In the past week, I had several people come to me with the same issue. I had the chance to speak to 40 youth about Jesus last week at a camp I help run, and I challenged them to take a good, hard, long look at Jesus, his claims and how he fits into their lives. Many of the campers were bold enough to do so, for which I am extremely appreciative. Several, though, had a hard time with the reliability of the Bible. Basically, the argument is as follows: Since the Bible has been translated into so many different languages, it can neither be accurate nor reliable today. I do hear this argument come up at times, and I thought I would give a little response to it so as to edify you, the reader.
This is a weak argument. (This is not a dig at those who have questions about biblical reliability; I understand completely why one might have questions about such an old book.) The argument is weak because it is based on a false assumption. It is true that the Bible has been translated into many, many languages. Those translations, however, are almost always based on original-language manuscripts, which we do still have today. In fact, archaeologists have discovered thousands of biblical manuscripts spanning thousands of years. The Bible is the most well-attested ancient book by a large magnitude. With this much evidence, scholars can trace back to what the original source, or autograph, said using textual criticism, a science that compares and analyzes textual deviations based on established sets of criteria. Using these techniques, scholars have established that the text as we have it today is 97% accurate for the Old Testament and 99% accurate for the New Testament. (By the way, these are conservative estimates.)
This is a very brief overview, but hopefully it will satisfy most inquisitors. A few more thoughts are in order, though.
1. Of the 1-3% of today's Bible that might be inaccurate, none of it pertains to any crucial theological point. Most of these issues deal with minor grammatical details (singular vs. plural, etc).
2. For one to hold the initial argument to be valid, that person must also question the reliability of all of the ancient works to a much greater degree: Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Euripides, Jerome, etc.
3. One may hold that the Bible has been handed down to us accurately and still disbelieve its contents. Though I would prefer this not to be the case, it is at least a more intellectually satisfying position to hold than to say that the Bible is not reliable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Jon, well done, I hear about this “problem” all the time. Something that I have noticed is the vast majority of the time it is just a smoke screen. People don’t want to change their lives so they have their list of “problems” with the Bible, the Church, etc. When you discuss it with them you discover very quickly that they do not have the faintest idea about what they are talking about.
Yet we must share the good news with them in patience, and love.
You have provided good answers to those “smoky” questions.
I do not believe that the people who asked me about this last week were using it as a smoke screen; they really were wondering about it. But I do agree with you that too often this is the case.
The first time I heard the "translated and retranslated" argument I was flabbergasted. I didn't even know where to begin.
It's sad that people can so often know just enough of the history of the Bible to get themselves in trouble. As a community, the Church needs to be more aggressive about teaching the folks in the pews about these things.
This is a great start, Jon. Thanks for posting it.
p.s. Thanks for linking to my blog.
Jon;
Sorry I should have been more clear, my comment was general in nature.
one thing i do wonder would it sometimes be better to tanslate the idea of a passage instead doing it word for word. i know that would have traditionlists in an uproar, but we have so many words that carry multiple meanings. where as greek and hebrew are more descriptive languages. with that, the word translated just in it self may mislead. just a thought.
Pat,
There are different types of translations out there. "Dynamic" translations, such as the TNIV, do lean toward translating the idea of a sentence or phrase, whereas "static" translations like the NASB tend to translate word-for-word (although this is not really possible 100% of the time due to idioms, syntax, etc). Then, there are paraphrases like The Message that convey the idea of a paragraph or story. These are not literal translations, but they are good tools to gain additional insight into the text.
Also, I would not say that Greek and Hebrew are less-descriptive languages than English. In the case of Hebrew, for example, it is true that there are not too many adjectives and adverbs, so words can have many different meanings. For instance, the word for "row" as in "rowing a boat" is the same word used for "dig" as in "digging a trench". (I would consider Greek to be somewhat closer to English than Hebrew in this regard, due to the structure of the language.) To put it simply, each of these three languages has many words that carry multiple meanings.
You are correct that a translation may mislead, which is why it is important that we never lose the knowledge of the original texts. For example, James 2:14 asks if a person who has faith without works can be saved by that faith. Due to the use of the negative particle MH in the question, the implied answer is "No, such faith cannot save a person" (as opposed to the negative particle OU, which implies a positive answer to the question). English, however, does not make this distinction, so although one might infer correctly from the context, it is hard to make that definitive implication without adding a lot of words.
I hope this helps.
nice response jon. by descriptive i was refering to the fact that greek and hebrew seem to be more expalnatory. finding expressions for the many emotions of life, that the english language does not possess. and yes their are good translations the message for sure being one. my concern is the focus of passages can be lost as many get caught up in a perception of a word.
One of the reasons I use The Message so much on my blogs is the fact that it often leaves less for me to translate to a modern person that is not overly familiar with the Bible or its teachings.
That being said sometimes it does get rather far a field from a more literal understanding. The further you move from literal the more the possibility of translation “interference” (not necessarily intentionally). Yet The Message often does an excellent job of getting the “pure essence” of the original text for a modern person that maybe has no idea about the Bible, and those that perhaps need a “fresh” look a the text.
livingword you have eloquently stumbled on the true essence or possible intended purpose of translating. in reading a passage the translator has two options. understand the meaning of what he is translating, then in his intended language convey what is being imparted. or translate word for word. that is for translators and us to argue over the proper direction. my concern, if the latter is used, do we then lose the true meaning of a passage because in our case the english language may not have a word that adequately suits the idea trying to be explained. thus people get lost in the translation.
i will just add, i think peterson does have a true concept of what scripture is,thus his translation is an easy read and possibly easier understood. the "meaning" is being conveyed as oppossed to a strict adherence to the text. but also why many traditionlist discredit his work. on the flip side you do have translators who will make the words in there own image as well. the discernmant power of the spirit is needed in such instances.
oh i am sorry jon!! goood post and a goood topic to be talked about!!
Dr. Erhman revealed a true words of Bible,unified the faith and the practices of the Christians;He indicated what the Christians were supposed to believe and how they were supposed to behave.in the easy language and even he spread illiterate people to understand what is true.
===============================
sanjeeda
http://www.christian-drug-rehab.org
Post a Comment