Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?
Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?
By Herb Evans, Ltt.D. "...the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever..." (1Peter 1:23). "...the Word of God is quick ... and is a DISCERNER of the thoughts and intents of the heart..."(Heb.4:12). We must admit that there was a time when we were terrified at the prospect of defending the "inspiration" of the A.V. 1611 (King James) Bible. Of course, like many Christians, we were influenced by Bible correcting educators and scholars and their accepted, traditional, man-made, theological definition of "inspiration". Define Your Terms. As with all theological definitions, the Bible correcting educator's definition of inspiration is not infallible and is subject to error. Moreover, any error in definition can mean a more serious error in concept. Bible correcting educators, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, have discovered that if they are allowed to define (or redefine) Bible Words, then they can easily establish their pet doctrines and theories. Bible correctors and Jehovah's Witnesses both must be challenged as to whether they have a Scriptural basis for these definitions. Transmission Bible correcting educators contend that only the "Original" transmission of the Scriptures constitutes "inspiration". They hold that the "inspiration of the Scriptures" and the "transmission of the Scriptures" are perfectly synonymous terms. All emphasis, in most fundamental universities, is placed on whether the "Originals" were transmitted mechanically, dynamically, or by illumination; while the quality of the Scriptures, after they have been transmitted, is practically ignored. The Originals. The "Original Manuscripts" are lost and no living person has ever seen them ( a serious flaw in the Bible educator's theory). Moreover, if anyone would ever find the "Originals"; they would not be able to tell if they really were the "Originals". We have been told for years that the Bible was originally written in Greek and Hebrew. However, no one can actually prove that they were so written. They assume, suppose, surmise, and deduce; but no one can come up with either a Proof Text or concrete evidence. The first five Books could have been written in Egyptian, the language in which Moses was educated and the country where Israel had lived for years. One thing is for sure, it twarn't Hebrew that Moses was a speakin' down thayer in Egypt", and conversations in the Greek were certainly not spoken in Greek. There had to be some translating going on somewhere either way you look at it. Selah (think of that D.A.W.)! Just because you have second and third century Manuscripts that are written in Greek, does not mean that they were originally written in that language. Whenever we make dogmatic assertions without the benefit of concrete evidence or a Proof Text; we are guilty of pure assumption. Therefore, if we are expected to submit to this intangible, unprovable basis for an inspired Greek/Hebrew only argument; then if you don't mind, we will look elsewhere for our views. God Breathed After the "Originals" had been initially transmitted, or inspired, or "God Breathed" (as our scholar friend love to emphasize the literal meaning of the Greek), what then ? Do the "Originals" cease to be inspired, or do they cease to contain the Breath of God after the initial act of transmission is over? Are they still inspired after forty years have passed ? Are they still alive ? Are they still inspired ? Do they still contain God's Breath ? Let us go a step further; suppose that we made photocopies of the "Originals" before they either perished or were lost. Would the Photocopy Scriptures be alive ? Inspired ? Have God's Breath in them ? We insist that these questions must be answered with an emphatic "Yes" ! It is not the parchment or the ink that is alive; it is the Words! The inspired Copies of Copies that Timothy knew as a child (II Timothy 3:15-16) were certainly not the "Originals" as admitted by the Bible correctors themselves. God did not preserve the parchment and the ink; He preserved His "Word", the "Scriptures". He did not preserve an uninspired Bible: He preserved an inspired Bible, and it's alive ! It has not expired ! Alive Anything that God breathes into or inspires is alive for eternity. God breathed in Adam a living soul. Now, God did not have to breathe into every man a living soul thereafter. (Man's fall complicates our parallel; however, man's soul still lives on somewhere forever). God breathed the breath of life into the Scriptures, never to be breathed into again. The Bible that we have today (A.V. 1611) is alive ! Inspired ! It still has God's Breath in it and will never expire, because it lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23). http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0277.htm |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Hi Folks,
Above, I think some of the points of Herb's article were missed, misunderstood or misrepresented. And I will just look at one right now. Quote:
The simplest example is that the Gospel of Mark may very well have been written in Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect, there are solid grammar and historical indicators for this possibility. Quote:
Quote:
• 10 If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New. • 11 These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty themselves into the gold. • 12 Saint Augustine [S.August. 3. de doct. c. 3. etc.] calleth them precedent, or original, tongues; Saint Hierome, fountains. The King Jame Bible Preface is referencing the transmission and preservation being primarily accomplished through the Hebrew and Greek. This should not and can not be seen as the end of their understanding of autograph languages. In fact they do not even mention here that sections of the OT were likely written and preserved in Aramaic, although of course they were 100% aware of this fact. Why not go into every such detail and theory ? They were simply not writing a treatise on 'the languages of the original autographs'. Quote:
And the King James Bible translators were not subject to the puerile argumentation common today from the no-pure-Bible crew. (e.g. The doctrine of "inerrancy only in the original autographs" was about 250 years in the future.) Thus their language may be a bit different than ours today in describing the Bible history, especially the "originals" question. We have to take account of the phoney and false conceptions and principalities that deceived many in order to help 'justify' using the ultra-corrupt alexandrian versions and have a new doctrine that we really do not have the word of God in tangible form. That view essentially was non-existent in 1611. However one point should be emphasized. The KJB Preface is not the inerrant word of God. The Preface gives us an excellent history, however we are not bound to every historical understanding expressed therein. Quote:
NT transmission and preservation has been kept primarily through the Greek line, with the Received Text being providentially brought forth leading to the pure and perfect King James Bible. As an note I will mention that we should not forget that all extant Greek NT manuscripts before the Reformation have some significant lacks. (Generally the preservation in those verses was maintained through the Latin.) God's hand was at all shortened to bring forth to every ploughman, and even the seminarian, the pure and perfect word of God, first through the Reformation Bible, and then in full precision and purity through its majestic result, the King James Bible. Shalom, Steven |
While we do not see the Autographs and therefore know by this what language Mark wrote in, it should not be used as an avenue to advance anything that would possibly undermine the Scripture, including the proper tradition of how it came to us.
It is one thing to reason in line with Scripture, it is another thing to just speculate (which is wrong if it be found to contradict Scripture). For example, if we examine Mark and historgraphy surrounding it, we could ask (hypothesise), Is it consistent that it could have been written not in Greek, but in "Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect"? There are some indications that we can find from Mark which help. A number of times Mark gives a word in Hebrew and then explains its meaning. Therefore, Mark did not write in Hebrew. It is often said that these words are "Aramaic". But even according to that objectionable theory, Mark's language was not "Aramaic". Mark is not addressed specifically to a Latin audience. Mark contains Graecisms, like "Elias", etc. Mark was apparently written with Peter's input, a Greek speaker. Also, Mark lived in a time when Greek was still dominant, and his missionary trip was into Greek areas. It cannot be denied that Mark contains some Latin words, such as "Praetorium", but these can easily be seen to be as Latin words written in Greek. The issue here is that if we begin to allow that Greek was not the language of the book of Mark, it could be used to further grow to the overthrowing of doctrines of Scripture, like those who now dogmatise upon the inspiration of the 1611 translators. The article above seems to blur the lines of tradition. No blurring is required if we believe that the KJB contains the inspired Word of God. The blurring occurs as people begin to ascribe inspiration to the translators, and begin to do other things against history, such as denying that the books of Moses could have existed in Greek before the birth of Christ, or (on the other extreme) that the Hebrew of the New Testament was really "Aramaic", etc. That is why I said that the above article contains some flawed points of reasoning, and several points which are really devoid of proof. |
Steven wrote: "The King Jame Bible Preface is referencing the transmission and preservation being primarily accomplished through the Hebrew and Greek. This should not and can not be seen as the end of their understanding of autograph languages."
What would give authority to the preserved Hebrew or the preserved Greek unless it is because the Autographs were also written in those langauges? |
Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?
Hi Steven :),
Very good post! Shalom, Billie |
derivation of authority
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Quote:
It is a major gap in our exposition if we try to present or even intimate an uninterrupted Greek-language transmission from the autographs to the King James Bible. And such uninterrupted one-language transmission would be the only situation where the language of a "Greek original" of ALL the NT would be relevant. The authority of the word of God is not dependent on the language that Paul or Peter or Mark or Jude orally spoke to an amanuensis or in which the actual letters are penned and transmitted. Multiple languages can be used, multiple language copies can be "originally" penned and languages other than Greek can a part of the process. One irony (and this is one purpose of Herb Evan's article) is that if we put an unscriptural emphasis on "the Greek" -- the opponents of the King James Bible understandably use that as a wedge to attack our Bible. They claim that all translational authority into English or any other language would be both derivative and inferior. While this is a false claim, it is largely based on the idea that we should be searching for and identifying some "Greek autographs" and using that ethereal text as our base text of perfection. Since I am largely repeating myself in this post, I will try to avoid doing that again. Shalom, Steven |
Hi Folks,
I am still hoping for a more direct answer to this question. Not whether this might lead to other difficulties, whether there is any Holy Spirit and Bible imperative that .. e.g. .. Mark had to be originally penned and transmitted in Greek. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Once I asked a friend of mine who knows Latin well (sans seminarian indoctrination) their opinion on reading Mark in English. Their view -- Latin-ish grammar was at base, it fit very well. That is anecdotal, so if you want it on a scholarly level you have to go to Hoskier. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However there is a good amount of tradition that places Mark with Peter in Rome. And there would be a need and desire to present the Gospel to those fluent in Latin, for many of whom Greek was a foreign language. Quote:
Quote:
Thus we have a bit of a non sequitur. Whether or not Peter knew or learned Latin. Whether or not Mark was fluent in Greek or not. Whether or not Mark and Peter conversed in Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic or other languages. As long as Mark could write in Latin there is no difficulty based upon the languages written or spoken by others. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you in fact claim this overthrows a Scripture doctrine you would have to be more specific, what doctrine and how.. If not, what is the point? Truth remains truth, even if some jump off the cart and go in another direction. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am neither defending or opposing Herb's article in general. However I see he makes a lot of good points. Before I could get to looking at Herb's article and any criticisms I saw that you were taking a "Greek-only" position for the original NT autographs, which I find rather astounding. That has to be clarified first. Shalom, Steven |
Nope, not expired !
Steven Avery --- Pretty good post.
There is another aspect of the "Original Tongues" or languages that has some bearing on the topic...( I think so...? ). While I hold that most ( if not all of the O.T. was written in Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek--- That being the "Lingua Francua" (language of finance) of the Mediterranian World and was understood by many folks even though they were not born in Greece... It is highly probable that other languages were used to convey the Gospel message into the places that the other Disciples/Apostles went to. Those men went to faraway places to spread the Gospel, and all of them got very violently dead! There was a man named George Lamsa who was of Assyrian heritage. His point of view or theory was that the first N.T. was written in Aramaic-Peshitta language and the Greek came second. He and folks from his home country seem to be the only ones that hold to this idea. If memory serves, the earliest Aramaic-Peshitta texts are about 200 or 300 (?) A.D. , whereas the oldest scrap/fragment of the Book of John is written in Greek and dates to the 1st Century A.D.. Lamsa translated (with some help) the Peshitta into an English Translation. He called it The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, about 1957 or close... It is still in print. I read the Intro/Preface to it some years back when I had some free time at the Book Store. Oddly enough ... for some reason :argue: they have examples of where they (Lamsa and co.) have corrected what the A.V./K.J. says... because they believe the A.V./K.J. has some boo-boos because it uses the Greek Texts. IMO if they want to get folks to read their Aramaic-Peshitta based version they should show the contrasts between the Greek word(s) and the Peshitta word(s), not taking another anti-A.V. shot. Okay... I mentioned that about Lamsa's version because of Steve Avery's mention above of the Latin, and the Hebrew and Greek languages. It reminded me of an incident at the Book Store..(wished I had kept a log/diary, each day had a twist.)... some fellow came in and wanted the Lamsa Translation because he had been told it was THE BEST one 'cause it didn't come from Greek texts, but rather Aramaic and "eevverryybody" knows that the N.T. was first done in Aramaic-Peshitta... :flypig: ... rather than tell him he was stooopid and his mother dressed him funny ,,, (remember we where in a store/shop and the idea is that "The customer is always right"... a bogus lie, btw... 1/4 of the customers don't know their left from their right ! ) I said something like--- " Sir are you a Christian ? Yes I am. Good-- then lets look at the Bible itself and see if we can find the answer. He said OK! " I got each of us a copy from our used book section and opened up to Luke 23:38 and John 19:20 . I pointed out to him that it says Pilate had that sign written in 3 languages. Hebrew and Greek and Latin... Not Aramaic ! He didn't know what to say. { I lost a potential sale, but hopefully set him on the right path.} |
Steven,
One other possibility to consider is the fact that Greek was a second language to the bulk of the NT authors. I catch myself in doing this, when writing in another language I tend to want to place my wording and order in an English style. Just like someone to whom English is a second language tends to speak with their native sentence style and word order. Such as if someone grew up speaking a language with no native prepositions or prepositional phrasing, they have a tendency not to use those in English. Its a theory I have. I need to gather some proof on it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We know that Mark is correct in English, and we know that it was gathered from TR Greek and with reference to Latin, etc. Therefore, we know that the latter end of its preservation is correct. If the Greek form is viewed as the primary preserved form TO the Reformation, this would indicate that Greek was the original form. We should be cautious about even allowing things which defy tradition, especially if there is Scripturally-consistent reasons for keeping things as they have been understood. If we allow that Mark may have been originally written in Latin for the reason of deemphasising Greek, then that would be the wrong motive. We know that translations are right without having to make a theory that says that the primary preservation was in a translation (i.e. that the pre-Reformation Greek was the preserved form of the original Latin). We know that the primary preservation is now in English, which is a translation, but we do not need to apply this idea to the originals as though to bolster our correct translation. There are those who have gone to extremes, such as the thinking that Adam to Babel spoke English. I believe that Mark did write Greek, because I believe that this is what Scripture does imply: "And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16). If Mark was writing to a Latin audience in Latin, he would not have need to explain that "Praetorium" was the name for the common hall. This shows that his audience did not come from Latin culture. This Latin word stands out from his normal writing, i.e. original language. In summary: While there is not always a need to dogmatise upon which language an autograph was written in, it is traditional and Scripturally-consistent that Mark was written in Greek. |
I'm afraid some "Bible Believers" are putting too much emphasis on the "Originals" now! Come on, let's get it together: it doesn't matter if Mark wrote in PIG Latin: God was and still is able to preserve His words through the centuries, in whatever language He chooses!
|
Quote:
I believe there are several reasons why we should retain the idea of Greek authenticity of the New Testament (but even if it wasn't all in Greek, that is not going to change the purity of our Bible today, of course). The problem is not with arguing for Greek, the problem is where arguing for Greek undermines or leads to undermining our pure English Bible. Just because many scholars argue for Greek with a view to undermine the KJB does not mean that we should be quick to reject the Greek originality of the New Testament. Quote:
God's works are perfect, His works are glorious, it would not be befitting if His Word were in pig latin as opposed to "Biblical original languages". This view could undermine the 1611 men as TRANSLATORS, and begin to have them as reissuers of God's words: this is the problem of putting inspiration to all men rather than to just the original penmen. Quote:
|
the hall, called Praetorium
Hi Folks,
Quote:
This is a common construction in any language, to go from the general to the specific. eg. we may say in English: We met in/at: the building (or mansion) called the White House the street named Avenue of the Americas the mausoleum named Grant's Tomb (In New York City, Grant's Tomb is actually in a park.) The key point is that Praetorium is not at all the Latin translation for the word atrium. Interpretation is what occurs when Mark or another NT writer has a Hebrew or Aramaic word where simple translation of a name from one language to another is helpful to the reader. This is not from the general to the specific, this is direct translation of a name. Here are examples where the name is a place. (More common is a personal name interpretation.) Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. John 9:7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. In such a case the word itself has the meaning embedded in the native language. By contrast, What we have in Mark 15:16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band. is from the general to the specific, and is analogous to: Mark 14:32 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray. Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, Where an alternate phrasing could be shorter, omitting 'named', or even omitting 'place' or 'city'. This is a question of writing style, not whether Gethesemane, Nazareth or Praetorium are Greek or Latin words. Shalom, Steven |
"And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and they call together the whole band." (Mark 15:16).
I read the words "called Praetorium" as parenthetical (like an aside in brackets), and would be explanatory to those readers and hearers who were not so familiar with Latinity. It does not read as a mere linguistical construction of going to the general to the specific. It is always explanatory as though the reader is not familiar with the specific technical (and foreign) word, e.g., "But not long after there arose against it a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon." (Acts 27:14). Our understanding of Mark cannot be on the basis of how it is in Greek or Latin, but how the English is provided to us, specifically according to Burgon's "maxim": “we can but conjecture that they [the KJB translators] conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.” And, “the plain fact being that the men of 1611 ... produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists or Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English”. (Burgon). This at once dashes the misuse of “higher criticism”. Then, further, since we compare Scripture with Scripture in our pure English Bible where every word, letter and dot is in its right and rightful place, we may have confidence to rely upon and use the King James Bible itself to interpret. Writing style is therefore judged in English, and is judged by what we see in the English Scripture. Since it is not normal in plain and simple English to write, “into the hall, called Praetorium;” but, “common hall” (Matt. 27:27), we can conclude that Mark’s special added information was a reference to something that was not immediately understood by all his audience. We may then see that it was because it was a Latin word being explained to the reader/hearer. Hoskier has a hypothesis that “Mark was written originally in Latin and in Greek, and circulated separately—that the Latin went to Latin Africa—thence to Greek Egypt, where it was translated into Greek.” Thus, a separate Greek Mark then appeared in Egypt differing from the Greek Mark of Asia, etc. (of which Codex Bezae is said to be an example of). Occam’s rasor is the better: it were first written in Greek, quickly turned into Latin, after which Latin particularities arose. Moreover, Hoskier’s view is that there must be two autographs, and implies differences between them. Hoskier’s view is that since Mark wrote in or for a Roman audience, that he would have used the language of the local lower class Latins, or a Graeco-Latin dialect (which is, I think, an invention). Hoskier then points out how he thinks there is flux in Greek and Latin at the time, and demonstrates several Roman words which are written in Greek letters and vice versa, especially in the catacombs. The problem here is that Hoskier is allowing outside interpretations on history to dictate his view of Scripture. (The catacomb period was later than Mark’s writing anyway.) Even if Mark was in Rome, we find that Romans is written to the Church there by Paul, and it is in Greek. At the latest, Mark cannot have been written much after Paul’s two year stay at Rome, and is very likely to have been earlier. There is nothing to indicate a Latin-first or a Latin-concurrent original view. I believe that Scripture shows that Mark wrote in Greek first, and soon it was translated into Latin. The use of Greek forms like "Elias", the explanation of Latin words, and the unsatisfactoriness of proto-Latin explanations indicates that Greek was really the autographical language, and hence, used as the particular authoritative original language by the Reformers. |
Acts 27:14 - similar language construct as Mark 15:16
Hi Folks,
Quote:
In Acts 27:14 there is the very same type of language Greek on Greek as you are trying to claim would be a problem if Latin on Latin in the verse Mark 15:16. Verse..........Language.......General............. .Specific Proper Name Acts 27:14....Greek......tempestuous wind..........Eurocydon Mark 15:16....Latin...............hall................. ...Praetorium Exactly what I was asserting in my previous post, that the language of Mark 15:16 is perfectly proper within one language, there is no difficulty at all if Mark's autograph is in Latin (or a Graeco-Latin dialect) and the word Praetorium is in Latin. Just as there is no difficulty at all in Acts 27:14 with Luke writing in Greek and the word Eurocydon being native Greek. Thanks for the verse to use as an example, Matthew. Shalom, Steven |
mirror image
Hi Folks,
Thus, if Mark 12:16 provides a logical argument that Mark was written in Greek rather than Latin, then Acts 27:14 provides the same (mirror image) logical argument that Luke was writing Acts in Latin rather than Greek. Neither argument has substance. And the discussions of the language authorship of Mark have to look at other factors. Since I am just pointing out that a non-Greek autograph is a reasonable possibility (mostly based on a Latin-ish grammatical substratum and the historical understandings of Mark writing for a Roman audience) I believe that case is essentially shown. ie. The possibility. The factors that are strong in refuting an Aramaic Mark (a mildly popular scholastic theory about a century ago) are essentially of no import at all in looking at the Greek and Latin issues. And I see absolutely no difficulty at all to the purity of the King James Bible if the original autograph of Mark or another NT book was other than Greek. None whatsoever. And many of the opponents attacks are based on their unexamined (sometimes implied rather than stated) claims about "the Greek" - claims that falsely presume a certainty of the autographs having been written in Greek. There is no such certainty. Nor any such spiritual imperative, one of the points of the article by Herb Evans. Going into the details of the Hoskier article is a bit superfluous and also out of our league. The basics are uncomplicated. The two main factors, mentioned above (grammatical structure and historical understandings) are far simpler than Hoskier's type of detailed technical study. And Hoskier, like many scholars, was prone to augmenting sound analysis with conjectures. I will say that there is no difficulty at all with Paul writing to the Romans in Greek (he may not even have been fluent in Latin) and Mark writing in Latin (with or without a dual-autograph-language theory per Hoskier). None whatsoever. There are many churches in the USA today that receive literature in English and Spanish, without any eye blinks or concern. Some people in the receiving churches understand both languages, others understand one or the other well. The Latin audience could have been reached with the Gospel of Mark, and yet, with the Greek NT being the center of compilation and interest in the early centuries, the result would have been that the Greek NT, one unit, become the center of preservation and transmission. Shalom, Steven |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.