaning for them. People living in a jungle do not raise sheep.......but they do keep pigs.......

yeah, quite a challenge...

Anyway, the subject of the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the original monographs holds very little interest for me.

shalom

jim

 

[OzSpen]

I don't care to devote very much energy in speculation about "all words, sentences, grammar and syntax".
It is my view that God gave us His revelation in a form that could be translated into a multitude of unrelated languages and still convey His message. Therefore, I view that message as more important than "all words, sentences, grammar and syntax".

Jim,

You haven't answered my challenge to you: We can't have a 'message', whether that be oral or written, without words, sentences, grammar and syntax having meaning. Why can't you see the truth/value of that statement?

It may be of no interest to you, as you say, but you continue to write about your view, so you leave me with the conclusion that you want to promote your view of it.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Jim,

You haven't answered my challenge to you: We can't have a 'message', whether that be oral or written, without words, sentences, grammar and syntax having meaning. Why can't you see the truth/value of that statement?

It may be of no interest to you, as you say, but you continue to write about your view, so you leave me with the conclusion that you want to promote your view of it.

Oz

No. I actually do not care to discuss it any further.

jim

 

[OzSpen]

No. I actually do not care to discuss it any further.

jim

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I heard an interesting anecdote from one of my seminary professors about the experience of a Wycliffe Bible Translator couple working in the south Pacific islands. The island was mostly jungle and the tribe for which they were creating a written language and translating the scriptures had no concept of sheep. So, "Behold the lamb of God..." had no meaning for them. People living in a jungle do not raise sheep.......but they do keep pigs.......

yeah, quite a challenge...

Jim,

That's no problem for those who translate according to Wycliffe's dynamic equivalence methodology (i.e. meaning for meaning instead of word for word).

Thanks to the late linguist, Eugene Nida's, outstanding work and research on translation over the years, that tribe would be able to understand 'Behold the lamb of God', using that which fits the culture.

Could it be something like this that John the Baptist said, 'Look! The Hog of God who takes away the sin of the world!' It would need to be something like that for a culture that knows nothing about sheep and shepherds - and has no access to mass media.

Oz

 

[Jim Parker]

Could it be something like this that John the Baptist said, 'Look! The Hog of God who takes away the sin of the world!' It would need to be something like that for a culture that knows nothing about sheep and shepherds - and has no access to mass media.

That's exactly what happened.

And
"GODSHOG" is a license plate for a Harley-Davidson owned by a believer. (heh heh heh)