I have been fortunate to have joined this church in 2004 and began leading the men's Sunday School class in 2005. I have experience teaching Bible Studies for over 15 years, having worked as a layperson with the Navigators in the 1980s and 90s. I was blessed to have attended Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for 2 full years.
I think the translation that we use does matter. We need to ensure that we use an accurate translation
1) To protect us from false teachers; who selectively remove and add words to the Scriptures (Rev 22:18-19)
2) To ensure that we are properly taught, the prophets and apostles did not water down Scripture but quoted it accurately
3) So that we can grow to maturity (see below from 1 Peter & Hebrews).
Although certain translations may be more helpful to students, youth, and new believers because of vocabulary....as we mature in our faith we are called to seek the solid food so that we may be able to teach and discern good from evil. Studying scripture is not easy, but is something we have the responsibility to do and that we should long to do.
"Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good." 1 Peter 2:2-3
Hebrews 5:11-14 "Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."
Clearly, there are some translations that are worse or better than others. What is key for me is that in the translation, there is no intentional bias, other culturally or religiously. And some paraphrases do water things down a little. In the living bible, in Matthew 4 Jesus told satan "get out of here" which is the same as "depart from me" but too informal for my taste. There are other examples where the NIV differs from the NASB, where I prefer the NASB, but I think those two, among others are pretty solid.
I am very comfortable with the NASB (New American Standard Bible) and ESV (English Standard Version) for study (literal/formal equivalence = word for word), and I like the NIV or HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) for public reading.
Dynamic/functional equivalence translations seek to be more thought for thought. The NIV is more of a balance between the two which makes it easier for public reading. The creators of the HCSB (funded by LifeWay) termed this sort of balance "optimal equivalence".
Today's NIV (TNIV, if you haven't heard of it) has a lot of controversy b/c it has gender-inclusive language and inappropriate translations. A good website on this is: http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/tnivconcerns.php
Did you know that both the Southern Baptist Convention and Presbyterian Church in America have passed resolutions disapproving the TNIV?
The TNIV is a good example of where Bible translators can go wrong in trying to modify the Word of God to our culture.
A good website to check out different translations is: www.biblegateway.com
I have looked at some of those changes. I agree the ones that refer to prophecies of Christ should not be made generic, but I generally believe that where the verses are intended to include male and females, then the generic is more appropriate. So truly God did mean to make mankind, not just man in His image.
Like the resolution against Disney, I think this is throwing out the baby with the bath water. I like the inclusion of gender neutral language where that is intended. When we use "man" consistently, where all humans are meant, we make ourselves appear chauvanistic and I think that is unfortunate.
Here is the point that Dr. Grudem uses to answer why he uses the term "man" to refer to the human race, instead of any other alternative wording....because God did.
Genesis 5:1-2 "This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them 'man.'"
God called all of humanity "man". The Hebrew word is 'adam....which is the same name given to Adam and used periodically to refer both to man as male and to the human race.
Dr. Grudem points out that since the use of man to refer to the human race "originated with God himself...we should not find it objectionable or insensitive."
Did God use the word Adam or did the original writer? In other words, did God speak in Hebrew about the making of man, or did the writer? Is it not possible that the Hebrew language had the same word for Man and Mankind and not God??
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states: "Article VI We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration."
Whether God said "adam" in Hebrew (doubtful b/c pre-Babel)is irrevelant...why? Because the text of Genesis is inspired, God chose for the write to use exactly that word (adam) to communicate.
Further from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy "Article IX We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word."
jonathan, you misunderstand. If a writer is writing in Hebrew, he writes within the constraints of his language. So if the Hebrew language uses the same word for man and mankind that speaks more to limits in the Hebrew language and does not reveal anything about how God feels about man and the proper name for mankind.
Let me refer back to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy...
"We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word."
Got it...Hebrew is finite as is the writer. Despite that, God communicated exactly as He desired by having a Hebrew writer use a Hebrew word to express what He wanted to communicate.
I agree that that it is possible that God chose to use the Hebrew language, with its "finitude" to disclose something to humanity that He could not reveal in any other language. But I would not call it a sistortion or falsehood to suggest that when a Hebrew writer uses a certain word like ADAM, then that singular word reveals how God wants humanity spoken of for all of time. It is a little like parables. There is a huge danger in reading into them too much. And the same goes with any text. When we read too deeply into it, we can suggest a lot of erroneous interpretations. Not to say that we do not want to look closely, and carefully and every text. But to completely ignore the historical context that the writers were composing in is naive. When Paul talks about marriage in I Cor 7, he clearly has some ideas about the imminence of Christ's return. And when we interpret that passage, we take that into account. It does not in any way mean that error is introduced, but just that all scriptures should be understood within a context, and the language of the writers is a part of the context.
13 comments:
I think the translation that we use does matter. We need to ensure that we use an accurate translation
1) To protect us from false teachers; who selectively remove and add words to the Scriptures (Rev 22:18-19)
2) To ensure that we are properly taught, the prophets and apostles did not water down Scripture but quoted it accurately
3) So that we can grow to maturity (see below from 1 Peter & Hebrews).
Although certain translations may be more helpful to students, youth, and new believers because of vocabulary....as we mature in our faith we are called to seek the solid food so that we may be able to teach and discern good from evil. Studying scripture is not easy, but is something we have the responsibility to do and that we should long to do.
"Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good." 1 Peter 2:2-3
Hebrews 5:11-14 "Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."
Clearly, there are some translations that are worse or better than others. What is key for me is that in the translation, there is no intentional bias, other culturally or religiously. And some paraphrases do water things down a little. In the living bible, in Matthew 4 Jesus told satan "get out of here" which is the same as "depart from me" but too informal for my taste. There are other examples where the NIV differs from the NASB, where I prefer the NASB, but I think those two, among others are pretty solid.
I am very comfortable with the NASB (New American Standard Bible) and ESV (English Standard Version) for study (literal/formal equivalence = word for word), and I like the NIV or HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) for public reading.
Dynamic/functional equivalence translations seek to be more thought for thought. The NIV is more of a balance between the two which makes it easier for public reading. The creators of the HCSB (funded by LifeWay) termed this sort of balance "optimal equivalence".
Today's NIV (TNIV, if you haven't heard of it) has a lot of controversy b/c it has gender-inclusive language and inappropriate translations. A good website on this is:
http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/tnivconcerns.php
Did you know that both the Southern Baptist Convention and Presbyterian Church in America have passed resolutions disapproving the TNIV?
The TNIV is a good example of where Bible translators can go wrong in trying to modify the Word of God to our culture.
A good website to check out different translations is:
www.biblegateway.com
I have looked at some of those changes. I agree the ones that refer to prophecies of Christ should not be made generic, but I generally believe that where the verses are intended to include male and females, then the generic is more appropriate. So truly God did mean to make mankind, not just man in His image.
Here is a link to the SBC's resolution on their issues with the TNIV
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1118
Like the resolution against Disney, I think this is throwing out the baby with the bath water. I like the inclusion of gender neutral language where that is intended. When we use "man" consistently, where all humans are meant, we make ourselves appear chauvanistic and I think that is unfortunate.
Here is the point that Dr. Grudem uses to answer why he uses the term "man" to refer to the human race, instead of any other alternative wording....because God did.
Genesis 5:1-2 "This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them 'man.'"
God called all of humanity "man". The Hebrew word is 'adam....which is the same name given to Adam and used periodically to refer both to man as male and to the human race.
Dr. Grudem points out that since the use of man to refer to the human race "originated with God himself...we should not find it objectionable or insensitive."
Did God use the word Adam or did the original writer? In other words, did God speak in Hebrew about the making of man, or did the writer? Is it not possible that the Hebrew language had the same word for Man and Mankind and not God??
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states: "Article VI We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration."
Whether God said "adam" in Hebrew (doubtful b/c pre-Babel)is irrevelant...why? Because the text of Genesis is inspired, God chose for the write to use exactly that word (adam) to communicate.
Further from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy "Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy
jonathan, you misunderstand. If a writer is writing in Hebrew, he writes within the constraints of his language. So if the Hebrew language uses the same word for man and mankind that speaks more to limits in the Hebrew language and does not reveal anything about how God feels about man and the proper name for mankind.
Let me refer back to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy...
"We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word."
Got it...Hebrew is finite as is the writer. Despite that, God communicated exactly as He desired by having a Hebrew writer use a Hebrew word to express what He wanted to communicate.
I agree that that it is possible that God chose to use the Hebrew language, with its "finitude" to disclose something to humanity that He could not reveal in any other language. But I would not call it a sistortion or falsehood to suggest that when a Hebrew writer uses a certain word like ADAM, then that singular word reveals how God wants humanity spoken of for all of time. It is a little like parables. There is a huge danger in reading into them too much. And the same goes with any text. When we read too deeply into it, we can suggest a lot of erroneous interpretations. Not to say that we do not want to look closely, and carefully and every text. But to completely ignore the historical context that the writers were composing in is naive. When Paul talks about marriage in I Cor 7, he clearly has some ideas about the imminence of Christ's return. And when we interpret that passage, we take that into account. It does not in any way mean that error is introduced, but just that all scriptures should be understood within a context, and the language of the writers is a part of the context.
Post a Comment