Ahhh, so would you say that translations of the bible are fallible?
The Word of God - Inspired, Translated
- Thread starter Mark of Faith
- Start date
- Status
Ahhh, so would you say that translations of the bible are fallible?
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
Just some thoughts:
I (as a human being) am most fallible.
The vessels (scribes, Apostles, Prophets, etc) used to give the Word were fallible.
The translator's no more or less fallible than any of these and none being more or less human than another.
Every link in the chain seemingly fallible and yet God speaks so clearly and infallibly through this Word. It is truly a miracle and yet that does not surprise me.
If God had to wait to use infallible folks to do an infallible job then only Jesus Christ Himself could do any of the work.
Jas 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
Jas 5:18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
Jas 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jas 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
If scripture teaches anything it is this:
A perfect God uses imperfect vessels to do perfect work.
I (as a human being) am most fallible.
The vessels (scribes, Apostles, Prophets, etc) used to give the Word were fallible.
The translator's no more or less fallible than any of these and none being more or less human than another.
Every link in the chain seemingly fallible and yet God speaks so clearly and infallibly through this Word. It is truly a miracle and yet that does not surprise me.
If God had to wait to use infallible folks to do an infallible job then only Jesus Christ Himself could do any of the work.
Jas 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
Jas 5:18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
Jas 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jas 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
If scripture teaches anything it is this:
A perfect God uses imperfect vessels to do perfect work.
So in saying all that are translations fallible or infallible?
Is it possible to misunderstand God even though He speaks so clearly?
Last edited:
Heres a link to a thread started back sometime ago on this same topic.
http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/23797-word-god.html
http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/23797-word-god.html
Brother Mike
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,335
The Word of God
Jiggyfly:
Joh 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Joh 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
Apparently so................
Jesus is Lord
Jiggyfly:
Joh 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Joh 12:29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
Apparently so................
Jesus is Lord
Last edited:
Contrary to what you may think Larry, I am not attempting to be confrontational with you over your comments. No doubt, sometimes it is hard to discern attitude or intent in a written comment. But rest assured, I am not interested in being critical of you or your nephew. Your defensiveness shows me you have missed the point of my responses. I will now conclude this conversation with you offering my final thoughts regarding this matter.
As I think about what has been stated, I would agree that when folks have “faith” in something that can be dismantled by “scholarship” - it would naturally follow that their “faith” would also dismantle. But, that can only happen when the “faith” wasn’t anchored in immovable truth. Once a person is absolutely grounded in unshakable truth - rock not sand - his faith will stand the storms of life. For some those storms are the death of a loved one, or disease, or financial ruin, or seminary - I suppose, or divorce, or natural disaster, or persecution and imprisonment, or torture, or martyrdom, or whatever.
Having taught in theological seminary and other Christian venues of higher learning, I know all too well the condition of many seminary students. Most have never been exposed to the great complexities - and even controversies - concerning how we got the Bible to begin with. The scores of translations with variant readings - the thousands of manuscripts behind those translations which also have variant readings - the intricacies of textual criticism and the fact that many of the original Hebrew words still today have vague meanings - and a hundred other complicated issues with biblical languages, conflating texts, finding adequate words to express the meaning of a word in a different language, etc., can cause someone who has a belief in something that isn’t true to experience a “crisis of faith” - so to speak. And most seminary students believe something that isn’t true, as do most others professing the name of Christ today. The fault of the seminary - sometimes - not usually.
I’ll explain. Most people today believe one of the following: First, they believe that they have in their lap a Bible that is absolutely perfect in every detail - which is not true. Or second, they believe that without a firm understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek they cannot actually know what God originally said - which is not true. Or third, they believe no one can know precisely what God said in the original writings, since they no longer exist - which is not true either.
That being said, whatever it was he had “faith” in, apparently could not hold up under critical scrutiny. But when a man can say, “I know in whom I have believed and that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” - you can take his head off and he will still stand - you can crucify him upside-down and he will stand - you can burn him at the stake and he will stand - you can put him in a liberal seminary and he will stand - because HE KNOWS, THAT HE KNOWS, THAT HE KNOWS. His faith is built upon ROCK not sand.
By the way, your argument isn’t with me - it is with THE BOOK. BLESSINGS. Doc
Well, my friend, I didn't say they sought the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit. I said they undoubtedly sought the LEADERSHIP of the Holy Spirit. A distinction with a difference, at least in my understanding.
But I do agree - seeking leadership for the work of any ministry and receiving that leadership is determined by a number of factors. Clearly, many "ask amiss." A good topic for a different thread, I would think. BLESSINGS. Doc
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
No that is not what I said. I said all humans are fallible but God is still able to preserve His Word in spite of human beings and their shortcomings.
So you are saying that translations are infallible also, right?
True, precise, accurate, and correct.
You seem to be someone rather strongly guided to a great fascination for or even love of the smaller details of Scripture. I wonder if you wouldn't enjoy learning Koine Greek. You might find upon exploration that you have a gift for languages.
Be warned though ... If it's not out of love that you wish to pick translative nits, then please put this stuff away from you, for Satan knows every jot and tittle of Scripture and if he can use it to stumble you, he surely will.
Veritas, veritas, que est veritas?
Understand first that we were doing a grammatical analysis. From the evidence provided in the language, I was and am unable to say that "God-breathed" = true. Scripture is God-breathed AND true but the one is not causative of the other.
But if you'd like to expand to a philosophical analysis, then I will show you why "God-breathed" cannot and must not mean "true" the way you mean true.
In science, "true" has a very limited range of meaning based ENTIRELY on the natural world. You have to be able to produce it, measure it, and repeat it with the same results before it's considered "true."
The problem we have with Scripture and truth is that approximations, confusions, and outright lies are recorded in it. Now God is certainly never shown to lie in Scripture. But the Serpent's deceptive words are recorded. Rachel lies to her father about the idols she hides. Lot's daughters deceive him. Peter says he never knew Christ. Etc... The Bible doesn't just record the words of God. Lots of other folks have their say too and some are more honest than others. Their lies are truthfully recorded, but that does not make what they had to say into truth.
---
Keep in mind as we go, I am only looking *within* the canonized text of the KJV for my examples:
Let's start with a record that is very accurate, but not very precise.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote of the last days of Jesus on Earth. The first three put the date of Jesus' capture *before* Passover. So when Christ was on the cross, the majority of the Apostles were observing *the* Passover meal. Christ in this account becomes the Lamb, killed *on* the Passover, which makes some sense.
John puts the date of Jesus' capture *on* Passover - as an interruption of the Passover meal. He equates Christ to the Lamb being taken to be slaughtered, but the day He is put upon the cross cannot then be Passover as that meal has already happened. This also makes some sense.
---
Now normally people think of accuracy and precision as interchangeable but marksmen do not. If you "graze" the bulls eye all around the edges, but never hit the center, that's accuracy. If, however, you fire 10 shots that are all way too far down and to the left to hit the bulls eye BUT all 10 of those shots are just about on top of each other, that's precision. Most pseudo-science is very precise and starving for accuracy.
---
This story is reasonably accurate either way - Christ was taken in the middle of dinner, He was killed, He died as a sacrifice for the rest of us, etc. It has the variations in memory one would *expect* of a good eye witness account, but everyone is pretty much telling the same story with only a few details in question. If someone kills *your* best friend, your *primary* concern is not going to be whether he was murdered on Thursday or Friday, but who killed him and why.
The story is just not very precise - It was the first day the lambs are chosen to be slaughtered (three days later), or it was in the middle of Passover when he lambs would already be dead and cooked....any way we slice it, someone is not being precise about the time.
The precision issues just don't matter that much to Christians, most of whom read these two accounts and don't even notice the lack of factual agreement. But Skeptics and secular scholars eat this stuff up - holding it out there and saying "You only have to find an untruth in ONE area to invalidate the veracity of the whole. Here it is!" Meanwhile those same secularists would look at you as though you were mad if you said Kennedy wasn't shot, just because we STILL don't know for sure who shot him or how.
---
Only one of those two accounts can be "correct." Short of concocting a space-time event more on par with Star Trek than Scripture, Christ could only have been taken on one of the two nights, and only crucified on one of the two possible following nights. I've seen some pretty...creative...attempts to make the two accounts match up, but I have yet to validate one.
The cold hard fact is that either John PUT the capture ON the Passover to highlight his symbolic point that Christ was the Lamb of God...OR the other three Apostles forgot how many comparatively boring days passed between when they rented the room for the dinner and when the dinner they finally had there was interrupted by soldiers and betrayal, and so they recorded a wrong date, possibly making themselves feel a little less guilty for not being with John at the foot of the Cross because hey...they had to keep Passover, right?
If Matt/Mark/Luke got the date wrong then 3/4 of the Gospels contain incorrect data. If they contain provably incorrect data, then they are by definition of correctness "untrue." If God-breathed Gospel IS true, AND these records contain untruths, THEN these records must NOT be God-breathed. Congratulations, we've just de-canonized 3/4 of the Gospels.
The same trouble occurs if we decide that John "got it wrong" but at least we only lose one book instead of three. They cannot both be correct. I've crawled over forums with Rabbis and Messianic Jews and Orthodox and Catholic priests trying to harmonize the Hebrew Calendars with the solar Roman Calendars of the day. I've even seen this thing as hashed over by secular mathematicians. If there's some simple truth that we're missing that makes these two impossibly different dates line up, I've not yet got it down. Somebody simply recorded a wrong date.
---
Knowing that .. do you find the Gospel of John or the other three worthy to be stricken from the record? If they are all STILL God-breathed Scripture...then Scripture absolutely *can* be "untrue" at least in terms of factual accuracy. God-breathed must mean something else.
What a can of worms!
Another example, this time of reasonable precision but terrible accuracy, is the death of Judas Iscariot. In Matt 27:3-10 Judas hangs himself. In Luke 22 he is possessed and then takes his own life after being driven mad by the Devil. In Acts 1:18 he falls down in a field and ... explodes ... in rather gory detail. Each account is precise in its own way, and it IS easier for a faithful person to harmonize these three (first he got possessed, then he hung himself, then the rope broke and his body burst on landing). But given the rather extreme variation regarding the same key point, we can't know which, if any, of these accounts are accurate. He could have just as easily lived a long miserable life somewhere and it wouldn't take anything away from the message of the Gospel.
By now you really should be wondering how we even got our canon, and why the first church fathers didn't neatly pick one story as "the" story and do a line item veto of anything that didn't match it. The answer can ONLY be "because God wanted both versions in there," because I can take one red pen and about two weeks and cut the entire bible down by ONE WORD IN FIVE using nothing more than "these details must match X manuscript exactly" as my criteria.
If those examples don't work for you, I have easily a dozen others, and that's just from the KJV. Before the Lord had enough of my stubbornness and shut me down in my persecutions by saving me despite my efforts to be Satan's own linguistic handmaid, finding errors and contradictions in Scripture was my single favorite activity. I was one of "the" scholars that apologists dreaded having in their classrooms or lectures. I make no secret that I put all this study and effort into "disproving" God for almost two decades before I came crawling back to Him in shame at the end of myself. Little did I know I was being trained to refute others who still try to corroborate my prior folly.
In any case, if we assume that "God-breathed" Scripture is imbued with some quality that makes it supernaturally and spiritually true whether or not it's 100% accurate, precise, and correct, we do ok. Our trust is placed with the Lord, where it should be.
But if you demand absolute factual purity, you'd best be prepared to lose your book, if not your faith. The text just can't do that much on its own. Misplaced trust in it will be answered with troubles when someone like I used to be points out an "error" or "mistranslation" you just can't ignore or explain away. You'll be left chewing the corners of your Bible wondering what God "really" said...which leads to wondering if He said any of it....
Personally I think the reason for the variation is BECAUSE they are all remembered eye-witness accounts. Matt, a man of rules and laws, was most horrified that Judas hung himself. Luke, a man of medicine, was most taken by the phenomenon of possession. Whoever wrote Acts was going for the "show-stopper" image - something to really drive home the overall horror and destruction of Judas dying probably unsaved.
Someone looking for a math book with all right answers is going to be unspooled by this, especially if one goes into noncanonical texts and finds the OTHER three recorded ways Judas supposedly died, the craziest being that he was actually Christ's twin brother and went to the cross in His place!
Did it ever occur to you in all of this to look up the words *for* God-breathed? You might fight it interesting. It's one of those one-shot words used nowhere else in Scripture.
---------------------------------------------
So...how about we take a closer look at "God cannot lie" in the Greek too?
The actual word is αψευδης.
In Greek you can take a just about any word, quote, or phrase, and put that little 'α' at the beginning of X and literally make it "Not-X." This is usually done for literary emphasis.
There is an understood difference between saying
"I am NOT stupid" vs. "I am smart."
It is a linguistic concept that goes very well from Greek to English, which is why Greek comedy and tragedy is still considered such today.
HOWEVER, this is usually done only in the case where a binary change is possible.
So if I wrote "blue" then "a-blue" would not be a correct negation without some additional context because there's more than one color that can be "not blue" assuming we're even referring to colors and not emotions
This quote is a piece of Titus 1:2, by the way.
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"
αψευδης is a negated word. It is also a noun. So the writers of the KJV got a bit poetic in their translation here because their little phrase is awfully verb-like. To the language of the day, it made perfect sense. Even in the modern era, we'll say "I can't" when we mean "this is so repugnant to me or difficult for me that I won't no matter what." In 1611 it would have been understood to mean that whole range of context as a given thing solid enough to be considered a phrasal noun.
The NIV botches it up worse with "does not lie" because they got all caught up in the idea that an omnipotent God can do anything. If He wishes 100% of the time not to do something, it's still a choice. But again, this describes an action, not a thing, and the pesky little word is still supposed to be a noun.
I find it interesting that this word is also used ONCE in ALL of Scripture...just here. I have learned that when God chooses a word so carefully, there is often some hardcore point being made.
An extremely literal translation would be
...which God, NOT a lie/NOT lying, promised to us before the beginning of the world....
Honestly, given when it was written, the concept of God as in the Bible was far more likely to come into question as being a lie in total, than the idea of a God who does or does not lie. So it's more likely the former than the latter, but both work.
But only the former works beyond the context of what is being discussed right then. God is not a lie, and that works as a blanket statement.
God is not lying only works WHEN talking about His promise of eternal life in this sentence. The KJV went a bit far *textually speaking* to take from this that God cannot lie at all, ever.
Only by comparing this scripture to other scriptures where we are told God does not lie do we reach the greater truth. And then we're back to the tired old cannot vs. does not arguments.
Further, Thayer's Greek Definitions specifies that the lie to which this word refers must be an *intentional* falsehood, not merely an error of detail or a misunderstanding. If you look up the 9 places where the non-negated word is used and compare those messages to this one, you'll see what kind of lying is being discussed. (John 8:44, Romans 1:25, Eph 4:25, 2 Thess 2:9, 2 Thess 2:11, 1 John 2:21, 1 John 2:27 [my favorite], Rev 14:5, Rev 21:27, Rev 22:15)
For Titus, it probably made sense to stress that our God was a God like no other, not a made up concept, not an idol, not a spoiled demon-child with magical powers who was likely to be as bad as any man or worse. This was a concept of "god" new to the Gentile world and it might have been good to remind Titus that it wasn't just a scam.
To the men of the KJV who were certain that God IS and rock solid in their faith in His character, it became more sensible to focus on the "cannot lie" concept. This was not because God is incapable, but because His integrity is so complete that "will not" becomes a 100% certain choice, so "cannot" is used for respectful emphasis.
In today's fallen world we drop from "cannot" to "does not" in most translations, partly as the modern way to show that same respect and integrity (He could...but He doesn't), and partly because the authors of modern translations are no longer necessarily so certain of His character (He doesn't...but He could...maybe).
Nonetheless, He shines forth through all these permutations.
And that is why in the midst of trying to disprove Him in textual argument, I eventually could do nothing but collapse to my knees in awe. I was one very stubborn and I found Him patiently waiting thus in hundreds of such studies. I had to admit defeat. It was without a doubt the best surrender I have ever given. I remain forever grateful that He let me do so.
You seem to be someone rather strongly guided to a great fascination for or even love of the smaller details of Scripture. I wonder if you wouldn't enjoy learning Koine Greek. You might find upon exploration that you have a gift for languages.
Be warned though ... If it's not out of love that you wish to pick translative nits, then please put this stuff away from you, for Satan knows every jot and tittle of Scripture and if he can use it to stumble you, he surely will.
Veritas, veritas, que est veritas?
Understand first that we were doing a grammatical analysis. From the evidence provided in the language, I was and am unable to say that "God-breathed" = true. Scripture is God-breathed AND true but the one is not causative of the other.
But if you'd like to expand to a philosophical analysis, then I will show you why "God-breathed" cannot and must not mean "true" the way you mean true.
In science, "true" has a very limited range of meaning based ENTIRELY on the natural world. You have to be able to produce it, measure it, and repeat it with the same results before it's considered "true."
The problem we have with Scripture and truth is that approximations, confusions, and outright lies are recorded in it. Now God is certainly never shown to lie in Scripture. But the Serpent's deceptive words are recorded. Rachel lies to her father about the idols she hides. Lot's daughters deceive him. Peter says he never knew Christ. Etc... The Bible doesn't just record the words of God. Lots of other folks have their say too and some are more honest than others. Their lies are truthfully recorded, but that does not make what they had to say into truth.
---
Keep in mind as we go, I am only looking *within* the canonized text of the KJV for my examples:
Let's start with a record that is very accurate, but not very precise.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote of the last days of Jesus on Earth. The first three put the date of Jesus' capture *before* Passover. So when Christ was on the cross, the majority of the Apostles were observing *the* Passover meal. Christ in this account becomes the Lamb, killed *on* the Passover, which makes some sense.
John puts the date of Jesus' capture *on* Passover - as an interruption of the Passover meal. He equates Christ to the Lamb being taken to be slaughtered, but the day He is put upon the cross cannot then be Passover as that meal has already happened. This also makes some sense.
---
Now normally people think of accuracy and precision as interchangeable but marksmen do not. If you "graze" the bulls eye all around the edges, but never hit the center, that's accuracy. If, however, you fire 10 shots that are all way too far down and to the left to hit the bulls eye BUT all 10 of those shots are just about on top of each other, that's precision. Most pseudo-science is very precise and starving for accuracy.
---
This story is reasonably accurate either way - Christ was taken in the middle of dinner, He was killed, He died as a sacrifice for the rest of us, etc. It has the variations in memory one would *expect* of a good eye witness account, but everyone is pretty much telling the same story with only a few details in question. If someone kills *your* best friend, your *primary* concern is not going to be whether he was murdered on Thursday or Friday, but who killed him and why.
The story is just not very precise - It was the first day the lambs are chosen to be slaughtered (three days later), or it was in the middle of Passover when he lambs would already be dead and cooked....any way we slice it, someone is not being precise about the time.
The precision issues just don't matter that much to Christians, most of whom read these two accounts and don't even notice the lack of factual agreement. But Skeptics and secular scholars eat this stuff up - holding it out there and saying "You only have to find an untruth in ONE area to invalidate the veracity of the whole. Here it is!" Meanwhile those same secularists would look at you as though you were mad if you said Kennedy wasn't shot, just because we STILL don't know for sure who shot him or how.
---
Only one of those two accounts can be "correct." Short of concocting a space-time event more on par with Star Trek than Scripture, Christ could only have been taken on one of the two nights, and only crucified on one of the two possible following nights. I've seen some pretty...creative...attempts to make the two accounts match up, but I have yet to validate one.
The cold hard fact is that either John PUT the capture ON the Passover to highlight his symbolic point that Christ was the Lamb of God...OR the other three Apostles forgot how many comparatively boring days passed between when they rented the room for the dinner and when the dinner they finally had there was interrupted by soldiers and betrayal, and so they recorded a wrong date, possibly making themselves feel a little less guilty for not being with John at the foot of the Cross because hey...they had to keep Passover, right?
If Matt/Mark/Luke got the date wrong then 3/4 of the Gospels contain incorrect data. If they contain provably incorrect data, then they are by definition of correctness "untrue." If God-breathed Gospel IS true, AND these records contain untruths, THEN these records must NOT be God-breathed. Congratulations, we've just de-canonized 3/4 of the Gospels.
The same trouble occurs if we decide that John "got it wrong" but at least we only lose one book instead of three. They cannot both be correct. I've crawled over forums with Rabbis and Messianic Jews and Orthodox and Catholic priests trying to harmonize the Hebrew Calendars with the solar Roman Calendars of the day. I've even seen this thing as hashed over by secular mathematicians. If there's some simple truth that we're missing that makes these two impossibly different dates line up, I've not yet got it down. Somebody simply recorded a wrong date.
---
Knowing that .. do you find the Gospel of John or the other three worthy to be stricken from the record? If they are all STILL God-breathed Scripture...then Scripture absolutely *can* be "untrue" at least in terms of factual accuracy. God-breathed must mean something else.
What a can of worms!
Another example, this time of reasonable precision but terrible accuracy, is the death of Judas Iscariot. In Matt 27:3-10 Judas hangs himself. In Luke 22 he is possessed and then takes his own life after being driven mad by the Devil. In Acts 1:18 he falls down in a field and ... explodes ... in rather gory detail. Each account is precise in its own way, and it IS easier for a faithful person to harmonize these three (first he got possessed, then he hung himself, then the rope broke and his body burst on landing). But given the rather extreme variation regarding the same key point, we can't know which, if any, of these accounts are accurate. He could have just as easily lived a long miserable life somewhere and it wouldn't take anything away from the message of the Gospel.
By now you really should be wondering how we even got our canon, and why the first church fathers didn't neatly pick one story as "the" story and do a line item veto of anything that didn't match it. The answer can ONLY be "because God wanted both versions in there," because I can take one red pen and about two weeks and cut the entire bible down by ONE WORD IN FIVE using nothing more than "these details must match X manuscript exactly" as my criteria.
If those examples don't work for you, I have easily a dozen others, and that's just from the KJV. Before the Lord had enough of my stubbornness and shut me down in my persecutions by saving me despite my efforts to be Satan's own linguistic handmaid, finding errors and contradictions in Scripture was my single favorite activity. I was one of "the" scholars that apologists dreaded having in their classrooms or lectures. I make no secret that I put all this study and effort into "disproving" God for almost two decades before I came crawling back to Him in shame at the end of myself. Little did I know I was being trained to refute others who still try to corroborate my prior folly.
In any case, if we assume that "God-breathed" Scripture is imbued with some quality that makes it supernaturally and spiritually true whether or not it's 100% accurate, precise, and correct, we do ok. Our trust is placed with the Lord, where it should be.
But if you demand absolute factual purity, you'd best be prepared to lose your book, if not your faith. The text just can't do that much on its own. Misplaced trust in it will be answered with troubles when someone like I used to be points out an "error" or "mistranslation" you just can't ignore or explain away. You'll be left chewing the corners of your Bible wondering what God "really" said...which leads to wondering if He said any of it....
Personally I think the reason for the variation is BECAUSE they are all remembered eye-witness accounts. Matt, a man of rules and laws, was most horrified that Judas hung himself. Luke, a man of medicine, was most taken by the phenomenon of possession. Whoever wrote Acts was going for the "show-stopper" image - something to really drive home the overall horror and destruction of Judas dying probably unsaved.
Someone looking for a math book with all right answers is going to be unspooled by this, especially if one goes into noncanonical texts and finds the OTHER three recorded ways Judas supposedly died, the craziest being that he was actually Christ's twin brother and went to the cross in His place!
Did it ever occur to you in all of this to look up the words *for* God-breathed? You might fight it interesting. It's one of those one-shot words used nowhere else in Scripture.
---------------------------------------------
So...how about we take a closer look at "God cannot lie" in the Greek too?
The actual word is αψευδης.
In Greek you can take a just about any word, quote, or phrase, and put that little 'α' at the beginning of X and literally make it "Not-X." This is usually done for literary emphasis.
There is an understood difference between saying
"I am NOT stupid" vs. "I am smart."
It is a linguistic concept that goes very well from Greek to English, which is why Greek comedy and tragedy is still considered such today.
HOWEVER, this is usually done only in the case where a binary change is possible.
So if I wrote "blue" then "a-blue" would not be a correct negation without some additional context because there's more than one color that can be "not blue" assuming we're even referring to colors and not emotions
This quote is a piece of Titus 1:2, by the way.
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"
αψευδης is a negated word. It is also a noun. So the writers of the KJV got a bit poetic in their translation here because their little phrase is awfully verb-like. To the language of the day, it made perfect sense. Even in the modern era, we'll say "I can't" when we mean "this is so repugnant to me or difficult for me that I won't no matter what." In 1611 it would have been understood to mean that whole range of context as a given thing solid enough to be considered a phrasal noun.
The NIV botches it up worse with "does not lie" because they got all caught up in the idea that an omnipotent God can do anything. If He wishes 100% of the time not to do something, it's still a choice. But again, this describes an action, not a thing, and the pesky little word is still supposed to be a noun.
I find it interesting that this word is also used ONCE in ALL of Scripture...just here. I have learned that when God chooses a word so carefully, there is often some hardcore point being made.
An extremely literal translation would be
...which God, NOT a lie/NOT lying, promised to us before the beginning of the world....
Honestly, given when it was written, the concept of God as in the Bible was far more likely to come into question as being a lie in total, than the idea of a God who does or does not lie. So it's more likely the former than the latter, but both work.
But only the former works beyond the context of what is being discussed right then. God is not a lie, and that works as a blanket statement.
God is not lying only works WHEN talking about His promise of eternal life in this sentence. The KJV went a bit far *textually speaking* to take from this that God cannot lie at all, ever.
Only by comparing this scripture to other scriptures where we are told God does not lie do we reach the greater truth. And then we're back to the tired old cannot vs. does not arguments.
Further, Thayer's Greek Definitions specifies that the lie to which this word refers must be an *intentional* falsehood, not merely an error of detail or a misunderstanding. If you look up the 9 places where the non-negated word is used and compare those messages to this one, you'll see what kind of lying is being discussed. (John 8:44, Romans 1:25, Eph 4:25, 2 Thess 2:9, 2 Thess 2:11, 1 John 2:21, 1 John 2:27 [my favorite], Rev 14:5, Rev 21:27, Rev 22:15)
For Titus, it probably made sense to stress that our God was a God like no other, not a made up concept, not an idol, not a spoiled demon-child with magical powers who was likely to be as bad as any man or worse. This was a concept of "god" new to the Gentile world and it might have been good to remind Titus that it wasn't just a scam.
To the men of the KJV who were certain that God IS and rock solid in their faith in His character, it became more sensible to focus on the "cannot lie" concept. This was not because God is incapable, but because His integrity is so complete that "will not" becomes a 100% certain choice, so "cannot" is used for respectful emphasis.
In today's fallen world we drop from "cannot" to "does not" in most translations, partly as the modern way to show that same respect and integrity (He could...but He doesn't), and partly because the authors of modern translations are no longer necessarily so certain of His character (He doesn't...but He could...maybe).
Nonetheless, He shines forth through all these permutations.
And that is why in the midst of trying to disprove Him in textual argument, I eventually could do nothing but collapse to my knees in awe. I was one very stubborn and I found Him patiently waiting thus in hundreds of such studies. I had to admit defeat. It was without a doubt the best surrender I have ever given. I remain forever grateful that He let me do so.
Last edited:
RJ
Active
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 4,080
It's The Holy Spirit Not You
There is more to the Cemetery Joke than most know or will admit.
Mark is right about the role of the Holy Spirit. It is not our understanding but what the Holy Spirit teaches us. For example, if you are fluent in Latin or Greek you only get a better or more accurate translation. It is still God inspired and God is spirit and our understanding is gained spiritually.
It is the same in the role of deeds or works. As branches, it is not our works or deeds but the works and deeds of the Holy Spirit, the vine.
There is more to the Cemetery Joke than most know or will admit.
Mark is right about the role of the Holy Spirit. It is not our understanding but what the Holy Spirit teaches us. For example, if you are fluent in Latin or Greek you only get a better or more accurate translation. It is still God inspired and God is spirit and our understanding is gained spiritually.
It is the same in the role of deeds or works. As branches, it is not our works or deeds but the works and deeds of the Holy Spirit, the vine.
In response to your comment about the "Cemetery Joke" I must say that when you blame others - whether it be individuals or institutions - for your failures, you have FAILED to identify the real problem. Looks like a common problem, doesn't it? 2Corinthians 13:5 says, "EXAMINE YOURSELVES". BLESSINGS. Doc
Larry: Certainly no "cheap shot" intended on my part.
My position is that the Bible is clear - FAITH properly "founded" and "grounded" will stand NO MATTER WHAT. Your position is, individuals and institutions can rob a man of genuine faith. Absolute polar opposites. Since you cannot agree with both statements, you therefore are in disagreement with one someone. BLESSINGS. Doc
It would seem my point would be clear had you read the entire thread. If you have read the entire thread and don't understand my point, there isn't anything I could add that would be helpful. BLESSINGS. Doc
Boanerges
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,892
Clever words cannot hide a heart callous to the young in faith.
Your statement is biblically inaccurate and there different levels of spiritual maturity. It is the job of the more mature to nurture faith and not damage it and it is only shear arrogance to "assume" that those young people are mature in their faith. There are scriptural examples of people who damage the faith of others by teaching and by custom and unless you want to ignore these it is you that are at odds with the Word of God.
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
Rom 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Teacher of God's Word your is a greater condemnation if you lead even one of God's sheep into death.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Larry: This will be my last response to you, regarding this matter, no matter what your rebuttal. This discussion is growing beyond the pale of what is acceptable dialogue for Christian brothers.
I will start by acknowledging that I agree with every scripture you quoted. And it is my prayer that I never be a stumbling block to anyone - even though I am sure that I have at times. But I am not pleased by that reality - actually it breaks my heart!
But you also need to know, Larry, that I have invested a good portion of my life in helping young men and women train for ministry, as well as counsel those already in ministry. Like Paul, I will now “speak as a fool” because of what I am about to say can definitely be misunderstood as “tooting my own horn” - which I have absolutely no interest in doing. So, if you will bear with me in my folly.
Simply stated, my whole purpose in life for DECADES has been to help others STAY IN MINISTRY. I have counseled both men and women - young and mature - all over this country - mostly by invitation - who are battling depression, anxiety and fatigue because of the tremendous pressures doubts, and challenges that ministry poses to ministers. I have been invited to speak before pastors, missionaries, and church staff members. I have individually counseled an untold number of missionaries, pastors, pastors wives, evangelists, educators, and even other counselors who struggle with the financial, emotional, relational, and spiritual challenges the ministry often poses. And to God be the glory - Psalm 115:1 - and GOD ALONE!
Frankly, if four decades of fighting this warfare had not toughened my skin, as I attempt to “endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” I would be offended by some of your comments and innuendo. I will quote them here:
“As I do not see Christ in your comments and your blind judgment I am withdrawing from farther conversation.” (Yes, you edited this from your post later, nevertheless it was still posted.)
“Clever words cannot hide a heart callous to the young in faith.”
“it is only shear arrogance to "assume" that those young people are mature in their faith”
That being said, and out of the way, I will now offer my final response to you and be done with this.
The issue underlying this conversation between us - which has now apparently turned into controversy - was precipitated by your original post in this thread - post #6. I will quote it here:
“I had a cousin who went to cemetery- oh I mean seminary. He learned so much of the mechanic's of the Word that he lost track of what the Holy Spirit was saying through it, it tokk him a decade to fully recover his faith.
Knowledge of the scripture is good and necessary but man's understanding is limited.
I love apologetics and firmly believe in them but must share this.
One day I was praying an asking the Lord what He thought about me learning Greek to understand the Word. That still small voice I hear in my spirit simply replied something like this " learning all those things are good but do not loose your understanding of My heart".
Without rehearsing everything that has already been stated in the written record of this thread, my initial remark to your comments (as quoted above) was centered around the idea that the study of Greek would cause someone a crisis of faith. That is a position that simply is not tenable. And since that was the context of this conversation - at least it was for me - it is now obvious that you believe that the study of Greek is a stumbling block to immature believers. If that were true, which of course it isn’t, then the only conclusion that could follow is that only those mature in the faith should attend seminary - as the study of biblical languages is a requirement for any seminary in the country, for someone wishing to earn a seminary degree.
My concluding comment is that I find it so unfortunate that so many folks today have little or no appreciation for the men and women of faith - men and women who have dedicated and invested their entire lives to the study of biblical languages and biblical scholarship, so that others might benefit for the work of the ministry of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Without these folks throughout the history of the church YOU WOULDN’T EVEN HAVE A BIBLE.
Good day. Doc
Last edited:
- Status
