Agabus (mark adams)

Developing a statement of faith…

with 6 comments

6 Responses to 'Developing a statement of faith…'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Developing a statement of faith…'.

1. “I believe the canonical scriptures are God-breathed, i.e. inspired; inerrant in the originals.”
   Define “canonical scriptures”. The books Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians consider the canonical differ from one another – and can even be different within each of those traditions!

   Also, I’m personally uneasy with the phrase “inerrant in the originals” because of at least two reasons. First, we don’t have the originals to compare our copies too. Saying the originals were inerrant – without error – is a dubious statement since it’s impossible for us to determine from our copies if they were indeed without error.

   Second, how is inerrancy defined? If by “inerrant” you mean no factual mistakes in any way, shape or form from within the originals, then you would be hard pressed to prove that statement true, even from, I believe, the internal witness of the Scriptures. The differences with the copies we have may not necessarily be doctrinally significant, however this type of inerrancy demands perfect transmission of every letter in the Bible, so even those variants become significant. With this type of inerrancy, there is always significant doubt as to whether a text is reliable. Without the originals, it is impossible for us to know if they were indeed inerrant, according to this definition.

   (As a side note, how would we even know if we found an original text? How would we know that it wasn’t a close copy of the original, and then, how would we know that it is exactly what was originally written?)

   If by “inerrant” you mean the originals were without error from within the genre and cultural context in which they were written, then, I believe, we can more reasonably deal with the many textual variants in the Bible. We can still determine the primary message of a text without becoming upset or bogged down, for example, with varying accounts of the same event (eg., differences between Kings and Chronicles, or textual variants of the number of Israelites that came out of Egypt in Numbers).

   “I believe the transmission of the Holy Scriptures and its translation into foreign tongues is a work of inspiration; that although we do not possess the originals (the autographs), the scriptures are reliable and accurate. I believe such constitutes a mystery of our faith.”
   I’m curious how you came to believe that even the Bible’s translation into foreign languages is an act of divine inspiration on the same par as divine inspiration of the biblical autographs. Regardless, and as I mentioned above, what do you mean by “reliable and accurate”? Also, what exactly “constitutes a mystery of our faith”: divine inspiration of the Scriptures or the Scriptures being reliable and accurate? Do you mean both?

   

   Michael W

   29 Aug 08 at 2:26 pm
2. The differences among Christians regarding the canon is strangely immaterial to me. Principally, the New Testament canon is the same among orthodox believers (Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). The Old Testament canon, granted, varies, but within acceptable boundaries: the apocrypha has never occupied a large place in Christian faith, not even among the early Christians who possessed the LXX, and therefore a majority of the apocrypha.

   That the scriptures are inerrant in the originals is dubious for the reasons you give, which is why I am considering appending the second statement about transmission and translation. Any statement about inerrancy is a statement of faith.

   As for the second statement about transmission and translation: If the scriptures are the principal authority for knowledge of the divine, and scripture exists only in transmitted copies, translated into thousands of languages, then transmission and translation must result from inspiration — God’s divine hand — or else we no longer have the principal authority.

   By “reliable and accurate,” I refer to the human side of transmission and translation. Somehow, God entrusted humans with the task of transmission and translation. So, the mystery of our faith is the divine work of God through human agency. Neither God nor man is diminished, and in all, God is exalted.

   

   admin

   29 Aug 08 at 11:37 pm
3. I had this really long winded response. Perhaps I’ll post this later as a blog entry. At any rate, after reading it, I decided to merely say this:

   The only thing I disagree with in your response is that the authority of Scripture is compromised if we do not grant that the translation/transmission process is inspired. Guided into maintaining a reasonable constancy, perhaps, but not inspired in a revelatory fashion. The authority of Scripture rests only on God, not man, and in that sense we can never compromise the authority of Scripture. I am willing to grant that the Lord’s hand may have guided the various translators and copyists throughout time, given the remarkable consistency of the copies of the last 1900 years.

   Maybe we’re saying the same thing, but approaching the topic from two different angles?

   

   Michael W

   30 Aug 08 at 2:28 am
4. Recalling that this entire thread is in the “what-do-you-think” category, I note that, paradoxically, claims about the authority of scripture are derived from a text which exists only in copies. As a “received” text, we should consider how it was received. But to clarify, no, I would not say that the inspiration of scripture and the inspiration of transmission/translation are the same. The issue is not whether we compromise the authority of scripture, but how we justify claims regarding the inspiration of scripture.

   Consider also the LXX. I know that some evangelicals are loathe to acknowledge its status, it is the text most quoted in the NT. Note that very often the LXX changes or modifies a text in the OT — and yet, often, those are the renderings we find in the NT (which is why a NT quotation of the OT does not always match the OT text we read). Now, who inspired these changes, changes affirmed in the NT?

   

   admin

   30 Aug 08 at 9:19 am
5. The Bottom Line: It is precisely the differences in the various translations that cause me to doubt divine inspiration in transmission/translation of the Scriptures. I am more willing to believe divine guidance – even divine interpretation of OT text in the case of the LXX – in the midst of human fallibility in accounting for textual similarities and differences.

   —

   The LXX isn’t a problem for me.

   To answer your question: I don’t think that these changes absolutely necessitate “divine inspiration”. Looking at this from another angle: it was Christ who explained how all the Scriptures were really talking about himself. Did Jesus use the LXX or the Masoretic text? Does it really matter? I don’t think so. The focus isn’t so much on the text itself, but on what the text means – the message the text is attempting to communicate. This maintains the importance of the text (the travesty of the New World Translation is example of why an accurate text is important) while understanding that the the Bible is merely a tool used by God to communicate with his people.

   Translation always involves a certain amount of interpretation. The translator must interpret words, phrases, and meanings from one language to another. In my church, where we use three languages (Mandarin, Indonesian, and English), I have noticed that there are all sorts of nuanced differences in the text between those three language Bibles (eg., through various discussions with people using non-English bibles). For example, a word in one text may imply a continuation of thought from one verse to another. Yet in my English bible, that word is not there and instead, there is the beginning of a new thought. Did God inspire these two different versions of the passage? I would say no, not necessarily. The wording may be different, caused by human fallibility, but the meaning of the passage can still be maintained, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

   In the case of the LXX – is the Hebrew bible more accurate or better than the Greek version? Considering that most of the world at that time spoke Greek and not Hebrew, and most of the NT writers affirm their dependency upon the LXX in quoting the words of God, then it follows, for me at least, that God adapted his textual Word for changing human circumstances. The Hebrew isn’t necessary better than the Greek, or vice versa. The Hebrew was useful for its time, and stood for a 1000 years. The Greek was useful for its time. Same as the Latin translation, and other translations that followed. There are many differences in all those translations, yet the message of the Gospel still spread, and people were still saved. Why? I suggest God’s providence in the midst of human fallibility. We may mess up in translating the written Word of God, but God is still in control, guiding even our mistakes to ensure the Gospel message is still preached.

   So, I still see the similarities and differences in transmission and translation as God’s guidance in the midst of human fallibility.

   

   Michael W

   2 Sep 08 at 3:29 pm
6. For me the issue is that all our beliefs about the Bible and its authority are derived singularly from a transmitted text, copies of copies through ages and ages, received in our mother tongue. Even in the “original” Greek, the text is only approximate — we do not possess the originals. So the question centers on what authority a transmitted text has? Considering the number of variants, we cannot point to any one text or translation.

   If God’s word is true today, then somehow God’s divine hand is in it.

   

   admin

   2 Sep 08 at 4:52 pm

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail