a related issue

[herev]

As this is not directly creation or evolution, please read in context of this forum--it definitely relates.
Question for my creationists friends (a genuine question, so if my TE brothers will refrain from any baiting or attacking their position):
When you suggest (as California Tim has in another forum) that the Holy Spirit has preserved the text in the Bible--what does this mean exactly?
In other words...
1) are the words we read perfectly preserved as we read them in our own native tongue (English for most of us)?
2) Were the origninal words in HEbrew, arabic, or Greek, the ones that were preserved?
or
3) Is it simply the ideas that are preserved?

The problem I see with 1 is that we would then have to identify which translation, and then assume that the only preserved is in English (or whatever)
Nubmer 2 would suggest that we really don't know what has been preserved today at all
NUmber 3 would suggest allow for an easy understanding of TE, as the ideas are preserved, but require interpretation.

Thanks for keeping it civil
Tommy

 

[California Tim]

I think this thread presents a fundamentally sound question and is critical to the foundation of our faith. Without going into great detail (unless requested) I would ask these questions which are all interdependant where this issue is concerned:

1: Is the Holy Spirit capable of delivering His Word intact through the original human authors despite personal bias'?
2: Is He willing to convey His perfect Word in said fashion?

If the answer to #1 and #2 above is "Yes", then -->​

3: Is He capable of preserving His word for all generations?
4: Is He willing to preserve His Word for all generations?

To answer these questions, I read His word to discern His attributes, His character and His history to find the answer to all 4 questions is yes. Thus I conclude His word is not only innerrant at the time it was authored, it is also just as reliable and trustworthy today. That is the cornerstone of my personal faith. To question the authenticity or accuracy of the Bible would be to question the historicity and reliability of virtual any and all of it including the birth, life, deity, sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ my savior. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Vance]

Actually, I would answer all four as "yes", too. And I completely agree with the first two sentences of your last paragraph.

But let's look again at Herev's question. He is not asking if, or even whether, the Holy Spirit can and does preserve the text of the Bible. He is asking exactly what is being preserved. The words themselves and, if so, then in which language, and in which translation, since none of them can match exactly. If not the words, exactly, then it must be the ideas, the concepts, the messages which are preserved in their original meaning and import.

I think his question is whether YEC's would agree with this assessment.

And just because I can't resist: believing that God's message is presented in some Scripture in non-historical form is NOT to think it is inaccurate or unauthentic. Is Psalms inaccurate because it uses tons of figurative language? Job? Song of Solomon? I don't think the slippery slope is a problem as long as you have shoes with good traction. Again, tons of Christians have no problem believing every sound salvation doctrine that you do without believing that every verse in Scripture need be conveyed via historically accurate presentations. So, the slippery slope is not as slippery as you may fear.

Sorry Herev.

 

[MLML]

As this is not directly creation or evolution, please read in context of this forum--it definitely relates.
Question for my creationists friends (a genuine question, so if my TE brothers will refrain from any baiting or attacking their position):
When you suggest (as California Tim has in another forum) that the Holy Spirit has preserved the text in the Bible--what does this mean exactly?
In other words...
1) are the words we read perfectly preserved as we read them in our own native tongue (English for most of us)?
2) Were the origninal words in HEbrew, arabic, or Greek, the ones that were preserved?
or
3) Is it simply the ideas that are preserved?

The problem I see with 1 is that we would then have to identify which translation, and then assume that the only preserved is in English (or whatever)
Nubmer 2 would suggest that we really don't know what has been preserved today at all
NUmber 3 would suggest allow for an easy understanding of TE, as the ideas are preserved, but require interpretation.

Thanks for keeping it civil
Tommy

Excellent question herev! Allow me to respond with a question: What are Jesus' Words here in this verse?

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

What did Christ mean when He said 'my words will never pass away'? What are Christ's Words? Christ didn't write any of the Gospels, so tell me how do you know that what is quoted therein is Christ's Words?

Let us remember that Christ is God so 'my words' would not only include the quoted ones of Jesus, but those of God, the Father, and the Lord.

 

[herev]

OK, to California Tim and to NLML, I remember one time I heard my boss (when I was a salesman) say: If someone begins their answer with "that's a good question, you can be sure the question is better than this answer is going to be."
I appreciate and agree with your assessments, but like Vance, am still looking for an answer. We often hear people tell us that God's word says. I'm trying to understand what is meant by that statement. Where is God's word? If you're sure you have it, then is it restrictive to only what YOU have...
anyway, hoping for more

 

[California Tim]

OK, to California Tim and to NLML, I remember one time I heard my boss (when I was a salesman) say: If someone begins their answer with "that's a good question, you can be sure the question is better than this answer is going to be."
I appreciate and agree with your assessments, but like Vance, am still looking for an answer. We often hear people tell us that God's word says. I'm trying to understand what is meant by that statement. Where is God's word? If you're sure you have it, then is it restrictive to only what YOU have...
anyway, hoping for more

How about this progression:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isa 1:18)

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33)

And the gospel must first be published among all nations. (Mark 13:10)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31)

All Scripture 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. (2 Tim 3:16-17)​

Of course to accept the above as authoritative there whould have to be a presumption beforehand that the Word is accurate and reliable. To that end I consider:

archaelogical evidence such as:

-the Dead Sea scrolls confirming accuracy of later translations,
- The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable.
- The discovery of the Hittite capital and records at Bogazkoy, Turkey. (a people Bible skeptics proclaimed to never have existed)
just to name a few.​

and I consider the fulfilled prophecies,

-approximately 2000 of the 2500 prophecies fulfilled to the letter. The remaining prophecies concern future events
-statistical improbability of prophecy fulfilled by Christ:

• Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
  (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I have to run for the moment. Let me know what, if anything is missing that would authenticate the acuracy and authority of the written Word. Peace.

 

[herev]

no, no, no--which bible is the preserved written word--I'm not arguing whether or not the Bible is God's word, but which tranlation, which version, which language--only ancient manuscripts or modern--how modern

How about this progression:

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isa 1:18)


For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33)

And the gospel must first be published among all nations. (Mark 13:10)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31)

All Scripture 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. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
​

Of course to accept the above as authoritative there whould have to be a presumption beforehand that the Word is accurate and reliable. To that end I consider:



archaelogical evidence such as:

-the Dead Sea scrolls confirming accuracy of later translations,

- The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable.
- The discovery of the Hittite capital and records at Bogazkoy, Turkey. (a people Bible skeptics proclaimed to never have existed)
just to name a few.
​

and I consider the fulfilled prophecies,

-approximately 2000 of the 2500 prophecies fulfilled to the letter. The remaining prophecies concern future events

-statistical improbability of prophecy fulfilled by Christ:

• Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
  (Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I have to run for the moment. Let me know what, if anything is missing that would authenticate the acuracy and authority of the written Word. Peace.

 

[California Tim]

no, no, no--which bible is the preserved written word--I'm not arguing whether or not the Bible is God's word, but which tranlation, which version, which language--only ancient manuscripts or modern--how modern

LoL. Ok we're back to the my first post. Do you feel that God is able and willing to preserve His Word for all peoples throughout all time, whether they be Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, English, Chinese, Japanese, Peruvian, Arabic, Indian? It does not matter the translation if it is derived from the oldest possible manuscripts. The answer is critical. IF you feel He does care enough to preserve His word intact, then it stands to reason that we have access to such in our native language.

Personally I feel it is a no brainer demonstrated by God who gave the apostles the gift of speaking in tongues (known languages) as an indication of His intention from the very beginning to provide His word in all native languages. This claim has been further proven to skeptics when older and older manuscripts unearthed by archaelogists reveal a consistently reliable translation over the ages through all languages. So to answer your question, ANY translation based on the oldest available or original manuscripts is a representation of His preserved Word. Is THAT more in line with what you are asking?

 

[herev]

much closer

LoL. Ok we're back to the my first post. Do you feel that God is able and willing to preserve His Word for all peoples throughout all time, whether they be Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, English, Chinese, Japanese, Peruvian, Arabic, Indian? It does not matter the translation if it is derived from the oldest possible manuscripts. The answer is critical. IF you feel He does care enough to preserve His word intact, then it stands to reason that we have access to such in our native language.

answering a question with a question. Yes, I do believe He is ABLE. The problem is that you use the word "intact." My question is: Do we actually hae that--intact seems to imply word for word as recorded by God through his hand-chosen authors and translators. In this case--my NIV and my NRSV and my KJV don't agree, so which is the "intact" version

Personally I feel it is a no brainer demonstrated by God who gave the apostles the gift of speaking in tongues (known languages) as an indication of His intention from the very beginning to provide His word in all native languages. This claim has been further proven to skeptics when older and older manuscripts unearthed by archaelogists reveal a consistently reliable translation over the ages through all languages. So to answer your question, ANY translation based on the oldest available or original manuscripts is a representation of His preserved Word. Is THAT more in line with what you are asking?

I like this better--a representation of His preserved word (sorry for the lower case--Jeus is the Word (IMHO)--so none of the ones we have now are ACTUALLY intact?

 

[California Tim]

I like this better--a representation of His preserved word (sorry for the lower case--Jeus is the Word (IMHO)--so none of the ones we have now are ACTUALLY intact?

Boy, this is a hard one to answer to the level I see you want it answered. If you are going to ask me if our translations are as accurately rendered as the originals (have you ever seen the process the original copies were subjected to?) then we have to consider the intent of God. Since the original manuscripts are in a completely different language, one cannot possibly adhere to the strict rules of copy that the scribes of old had to. So in their place we have councils of academic Godly men, Biblical scholars, Historians and linguists who together scrutinize the translations by the guidance of the same Holy Spirit that guided the original authors. I feel that the end product represents God's entire inspired Word in that language. (back to His ableness and willingness)

You ask if one translation is a better representation than another. To that I would answer that all the orthodox English translations based on the original manuscripts preserve the essence of His message with only minor differences in wording. I also feel the Japanese, Indian, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, and Spanish translations accomplish the same purpose for that matter. There are many Chinese dialects, and similarly there are many English variations as well. I don't absorb the King James English as well as the NASB since my modern English requires I retranslate some of the old English words to fully grasp the meaning of a particular passage. There is a version in every native tongue that is plainly understandable and as reliable as the originals insofar as it's ability to declare God's plan for mankind is concerned. If the translation is based on the originals - take your pick. That's my position anyway.

 

[California Tim]

Oddly I just noticed you said:

Yes, I do believe He is ABLE.

Yet you stop short of accepting His "willingness" to preserve His word for ALL peoples of ALL nations. Might I ask why the reluctance?

 

[herev]

ok, I can deal with this

the reason I ask is that when we start to assume that we have the exact words of God in these passages, we end up treating the words themselves as almost an entity unto itself--and one worthy of our worship almost. It as if we say, OOO, be careful, the word or God must not be treated to any type of study or criticism (I mean that in the studious sense of the word). We must simply put it on a pedestal and wait for wisdom to pour over the sides. For me, we have a lot of good translations, but not one single orignial. I remember my NT professor started off the semester once by saying something like: "we have over 5000 manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts that date back to the first couple of centuries AD--and not one single one of them agrees with another. and we have no originals!!"
It scares me when we treat scripture as something that is too fragile to be questioned, studied, or even debated. I believe God and his word are quite capable of stadning up to the scrutiny. God bless

Boy, this is a hard one to answer to the level I see you want it answered. If you are going to ask me if our translations are as accurately rendered as the originals (have you ever seen the process the original copies were subjected to?) then we have to consider the intent of God. Since the original manuscripts are in a completely different language, one cannot possibly adhere to the strict rules of copy that the scribes of old had to. So in their place we have councils of academic Godly men, Biblical scholars, Historians and linguists who together scrutinize the translations by the guidance of the same Holy Spirit that guided the original authors. I feel that the end product represents God's entire inspired Word in that language. (back to His ableness and willingness)

You ask if one translation is a better representation than another. To that I would answer that all the orthodox English translations based on the original manuscripts preserve the essence of His message with only minor differences in wording. I also feel the Japanese, Indian, Chinese, Russian, Arabic, and Spanish translations accomplish the same purpose for that matter. There are many Chinese dialects, and similarly there are many English variations as well. I don't absorb the King James English as well as the NASB since my modern English requires I retranslate some of the old English words to fully grasp the meaning of a particular passage. There is a version in every native tongue that is plainly understandable and as reliable as the originals insofar as it's ability to declare God's plan for mankind is concerned. If the translation is based on the originals - take your pick. That's my position anyway.

 

[California Tim]

Fair enough. Sometimes a victory is a simple realization that the positions for each are not as divergent as originally feared.

ok, I can deal with this

the reason I ask is that when we start to assume that we have the exact words of God in these passages, we end up treating the words themselves as almost an entity unto itself--and one worthy of our worship almost. It as if we say, OOO, be careful, the word or God must not be treated to any type of study or criticism (I mean that in the studious sense of the word). We must simply put it on a pedestal and wait for wisdom to pour over the sides. For me, we have a lot of good translations, but not one single orignial. I remember my NT professor started off the semester once by saying something like: "we have over 5000 manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts that date back to the first couple of centuries AD--and not one single one of them agrees with another. and we have no originals!!"
It scares me when we treat scripture as something that is too fragile to be questioned, studied, or even debated. I believe God and his word are quite capable of stadning up to the scrutiny. God bless

 

[herev]

Oddly I just noticed you said:

Yet you stop short of accepting His "willingness" to preserve His word for ALL peoples of ALL nations. Might I ask why the reluctance?

sure, the problem is that I cannot find anything that suggests that we have God's words exactly as presented to the original authors. We might--it might be the King James or the NIV or in some language I don't speak. But since we don't have such a literal exact copy, then I suggest he hasn't

 

[herev]

Fair enough. Sometimes a victory is a simple realization that the positions for each are not as divergent as originally feared.

Amen to that, O Victory in Jesus, My Savoir, For ever....

 

[California Tim]

sure, the problem is that I cannot find anything that suggests that we have God's words exactly as presented to the original authors. We might--it might be the King James or the NIV or in some language I don't speak. But since we don't have such a literal exact copy, then I suggest he hasn't

I'm going to quit while we're ahead.

 

[herev]

Thanks Tim

 

[MLML]

sure, the problem is that I cannot find anything that suggests that we have God's words exactly as presented to the original authors. We might--it might be the King James or the NIV or in some language I don't speak. But since we don't have such a literal exact copy, then I suggest he hasn't

It seems by you suggesting God hasn't kept His Word intact, that you are silently saying Jesus lied or didn't mean what He said when He said His Word will never pass away. Maybe I just misunderstood you, I hope.

I think by this discussion we are trying to do what the Pharisees did in Jesus' day. They focused so much on specific matters, that they lost the message. I believe in most of the translations we have - I say most because there is one that perverts the entire truths of the Bible by promoting such things as homosexuality through Paul - the message is intact. Would you agree the message is still there?

If one is looking to get deeper into the Bible, other then understanding salvation, then I would think it would be wise to learn Hebrew and Greek and study the original languages. One thing to keep in mind, the more we learn about God and His Word the more we will be held accountable for.

 

[Vance]

Yes, you have misunderstood. I will let Herev explain since it is his thread, really.

 

[MLML]

I hope I did.

I think that if one needs to understand what God's Word is, then this one has a bigger problem then worry about Genesis 1-2. If you cannot believe the Bible is God's Word and everything therein is true in all aspects, then one can speculate what is true and what isnt'. It won't be limited to Genesis 1-2, but rather the whole Bible. I suppose you could limited to just the five books of the Bible, because most scholars believe Moses wrote all of them. Then you would have to argue against yourself if the ten commandments are real or just a story. Was God really present in those times as it said or is that just a story. Did God create or is that just a story. Is the first prophecy of Christ in Genesis 2 real or just a story. And if that prophecy of Christ is just a story could the 500+ plus also be. Did the writers at this time all write similiar to Moses by telling stories rather then truths. Is the Bible just literature that teaches us how to act towards one another.

I think the point others have tried to make is that if you subject Genesis to the type of think that it is just a story, meaning it didn't really happen but gives a lesson, then you can subject the Bible to same type of thinking. I believe this would benefit Satan's cause if one could bring serious doubt in how to read the Bible. What I find truly fascinating is that in Genesis 3 Satan says, did God really mean that. And this same thinking is being used today, did God really mean He created in 6 days, or is that just a story.

At the very least you have to see the correlation between what Satan said and what is being said today.

You have said in other posts your faith is strong, so I trust you and believe that if you believe Genesis is just a story you won't subject the whole Bible to this thinking. But I would be willing to bet you that someone else will.