Beginning Point of View
Whenever someone is explaining how they interpret scripture, that interpretation is influenced by their beliefs about certain things. For example - someone who believes that scripture should always be interpreted literally will come up with different conclusions than someone who believes that there are many figurative passages. Or someone who believes that scripture is culturally relevant will come up with different conclusions than someone who believes that all of scripture transcends culture. And, since this potentially might be read by people who have no idea who I am, I figured a good starting point would be to lay out my underlying beliefs.The Word of God
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The 66 Books comprising the Old and New Testaments are inspired of God in the original language. As we seek to understand God's Word, we must strive to understand it the same way the original reader understood it. This means that the better we understand the culture of Bible times, the better we can understand the meaning of scripture.
This doesn't mean that we need to be Greek scholars – no one would consider me to be a Greek scholar. We need to trust that the translators of scripture have already done much of this work of translating the original meanings. However, it is valuable at times to go back to the Greek or Hebrew word used in a certain passage, and study the meaning of the word to see if there are alternate meanings.
Since I believe that scripture is inspired by God, I believe that there are no contradictions. That means that every verse must be consistent within the chapter, the book, and all the rest of God's word. When verses are found that appear to contradict other verses, it means that either the translation is incorrect, or our theology is incorrect.
Yesterday we had one of our missionaries with us for the day who is translating scripture into a tribal language in the Philippines. In the afternoon he spent over an hour discussing the problems in translating. One example that he used was the difficulty in translating idioms. For example, if the phrase "the hand of God was very heavy there" were to be translated literally into the Manubu language, they would understand that God's hand had a lot of weight in that area. For that matter, even some people in our country might understand it that way – especially children. It is the meaning that has to be interpreted, not the literal words. Another example he used was the phrase “a man after God’s own heart.” To the Manubu, this would convey an image of someone who was literally going after God's heart with a knife, with the intent to harm. Since there are many idioms in scripture, this clearly makes translation a much more difficult task, and of course it makes it open to an individual's personal opinion.
With all of that said, how do we know if what we read in our translation is what the original meaning was? I think the best approach is to look at all possible translations, compare them with what scripture says elsewhere, look at the original Greek meanings of words, and study what other people have written about these passages. I am convinced that God's word does not contradict itself. When we have two passages that appear to contradict, it means our understanding is flawed, and we need to revise our interpretation of the passages.
So - as you read the articles I post here, keep in mind that this is the perspective from which I write them. Do you agree with me on this? Disagree? Post your thoughts and comments!
Posted On Sep 18, 2005 at 8:21 AM
On Sep 19, 2005 Doug wrote: Just as Euclid, Lobachevsky, and Gauss had different axioms/postulates, and therefore came out with completely different conclusions, the same is true in scriptural interpretation.
So you have laid our your axioms for us...a very "mathematical" approach.
But really, what would we expect from a math teacher?
Brian Replied: Can you believe it? I never even considered what I was doing from a mathematical point of view! But of course, any mathematical structure begins with certain assumptions, and changing those changes the outcomes.
So the real question is: How are my "axioms" so far??
On Sep 22, 2005 Ron wrote: Regarding your doctrine of the Bible, I see that you belive the originals to be inspired. Since none of the originals exist anymore, where do we find the Word of God today?
Brian Replied: Great question! Any manuscript that is an exact copy of the original, in my opinion would fall into the category of the Word of God. What about a translation? The difficulty here is the question of which translation. Or perhaps, the question is "Are translations the inspired word of God?" Then of course, you have the issue of which manuscripts the translation is based on - is it based on the Textus Receptus (KJV), or the Majority Texts?***
I have a hard time subscribing to the belief that some people have that the KJV is the inspired word of God, and no other translations are. This is particularly offensive to me when you consider that there are many languagues in the world, and if one is to insist that the KJV is the only inspired word of God, then you do not allow THEM to have any part of scripture in their own language.
I remember several years ago one of the major denominations was having their annual meeting and a motion was put forth to make the KJV the official bible of the denomination. Debate on this was heated, until a representative from Peru stood up and said that if this motion passed, that his country would not have a bible. Immediately, the motion was dropped, as people realized the danger of making the translation carry the paramount importance.
Of course, if someone takes the position that the Textus Receptus is the inspired word of God, that is a completely different issue, as translations can and are being made to other languages from the Textus Receptus.
So - I've managed to say a lot, without actually answering your question, haven't I? I guess I have to say that it's a question I don't (yet) have an answer for which I'm comfortable.
***Thanks Trent for pointing out my error - I think I've fixed it now!
On Sep 23, 2005 Trent wrote: Brian,
As this is only my second comment on your blog I almost hate to correct you. But since you are Doug's brother, and a math teacher to boot, I am sure you wish to "get it right".
The KJV is based on what is commonly called "The Recieved Text" or Textus Receptus.
Though it differs only slightly from the Majority Text it is different. The NKJV is also based on the Recieved Text but includes in it's margins the readings of the Majority text as well as the readings in the "Critical Text".
The Critical Text undergirds all 20th century translations execpting the NKJV. For an excellent article on this you should read
http://www.majoritytext.org/archive/winter01/newsletter3.htm
This is from the Majority Text Society. In the past I have corresponded with them and they seem like men who truly love God's Word.
One last thing, the other issue that you failed to raise is really just as important as the the text, methodology.
Your missionary friend would certainly be aware of the difficulty in this area.
Dynamic Equivalance is the method of translating the "thoughts" of Scripture.
The Verbal, plenary approach takes every word in the text to be inspired by God and seeks to translate it accordingly.
The question of methodology is of highest priority. It is the difference between the Bible "being" God's Word or the Bible "containing" God's Word.
Just a few thoughts.
Trent
Brian Replied: Oops - I got them mixed up (again)!
Thanks for correcting me!
Brian.
On Sep 23, 2005 Trent wrote:
No Problem. I just figured you would want it right.
Have a nice night.
On Sep 23, 2005 Brian's wife wrote: Trent said : Quote:
| One last thing, the other issue that you failed to raise is really just as important as the text, methodology. Your missionary friend would certainly be aware of the difficulty in this area. Dynamic Equivalence is the method of translating the "thoughts" of Scripture. The Verbal, plenary approach takes every word in the text to be inspired by God and seeks to translate it accordingly. The question of methodology is of highest priority. It is the difference between the Bible "being" God's Word or the Bible "containing" God's Word. |
Dear Trent – Perhaps I am not understanding the way you worded this comment. We recently had, as Brian mentioned above, a lengthy discourse with an active missionary Bible translator on just this issue of methodology. I may be mistaken, but from the way you phrased this particular comment, it would appear that you take the viewpoint that “Dynamic Equivalence” translations "contain" the Word of God, while "Verbal" translations "are" the Word of God. Is this correct? (Bear in mind, I do not think we are not referring to paraphrases here.)
If that is the case, the missionary referred to (and myself, I think) would disagree with that viewpoint. Although the original texts of the Bible are inspired and inerrant, I do think there comes into play translation issues when a literal word-for-word approach is exclusively employed (as I think is what is involved in a “Verbal” translation.) Because not all languages have exactly equivalent terms, translating every word as closely to the original as possible does not always convey the correct MEANING of the original in the new language. Our missionary speaker presented many examples of literal, word-for-word translations that absolutely butchered the original meaning of the text.
It is much, much harder for a translator to first determine the meaning of a passage and then seek the most accurate way to convey that into the language of another people. And one could argue that this opens the door for a great many liberties to be taken. But if we are going to communicate with a different culture, I think those risks must be undertaken. As Brian said : “As we seek to understand God's Word, we must strive to understand it the same way the original reader understood it.”
|
Brian's BlogMost articles on this blog describe what is known as "Kingdom Theology" - they deal with the doctrine of the Millennial Kingdom.If you are just finding this Blog, I would suggest that you start with the first article, rather than picking up in the middle. Enjoy your reading! ABOUT ME Current PostsA scriptural scavenger huntWhat do we want to be remembered for? How do we measure our churches? The Parable of the Sower What is Worship 
|