Conservative Biblical Interpretation

[Erasmus00]

This is largely aimed at Christians, though it probably applies to other holy texts.

 

I was reading some of the other posts, and a comment about the accuracy of various biblical translations came up. It got me thinking. For those who believe the bible is the inerrant word of God, how can we have multiple translations? It seems to me that if God meant to keep the bible inerrant, then all translations should be inerrant. If God allows errors to creep in during the translation process, how can we be sure the present texts haven't already been changed a bit?

 

Furthermore, if God allows man's imperfection to creep into the bible during translations, how can we be sure that the imperfection didn't creep in during the initial transcription process?

-Will

[cwes99_03]

Well to simply answer that, the original is the only one that claims to be inerrant. However, to go further, there have been many changes over the years to the Bible that we know of. These include removing the tetragramaton from the scriptures because of superstition, among other things. Largely we can only claim to have read the oldest, most accurate translations, and make the best translation possible. This translation then would have to be agreed upon by a great many experts in the field (of language, Biblical archaeology, etc.) as to its accuracy.

Has this been done? Yep. Several different groups have done it. There are some discrepancies between them, most of which do not change anything at all. Some translations have been purposefully simplified for easy understanding, and they make this claim (usually in the title of the work). Through continuous study of the texts, the original documents, and other documents that contain writing from the same era (possibly from the same people who copied the original) in the same language, we can make extremely well educated guesses. We also know the painstaking efforts men from the 1st century AD through to the 14th century (and possibly earlier and later, but these numbers I've been recently aquainted with in my studies) took to make exact copies. Down to counting the letters of each copy to make sure nothing was added or removed.

 

Here's a question. How do we know that modern translations of the rosetta stone are what were originally purposed to be written down? We have translations. How do we know that the different languages didnt say very similar things, but not the exact same thing, conveying the exact same idea?

[Erasmus00]

Well to simply answer that, the original is the only one that claims to be inerrant.

 

I guess my question goes down to a more theological one: Why would God go to all the trouble of handing down one inerrant book and then not make sure that we don't change it? If man can change the book, what justification do we have for assuming the first man to write it down didn't change it a bit, add some of his own bias?

 

Here's a question. How do we know that modern translations of the rosetta stone are what were originally purposed to be written down? We have translations. How do we know that the different languages didnt say very similar things, but not the exact same thing, conveying the exact same idea?

 

We don't really. We can read the Greek, but the heiroglyphics we tried to translate without even knowing the language. I don't think I really see the relation.

-Will

[cwes99_03]

Well, talk to a Jehovah's Witness and they will say that he did, and they usually back it up with some historical information about why they believe this. I don't know all the information on it, but I'm sure I could find out.

 

As for reading the Greek. Are you sure we can read the Greek exactly as it was written, contextually and all? How do you know that over the years the Greek language didn't develope a bit, and when it was originally chiseled into the stone wasn't 300 years or so before we can actually say that the language was dead and not changing. In fact, is that form of greek not still a developing language?

[Southtown]

I guess my question goes down to a more theological one: Why would God go to all the trouble of handing down one inerrant book and then not make sure that we don't change it? If man can change the book, what justification do we have for assuming the first man to write it down didn't change it a bit, add some of his own bias?

Good topic. I don't think we can just pick up a bible, which is actually 66 books, and assume it's inerrant. When Jesus claimed that "the scriptures cannot be broken", he was probably trying to convey the power of the true original message, not the indestructibility of the actual pages.

 

Jesus was also referring to the OT since the NT didn't exist at the time. The integrity of the OT isn't really disputed as far as I know, depending on which copy is spoken of. The Masoretic scribes were as faithful as possible with the OT, copying even word positions within lines of text and marginal notes. Other languages such as the Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate are more debated.

 

The NT is a different story. The Christian church divided soon after its inception. The reason for this is that the Gospel was taken to the pagans, or sun-worshippers. And for about three centuries, there were Judaic Christians living with Pagan Christians, until Constantine made one "universal" church known as the Roman Catholic Church (catholic means universal) and the merger of beliefs and practices began. The history of the Christian church is the recorded adventing of revisionist doctrine.

 

So the answer is no. Any miscellaneous bible you pick up today will most definitely have some errors, whether they be intentional or not. So bible readers should research the methods and aim of their translation. But this doesn't mean the NT is hopelessly subjective.

 

The remnant texts divide roughly into two groups Alexandrian and Byzantine. Some favor Alexandrian because the dates are usually earlier, but others, myself included, prefer the Byzantine manuscripts because they hold the overwhelming majority. In my mind, it stands to reason that if alterations were attempted at some point in history, the counterfeits and the originals would then be copied at a very similar rate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual...ew_Testament

 

Oddly though, it really only matters for around 92% of the manuscripts. And from what Gary Zeolla, author of the Analytical-Literal Translation of the NT, wrote in his book "Differences Between Bible Versions" (1994), when translated into English, the meaningful variations affect only 1-2% of the NT. This notion was also hinted at on Wiki:

“

To give a feel for the difference between the Byzantine form of text and the Eclectic text, which is Alexandrian in character, of 800 variation units in the Epistle of James collected by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, the Byzantine and Eclectic texts are in agreement in 731 of the places (a rate of 92.3%).

Many of the 69 disagreements involve differences in word order and other variants that do not appear as translatable differences in English versions.

According to the preface to the New King James Version of the Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian text-type and the Byzantine text-type are 85% identical.”

—

Wiki

I prefer the World English Bible at present, but still have yet to be fully satisfied with any translation. I also read the American Standard Version heavily.

 

In concluding, the quest to understand the bible is about as easy as understanding all the history and culture of the last 4-6000 years, the intermittent years being just as important. And such aspirations should be considered a life long journey with potentially no climax to be achieved. But no, the modern publications are not inerrant, and finding a good translation is probably half the battle.

“

I tell you, keep asking, and it will be given you. Keep seeking, and you will find. Keep knocking, and it will be opened to you. 11:10 For everyone who asks receives. He who seeks finds. To him who knocks it will be opened.”

— Jesus (

Luke 11:9-10 web

)

[Southtown]

Oddly though, it really only matters for around 92% of the manuscripts. And from what Gary Zeolla, author of the Analytical-Literal Translation of the NT, wrote in his book "Differences Between Bible Versions" (1994), when translated into English, the meaningful variations affect only 1-2% of the NT.

There are many different versions these days because there is more than one way to convey meaning in English.

 

Many varying modern translations exist for the reason that English allows many choices in rendering intent.

 

The fact that our language permits us to say the same things in many ways contributes to the multitude of modern bible versions.

[cwes99_03]

That, or the scriptures that refer to people who would mislead the congregations. Matt 7:15,10:16, Acts 20:29, 2 Tim4:3-4.

[Southtown]

Gots lots uh Good Books these days, cuz thar's more than one way to skin cat, speak-wise that is.

 

And ya, there are some obvious errors here and there. But, there's no way to deal with 'em so non-specifically.

[cwes99_03]

You have a lot of books (i'll not go so far as to call them good) because everyone wants to reinterpret the Bible with some seemingly minor change that allows them to worship the way they want.

Why are there so many versions of the Bible floating around and still being created written in Olde English? Is there some mystical quality of the olde english that makes it more powerful? Of course, mysticism is the same as spiritism. Hmmmmm.

[Southtown]

You have a lot of books (i'll not go so far as to call them good) because everyone wants to reinterpret the Bible with some seemingly minor change that allows them to worship the way they want.

Yeah, there's also a little ambiguity about actual meaning of some passages. When translated into a more readable form of English, some of these passages require some precognitive interpretation. One has to be aware of the more literal renderings in order to validate the non-literal renderings. The lesser skilled in literacy, those who can't or won't read formal renderings, just have to hope they get a knowledgable recommendation.

 

Why are there so many versions of the Bible floating around and still being created written in Olde English? Is there some mystical quality of the olde english that makes it more powerful? Of course, mysticism is the same as spiritism. Hmmmmm.

I think the KJV and the ASV are good versions. They aren't perfect, of course, and the words could be updated without altering sentences. But they were translated from Greek back when people still quaked in their boots at the mere mention of the Almighty. Things are very different these days, as you said in my first quote.

 

Also, the ability to excavate and evaluate history on a global scale has only added to our ability to understand the cultures which these other languages were born from. While there are those who just make bibles say anything they want, there are also the faithfully diligent who are making the bible more accurate than was previously possible. Again, though, it requires a little research.

 

http://www.dtl.org

[cwes99_03]

Hmm a word about that site. These sites are very persuasive. But note one thing about his reconstruction of the scripture found at John 1:1.

 

This is of course the scripture (and I've never actually seen anyone quote another scripture) that is used by people to say that God is a trinity. The official stance of the Catholic church is that the Trinity cannot actually be found in the literal translation of the Bible, but that from around 100 AD (note after all the apostles had died) the trinity began to be taught. It was not until the Council of Nicaea that Constantine (a very recently converted Christian) weighed in, and against the wishes of a great number at the council decided that the Trinity would be the official teaching of the church. Since then, it has been taught in every seminary as a teaching not to be logically understood, but a mystical part of the church to be believed in.

 

Zeolla's website points out that John 1:1 actually uses the article "the" in front of theos in the second part of the phrase, but does not use it with the second theos in the third part of the phrase. (this leads to the second theos meaning "JWHW", and the third theos meaning only god.)

He then goes on to say that this does not mean the Trinity is unscriptural. Instead he says that by saying that the character of the "Word" is godlike, means that he is the same "essence" as God, and that is why there are three separate beings, all equal in power (the meaning of the word Trinity as it effects Christianity.)

 

These websites are great because they do lend some truth (such as the existence of the article in front of one and not the other, and what that means as far as tranlation of the literal text) but then he goes on to say that the best translation he has come upon is the following.

dtl website JWs and John 1:1In the beginning the Word was existing.

And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father.

And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity.

Seems to me like he is adding to the word of God, to satisfy his thinking about the Trinity.

 

My point. While one may find these websites to contain some truth, it would be unwise to take everything they say to be total truth. Examining and re-examining the Bible is extremely wise. In fact, the Bible encourages it. It encourages reading it day and night. It encourages all who read it and discuss it with others to be constantly testing what they are hearing as to what the entire Bible says about the subject. It also says to be ready to make a defense for what you believe in (though that would imply using the Bible in that defense, not some newly converted person (1 Tim 3:6) who was himself doing lots to try and bring his nation back under his control as it fell apart around him.)

[Southtown]

Seems to me like he is adding to the word of God, to satisfy his thinking about the Trinity.

Good call. Can't say I agree with him.

 

My point. While one may find these websites to contain some truth, it would be unwise to take everything they say to be total truth. Examining and re-examining the Bible is extremely wise. In fact, the Bible encourages it.

Another good point. His knowledge about manuscripts doesn't necessarily qualify his doctrine.