Canonicity and sola scriptura

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

MECHANICAL DICTATION—A STRAW MAN
Whenever you hear someone accusing advocates of verbal inspiration of believing in “mechanical dictation,” most likely you are dealing with a theological liberal! The notion of “mechanical dictation” [i.e., that the Bible writers were only dictaphones or typewriters, hence, their cultural and personality factors ...[text shortened]... served. https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=411 [2 of 2]

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

Originally posted by RJHinds
You forgot to include your comment.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
My comment is that there seems to be a lot of textual variation; I am challenging the point made earlier that scribes copied the bible faithfully.

I guess I am just interested to hear what bibles Christians read, and why. It doesn't have to be polemical.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
My comment is that there seems to be a lot of textual variation; I am challenging the point made earlier that scribes copied the bible faithfully.

Originally posted by sonship
What happened to this ?

I guess I am just interested to hear what bibles Christians read, and why. It doesn't have to be polemical.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
This may be true, though do you think professional vs. amateur scribes would account for most errors?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
dominuslatrunculorum, if you're predisposed to reject the proposition that "The Scriptures are the verbally inspired Word of God" there's no volume of replies to this spirituality forum thread that will ever change your mind. The free will choice of choosing for or against the person and work of Jesus Christ on your behalf is yours; your decision will determine your eternal future. -Bob

Originally posted by sonship
What happened to this ?

I guess I am just interested to hear what bibles Christians read, and why. It doesn't have to be polemical.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
I don't mean to be polemical. I said at the outset that I believed that there was scribal variation, and so my question was how Christians dealt with the issue, how they decided which bible best dealt with errors of transmission, and so on. I don't want to be polemical and argue against anyone's choice of a bible; I just want to know to what ext ...[text shortened]... ay that there are virtually no errors and translation is unproblematic, then I have to disagree.

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
This may be true, though do you think professional vs. amateur scribes would account for most errors?

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
This may be true, though do you think professional vs. amateur scribes would account for most errors?

Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorum
It's not a question of inspiration; it's a question of transmission. No one would suggest that scribes themselves were inspired by God.

HAS TRANSMISSION DESTROYED INSPIRATION?
“But suppose,” someone wonders, “the Bible was verbally inspired initially. Hasn’t the transmission of the text across the centuries caused a corruption of the original documents, so that verbal inspiration has been virtually destroyed?” No, not at all. The text of the Bible—both Old and New Testaments—has been preserved in a remarkable fashion. For example, after years of scientific research in connection with the text of the Old Testament, professor Robert Dick Wilson, who was thoroughly acquainted with forty-five languages, stated that “we are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles...” (1929, p. 8, emp. added). Evidence for the textual reliability of the New Testament is no less impressive. Scholars are now in possession of some 5,378 Greek manuscripts (in part or in whole) of the New Testament, and some of these date to the early part of the second century A.D. It has been estimated that textual variations concern only about 1/1000th part of the entire text (see Gregory, 1907, p. 528). Transmission, therefore, has not destroyed verbal inspiration.

DOES TRANSLATION AFFECT INSPIRATION?
Since the Holy Scriptures originally were penned in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and since then have been translated into many languages, some are concerned that the translation process has destroyed the Bible’s initial inspiration. But there is no need for concern over this matter so long as accurate translation is effected. When a word is translated precisely from one language into another, the same thought or idea is conveyed; thus, the same message is received.

That translation need not affect inspiration is evinced by an appeal to the New Testament itself. In the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C., the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. This version, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, is known as the Septuagint. Note this interesting fact: Jesus Christ Himself, and His inspired New Testament writers, frequently quoted from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament Scriptures! For example, in Matthew 22:32, Christ quoted from the Septuagint (Exodus 3:6), and of that passage said: “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God?” (22:31). The translation from Hebrew to Greek did not alter the fact that the message was the Word of God!

It also might be observed in this connection that scholars generally agree that the Septuagint is not as reliable a translation as is the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Yet in spite of this, the New Testament frequently quotes it. However, as one author observed: “The writers of the New Testament appear to have been so careful to give the true sense of the Old Testament, that they forsook the Septuagint version whenever it did not give that sense...” (Horne, 1841, 1:312). The fact is, when a New Testament writer was quoting from the Greek Old Testament, the Holy Spirit sometimes led him to slightly alter the phraseology to give a more accurate sense. Thus, inspiration was still preserved though a less-than-perfect translation was being used.

CONCLUSION
The Scriptures are the verbally inspired Word of God. This view has been entertained by reverent students of the Holy Writings for multiplied centuries. Fritz Rienecker noted that the Jewish “rabbinical teaching was that the Spirit of God rested on and in the prophets and spoke through them so that their words did not come from themselves, but from the mouth of God and they spoke and wrote in the Holy Spirit. The early church was in entire agreement with this view” (1980, 2:301). Let us therefore exalt the Holy Scriptures as the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12), and acknowledge them as the only authoritative source of religious guidance.

REFERENCES
Bruce, A.B. (1956), Expositor’s New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Gaebelein, Frank E. (1950), The Meaning of Inspiration (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity).
Glaussen, L. (no date), Theopneustia—The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Gregory, C.R. (1907), Canon and Text of the New Testament (New York: Scribners).
Horne, Thomas H. (1842), An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Philadelplhia, PA: Whetham & Son).
Rienecker, Fritz (1980), A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Wilson, Robert Dick (1929), A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Brothers). Copyright © 1982 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=411 [2 of 2]

Originally posted by RJHinds
Amateur scribes would probably account for most errors.