From: Jonathan Robie (jonathan@texcel.no)
Date: Fri Jan 09 1998 - 11:31:08 EST
At 10:57 AM 1/9/98 -0500, Theodore H. Mann wrote:
>Jonathan:
>
> I am considering placing the following posting before the list, but I
>am uncertain that it is appropriate. Can you advise? If you think not,
>I will not post it, but perhaps you might care to comment on the issue
>off-list. Thanks.
I do *not* think this would be appropriate on the list, because it
introduces a term not found in the Bible, inerrancy, and discusses it in
relationship to things Timothy never envisioned, future translations.
Practically speaking, my real concern is that it would fan flames of
division; we have people on the list who differ on both inspiration and
inerrancy, which, as you point out, are two different concepts to start with.
On the other hand, it is an interesting post, and a good one to discuss in
*private* email.
>I am inclined to believe
>that it is more reasonable to take the view that translations are not
>God-breathed, if for no other reason than errors do occur in them, and I
>doubt that God breathes mistakes.
Personally, I am inclined to believe that God protects his word, and has
worked through many imperfect translations to reach diverse groups
throughout the ages. And I'm not convinced that something has to be
inerrant to be inspired - were the prophets inspired? were they inerrant? I
would answer "yes" and "no" to these two questions, respectively.
To me, the same holds for manuscript transmission: despite all the changes
in the manuscripts, the net result is minimal, and God has preserved his
message throughout the ages.
One of my biggest beefs with the KJV-only folks is the notion that God's
desire to preserve his scriptures applies to only one translation and only
one manuscript tradition. That's hogwash, EMOI.
> Question: Did Paul have in mind what we commonly call "inspiration"
>when he wrote QEOPNEUSTOS ? If not, to what does the term refer?
I think Paul meant "inspired", but I do not know that "what we commonly
call 'inspiration'" is at all well-defined; I suspect that different people
mean different things when they make this statement. For instance, I
believe strongly that the scriptures are inspired, but I simply don't know
how to make heads or tails out of terms like "plenary-verbal inspiration of
the original autographs"; frankly, whenever I try to evaluate the Chicago
Statement on Inerrancy, I decide it is too complicated for me, and I'll go
on trusting my Bible without worrying about terms and issues I don't
understand.
>Did he consider his own writings, and the writings of Peter, John, Luke,
etc.,
>to be the equivalent of the LXX (I doubt it) ?
I agree with you here.
>Thanks in advance to a group
>of people who have contributed hugely to my understanding of the NT in a
>very short period of time !.
Isn't this a great place to learn?
Jonathan
jonathan@texcel.no
Texcel Research
http://www.texcel.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:50 EDT