Craig Thacker - 16 June 2008 11:00 PM

It makes me wonder how any Christian can trust what is written in the Bible when there are many ways to translate any passage?

Hi Craig

The good news (as others have already intimated) is that the ambiguities, words we’re not sure of the meaning of, textual variants, etc. only account for a small percentage of the text as we have it (as Nathan has also pointed out).  Just sit down with two reputable English versions (ESV, NIV, RSV, RV, NASB, etc.) and read passages side by side.  Even though the choice of words, word order, etc. may vary, the essential meaning rarely does.  And when it does, it’s usually on something that the gospel does not hang on.  The overall message of the Bible, and the vast majority of the detail, is clear and unambiguous (older writers like to call this the perspicuity of Scripture) and should fill us with great confidence that God has spoken to us in a way that we can be sure that we have heard him.

Regards,

Bob

john clapton - 16 June 2008 03:10 PM

Genesis 1:1-2:4a is the product of Priestly tradition and that 2:4b -25 is a product of what is called the Yahwistic tradition.

It’s great to discuss these things amongst interpretative theological thinkers, lots of interesting thoughts. I’m left to think that God gave one original account, it would seem strange to give two contradictory accounts as God isn’t one who changes. His account would be perfect and surely he would not alter the story the second time he told it to someone.

This leaves me to think that as alluded to earlier, that different groups of Jews used Genesis 1 for one purpose and Genesis 2 for another purpose. What they have in common is the underlying message that God created all things. What they don’t have in common is the sequence and this appears in my own opinion the work of human error.

Going back to my “Doctrine 1” study notes thanks to Moore, there are two ways to view the Bible:
1) Some put their emphasis on purpose of Scripture. Scripture is infallible (complete reliability), but not inerrant (freedom from error).
2) Some put their emphasis on perfection of Scripture. Scripture is infallible and inerrant.

I’d have to go with option 1 thus far, particularly given the comparison of Gen 1 to Gen 2. God’s word is perfect and authoritative. The Bible is God’s word written by man.

Unfortunately man is prone to error and so throughout the Bible we see excellent written Greek and sloppy Greek for instance. However I think the Bible was put together not based on how well it was written, but by the validity of the underlying authoritative message and purpose.

Man isn’t free from sin and therefore error in any case or any work for God. The only way the Bible could be free from things like sloppy Greek is if God wrote it himself with pen in hand. But rather it was God instructing humans and humans with pen in hand.

It’s definitely not prone to error, but human interpretation and understanding most definitely is.

That some people deny there is any conflict between Gen 1 and Gen 2, and do so with a variety of arguments, makes me think that there can and should be a solution to any seeming discrepencies. But it will probably be complicated and maybe even hard to understand. That is fine by me… not everything in the Bible is simple.

Unfortunately man is prone to error and so throughout the Bible we see excellent written Greek and sloppy Greek for instance.

I’d like to know what you think “sloppy” Greek is… sounds awfully prescriptionist to me.

The only way the Bible could be free from things like sloppy Greek is if God wrote it himself with pen in hand.

Why do you believe this? Is God incapable of doing his work through mankind?

Dannii

The problem with a view of inerrancy is that you end up with a kind of gnosticism that leads to the “true” interpretation, because the only place for error is in the interpretation.  One bunch of Christians say they have the “light” that enables to to rightly interpret the Scripture, and everyone else is in error.

There is room within the view of the Scriptures being “god-breathed” for those agents of God who wrote things down to have got it wrong from time to time.  This is why it is important for those who seek to interpret to apply all the scholastic skills at their disposal to rightly divide the truth.  And then to have the humility to say that even I might not be getting it right.

John

I have to disagree with you that there is room within the God-breathed view of scripture for any errors. Though there can and have been transmission errors, which almost makes the first argument moot, but not quite.

I would also disagree that it leads to gnosticism. I think that everyone has wrong interpretations, myself included. Noone has any special powers of interpretation. But every Christian does have the holy spirit which will help us understand God’s word and convict us when we are wrong.

it is important for those who seek to interpret to apply all the scholastic skills at their disposal to rightly divide the truth.  And then to have the humility to say that even I might not be getting it right.

This is a great statement, and it applies even if you believe the original manuscripts were perfect.

I would agree with Danii here. There is nothing incoherent about a view which says that the Bible contains exactly what God wanted it to contain, and hence contains no errors- God is able to overrule human sloppiness and errors in causing to be preserved the statements that are right. As has often been said, the Bible can be fully human and fully divine, just as the Lord Jesus himself was fully human and fully divine. To return to Gen 1 & 2, the original readers were just as capable as we are of seeing apparent contradictions. So we need to work out what the human author intended in juxtaposing these two accounts. But since this is God’s word we know that when we have worked it out, neither will be found to be asserting something which does not correspond to reality.

Hermeneutics is about trying to understand how the original readers received the material in their culture at their time. It seems today’s Christian world often cannot read Genesis 1 without worrying about today’s scientific issues. So I guess what amazes me is that more Christians aren’t encouraged to read the Enuma Elish to see the context of the day first hand. I read through it recently and wrote out a list of comparisons… check this brief comparison between Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish.

Dave Lankshear - 27 June 2008 08:01 PM

check this brief comparison between Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish.

Do not do it!

I know this thingy exists and I have a copy in translation, but I’ve made it my ambition in life never to read what it says.

The amazing thing is, Genesis still makes sense without it!

Excellent! It sure does.

So, about that hermeneutics thing though… in light of Hodge on Perspicuity of Scripture (from thread), are we to be afraid of the advance of historical findings? I understand that an ENORMOUS new archaeological discovery has occurred over in east Persia somewhere… between the Mesopotamian valley and India… a truly ancient, huge Ziggurat — with totally unique writing. What if this turns out to be Babel, destroyed and buried under millennia of history? (I know Saddam Hussein thought he’d found Babel in Iraq — just suggesting this for the principle of the thing).

While it’s Scripture that is God breathed (not history or science, etc), are we to be afraid of historical discovery or use it to better understand the time?

This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught.

No, not afraid, but who’s afraid? In my case, the ignorance is polemical in nature. I want to see if it’s possible to avoid hell and enter heaven without ever once reading this important piece of literature. I’m staking my life on it, and I suppose one day I’ll find out if I was wise to do that or not.

Understood. But I’ve just had our friends over at Sydney Anglican Heretics arguing that I’m almost certainly bound for hell because I’m so terribly liberal for not reading Genesis 1 literalistically.

I’ve committed the crime in indulging in a little hermeneutics that might help indicate the literary genre Genesis 1 sits in — and so maybe short-cut the pressure to read six-hundred-and-sixty-six creationist books that the SAH’s would have me read. I told them I really have read 2 creationist books — but they weren’t good enough apparently. Now there’s much better super-dooper books to read, even better than the super-books.

But I thought the whole question of science was jumping the gun because we first had to look at the literary genre, and ... ain’t the EE a grand epic anyway mate? ;-)

Gordon
If you don’t want to read any pagan creation myths, fair enough.  But why the exhortation to the rest of us not to do so?
This article by John Dickson (which I’ve only partially read) discusses the usefulness of the Enuma Elish in helping us to understand Genesis 1.  For those who are interested, maybe worth a gander.
Bob
PS I’ve worked out how to create links. Yay!

Links are good Bob. ;-)

Even one creationist I read attempting to debunk EE admitted that both EE and Genesis probably had a source myth that they both came from, common to a wider stretch of the ancient world! It would seem to me that EE indicates the literary genre, that Genesis 1 (at least) is an ‘intertextual reference’ spanking the pagan theological statements. EG: The stars in EE are gods, but in Genesis are our servants and indicate the seasons for us!

That is one of John Dickson’s better writings… his article on the genre of Genesis was also very interesting.

Bob Cameron - 28 June 2008 01:53 AM

Gordon
If you don’t want to read any pagan creation myths, fair enough.  But why the exhortation to the rest of us not to do so?

It flows out of my doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.