Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Desiderata in the Bible? | Romans | AWilliamson | 217943 | ||
"Textual criticism and translation are disciplines that do not depend on the spirituality of the person involved in the process. Indeed, we would rather that such endeavors were as free from a theological agenda as possible." Hi Doc, Could you expand a little or perhaps clarify? a] I personally myself would prefer that a person with a high view of the Scriptures, such as their plenary inspiration, were involved in textual criticism and translation. b] I don't claim expertise in the field of biblical textual criticism but I would believe people adhering to the revealed truth, with a desire to obey, are more likely candidates for the pure translation and transmission of the Holy Scriptures. Your comments are welcome, please enlarge Warmly, in the Lord, Andrew |
||||||
2 | Is Desiderata in the Bible? | Romans | DocTrinsograce | 217966 | ||
Dear Andrew, Thank you, again for this question. I believe I have discussed it in the forum before, but I can't seem to put my finger on it right now. Textual criticism is a very precise and public activity. It is the effort to insure that the Greek and Hebrew texts are as true to the original autographs as possible. Short of having the the original manuscript in hand, it involves a great deal of detective work. It tends to be very "scientific" in the sense that it involves the application of precise and obvious techniques. Translation, on the other hand, is the effort to render the resulting texts from Greek and Hebrew to some other language. It tends to be a bit more of an art, than textual criticism. Nevertheless, the two have one thing in common: they are done out in the open, following publicly expressed and articulated principles, yielding demonstrable results. One of the things that we as believers always find ourselves involved in, to one extent or another, is apologetics. When I suggested that we'd rather that such endeavors were as free from theological agenda as possible, I meant that we want everything out in the open, we want everything visible. Christianity is all about historicity. It is about eye-witness accounts. It is about things that "were not done in a corner." When many different people are involved, and their work is open to scrutiny and criticism, it precludes the possibility that it was done with a hidden agenda. Now, by these statements I am not saying that the principles by which translation takes place are not important. On the contrary, as you have pointed out, the belief in the verbal plenary inspiration of the word as it was originally written necessitates the kind of principles behind translations like the NASB and ESV. It also causes us to look askance at translations like the NIV, or paraphrases like the Open Bible. It also is evidenced by all the serious problems with things like the New World translation or the Jerusalem Bible or the Complete Jewish Bible. Even so, there issues of translation are quite difficult. Sometimes a translation is so good because it has been accepted for so long, influencing the vary language for which it was produced. The KJV was very well done, although by modern standards we might question the agenda of those who produced it. Nevertheless, we now have words in English that more accurately represent the intent of the original writers. One example comes to mind: the word heresy is used by Paul. A better modern English translation might be schism. At the time of the KJV translation, the word heresy did mean schism more than it does today. However, the meaning of the word heresy today more precisely exposes what Paul meant when he was writing. That is because of the careful, thorough, exposition of the Word by pastors and teachers over the years. It has actually changed our language! Consequently, the KJV becomes a better translation with time. Now, when a person exposits the Word of God, I believe that that is the time that their walk with the Lord comes most to bear. The same is true of the listener. If you want to read more about what I have had to say about Biblical interpretation, you might read my posts under thread #156916. In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Is Desiderata in the Bible? | Romans | AWilliamson | 217987 | ||
Thanks Doc, That clarifies to me what you said somewhat. I'm absolutely in agreement with having everything out in the open when in comes to textual criticism and translation. Your note is very helpful. Without mixing terms, I think perhaps that the interpretation/exposition of the Word involves some "textual criticism" at times. What I mean is, as H.C.G. Moule put it: "It is an obviously right principle, though calling for most cautious application, that no amount of MS. evidence ought ever to force on us a reading which mars the context" I believe that many of the textual problems would solve themselves if we had a deeper appreciation of the general context, flow of thought and spiritual import of the specific scriptures under consideration. Food for thought anyway! In Christ, Andrew |
||||||
4 | Is Desiderata in the Bible? | Romans | DocTrinsograce | 218014 | ||
Hi, Andrew... Yes, the expositor should be versed in the disciplines. Good expositors should be trained in ancient Bible languages, as well. However, a good expositor will not necessarily be well gifted to be a translator, etc. These disciplines are not interchangeable. For instance, one of the greatest theologians in church history -- outside of Paul -- would be Augustine of Hippo. One of the greatest exegetes would be John Chrysostom. I would argue that all exegetes are theologians and all theologians are exegetes. But all good exegetes are not necessarily the best theologians, nor are all good theologians the best exegetes. To a certain extent, even those disciplines are of a mechanical nature. Now, when we speak of sitting under the exposition of the Word, we certainly need someone with the correct mechanical skills. However, we also need someone whose life has been changed by the Gospel. (If you look back through my posts, you will see how I have emphasized this over and over.) God has specifically called men to minister to the church. Those men are not infallible or inerrant, but are necessary gifts to the church. Gifts that if neglected render worldly, deceived, and immature members -- see specifically Ephesians 4. Anyway, I hope that helps a bit. In Him, Doc PS I frequently pray for the people of the British Isles. I would persevere in my prayers, knowing that the Lord's own are amongst all tongues and nations. However, He sometimes very graciously, encourages me by revealing a few individuals. I am quite happy to learn that you and your brother have been evangelized, as well as having been taught sound doctrine. Thank you both for participating in the forum. |
||||||
5 | Is Desiderata in the Bible? | Romans | AWilliamson | 218053 | ||
thanks Doc, I appreciate the encouragement! Regards in Him, Andrew |
||||||