Does Inspiration mean we must Translate Every Greek Word?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Some people argue that the Bible is God's Word, and it contains God's words (so far so good), but then they argue that this means we must translate every single Greek word, and therefore formal equivalent translations have a higher view of inspiration. This simply is not true. Just try to translate τοῦ θεοῦ with that thinking. You can't. English translations are not inspired.
Excellent... anyone who has worked seriously between two languages should agree with you, I think. Thank you for sharing.
The more I have studied this subject the more I am convinced that one of the biggest gaps in the Church is the communication line between Bible translators and the Church; we don't have enough of this direct communication being done. Dr. Daniel Wallace has a class on Biblicaltraining.org on Textual Criticism, and he talks about letting the Textual Critics define their own numbers because they are the ones who are doing the calculations. In the same way, we need Bible translators to be allowed to define their own terms.
I pray that you continue doing these videos, and it would be a dream come true if other translators would get in on this - even from different translation philosophies.
Hi Bill. I agree with the way you describe the translation process. However, it highlights a serious issue with Kyrios. You say "simply doing a word replacement is neither translation nor does it have a higher view of inspiration." From where I stand, that it is precisely the problem we face with modern translations that are stilling clinging to our KJV heritage on Lord. You emphasise strongly the example of "tou theou", but this actually serves as a great example to highlight the need for much more context-dependancy for Kyrios translation. For instance, like many other good English translations, the NIV is still turning a blind eye to the anarthrous Kyrios (NT Yahweh references, e.g. LXX citations, birth narratives, 2 Cor 3:16-18...). There is a whole host of terms needed and available to unpack Kyrios in today's English, and none of them are Lord. It no longer has its place for precisely the reasons you cite in this video. What do you think? Can the committee be open to Kyrios 2.0?
BTW if you are interested, I have finished mapping out per case all 6867 LXX Yahweh translations on the question of the article. For genitive and nominative we are at around 96% anarthrous. That's why I think Peterson's translation is so on the money with GOD.
Thank you for the English version .
I'm very glad that some one like you that preserve the Bible
Thank you for that clarification. It does make a lot of sense.
As long as the reader is aware of the translation ethos, the mainstream evangelical translations are all fine for reading, use & study (ESV, NIV, CSB, NLT etc.). A.
This is totally true! Its hard to explain this to people sometimes, I had a spanish teacher once who would understand that there were idioms and words that couldn't be translated to english literally, word-for-word but in his choice of a Bible translation he insisted that only the KJV or NASB be used because it was a literal translation and thus more accurate.
The only solution for these people is to encourage them to learn to read Koine Greek for themselves. If they do this, they will eventually arrive at this answer for themselves.
I just came across your videos. Very interesting and informative. Thank you. I am wondering about your thoughts on inerrancy. I understand you stance on inspiration of English scripture and am wondering about your thoughts on the inerrancy of English translation (if you have not already done a video on the topic). Thank you.
Very TRUE SIR N V NEED TO PIT ONCE AGAIN IN OUR PULPITS D FOUNDATION OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF SCRIPTURE TEACHING DAILY.. TEKNON BELIEVERS.. ZRBM
I kinda have to disagree on some parts. The original answer to various scripture translations (various translations- not transliterations) not being inspired. On this I disagree. WCF, Chap 1, sec 5 speaks to who the true translator is: The Holy Spirit. Regardless of whether it’s a Bible in German, Russian, Chinese, or Swahili. The Holy Spirit interprets, translates, & communicates the scripture to Gods Elect. If just the original manuscripts (now lost) or the surviving Greek, counts as inspired, then 2 Tim 3:16 becomes myopic. I have to challenge even myself at times that perhaps the HS is using transliterations to communicate Gods Message. [ Just my .02 cents worth ] I’m not trying to be prickly. I just believe there is no perfect translation, that it is all an operation of the Lords Holy Spirit. Sorry Doc..
Why do you still translate? Do you still go to the Greek and Hebrew? Or do you just change what we have already and change it because of culture?
Amen
It frustrates me that some people seem perhaps unwilling (for lack of a better word) to expand their thought process to consider how translation works, and explore the idea that translation between two languages requires focusing on communicating meaning rather than mapping words between one language and another language using a dictionary. It puzzles me why this is the current state of affairs. Are these people in a 'camp' or 'community' to which this idea is prominent and hence have a disposition to align with the group for social and cultural reasons (to avoid conflict). If not what is the reason? I'd love to move past the discussion of the facts (which are important), and see some discussion of why the current state of affairs exists.
These people are typically quite passionate about the bible, I'd love to bash them over the head with the bible (metaphorically) and get them to just learn to read Koine Greek so we can put these arguments to bed once and for all. But I am probably being a little unrealistic in this goal. Perhaps we can still try 😀 The beauty of getting people in this camp to learn Biblical Greek for themselves is it bypasses the translation argument completely, and gets them straight to the text, which in the long run puts an end to the surface level debate.
The original Hebrew and Greek itself has translations? Are they inspired? What about when the Greek new testament qoutes the Hebrew old testament are they inspired? Your argument is fundamentally flawed
I appreciate your comments, but i wonder if the problem is in our understanding of what "inspiration" is. It seems that many people have a very static view of inspiration, as if it were located in particular words (and of course, it is, and that's important), but it is so much more than that! Isn't it? It is not as if the Spirit of God, which is not limited to the markings on a medium, were unable to convey to the open heart, his Word, which is forever living? Christ is the divine and ever living Logos. As much as it is the proximity of the interpretation to their original intent inspiration is also, and perhaps even primarily, about the proximity of the heart towards God and it's own hunger for truth. In as much as the Church only participates in degrees to the divine life, is not inspiration also a similar participation in the divine life?
Are the Dead Sea Scrolls inspired?
Greek Word for born??? The word born is used in the New Testament. Does it mean entered?
IMO, a hacky word-substitution "translation" that doesn't account for the differences between the two grammars and the context of the passage is hugely disrespectful of the source material and of language.
Is it the specific words of the Bible that are inspired or the message? I would say the message.
I think St. Jerome struck the best balance between hyper-literal and dnyamic equivalence with the Vulgate.
I think reverence for Scripture does require a virtually literal translation (I would call the Vulgate a literal translation on the whole) in order to be trustable and viable for meaningful theological use-when the Greek itself isn't an option (i.e. in most cases).
The KJV-onlyist movement and mentally is regrettable, but it isn't an anomaly, either. It came from the lack of a sense of, or respect for, legitimate authority-the Church-which followed the 'Reformation.'
The reason a great number of KJV-onlyists can't be reasoned with is because they have forfeited all handles on legitimate authority, ecclesiastical or otherwise. That's why 'pastor' Steven Anderson and his insuperable heresies (and others like him) will undermine any Greek lexicon or authority when they hit an obstacle which represents a challenge to their false position. They deny your denial of KJV-onlyism on the same grounds they hold to it in the first place: I think so. Cogito ergo.. period. Not on linguistic grounds. For example, Anderson claims to know and be able to teach others Greek, yet is a KJV-onlyist? Amazing. The Bible has 66 books because.. I think so. The Fathers don't count as a witness to THE authentic or perennial interpretation of Scripture because.. I think so.
Quite sad.
The only objection I have to make is that the Greek words for Christ, baptize, Church, etc. are not translated. They were transfered, or transliterated. First into Latin, then English. Some will explain that CHRIST and baptize is transferred from the Latin, which is probably accurate, however, the English is still a transliteration of the Greek, not a translation and these words listed need translated because of DOCTRINAL reasons. The Greek scriptures do not have the hebrew word for anointed, they have the Greek word for anointed. I do not have a problem with English translations containing transliterations as long as the meaning of God's teachings are clear. Baptize is a clear problem as a transliteration into Latin and English and can have terrible consequences, for example- Roman Catholics may rely on their infant baptizing for eternal life apart from faith in the LORD. If they were given the actual meaning of the Greek word they would have the meaning infront of them to better determine whether they were being lied to about salvation.
Funny... Just made *exactly* this point to someone.
Everytime I read my NIV, my HCSB, and my KJV, I feel inspired to go out and serve Jesus! . .... oh, wait,.... you were talking about Bible text inspiration, and the authors of Scripture,...... never mind...
The Bible is true in the main but not inspired, at least not in the sense of being inerrant. It was inspired in the sense that God moved upon the writers to write. After that He left them alone and let them write.
No, English translations are man-made