The Gospel Accounts as absolute truth

[methinkshe]

Interesting survey, system ! I'd be interested to find out your results.

The only question I would answer "no" to is the first one. Part of the reason I don't believe it's without grammatical errors is because of the difficulty of the language. I heard this morning that Greek was written without punctuation (which I knew) and without spacing (which I did not know). I think the chances of people translating everything Matt, Mark, Luke and John originally wrote at a 100% accuracy rate are quite slim. One would also have to decide which version of the Bible to be 100% accurate .

Having said that, however, I will also say that no errors, grammatical or otherwise, can keep the Holy Spirit from reaching into the minds and hearts of people. Human errors CANNOT hold back the Spirit's teaching !

And to qualify my answer: I believe all things recorded in the gospels actually happened. The personalities of the writers would definately influence how they recorded things, but I don't believe they mixed words to make things coincide with their beliefs.

Good luck with your questions. You said to keep it brief; sorry

Good answer. Translations will always suffer in terms of literal accuracy. However, I believe that the grammatical inaccuracies do not detract from doctrinal/spiritual truth. For instance, in Greek, the word "if" is clearly given with four different connotations: if and it is, if and it isn't, if and maybe it is and maybe it isn't, and if....I were you...open to debate. Yet, in English, we have only the single word "if" to convey all these clearly different meanings. Therefore the Gospels, in their original language, are inerrant. In their translations, the inspiration is inerrant but there may be grammatical ambiguities.

I read in the newspaper the other day about a group of Christians who were attempting to translate the Bible into an obscure African dialect. They were wondering how to translate "the joy of the Lord" because every word that seemed consistent with "joy" as in "the joy of the Lord", seemed to have other connotations - particularly erotic ones. Eventually a dog ran into the tent where they were working and wagged his tail vigorously on seeing his master. The translators asked which word would they use for the emotion of pleasure that the dog was exhibiting when wagging his tail on seeing his master. They then used this word in their translation. Thus, the joy of the Lord literally translates, in their dialect, as "wagging a tail"..... Such are the difficulties of translation. It is the Spirit of the Word not the letter of the Word that is contained in faithful translations of the original Bible manuscripts.

Blessings in Jesus,

Ruth

[systemstrike_7]

Thanks to both of you for replying. I will let you know what the outcome is when I am finished. I have asked my sister to ask alot of her friends across the country. I am interested to see the outcome...

[systemstrike_7]

Interesting survey, system ! I'd be interested to find out your results.

The only question I would answer "no" to is the first one. Part of the reason I don't believe it's without grammatical errors is because of the difficulty of the language. I heard this morning that Greek was written without punctuation (which I knew) and without spacing (which I did not know). I think the chances of people translating everything Matt, Mark, Luke and John originally wrote at a 100% accuracy rate are quite slim. One would also have to decide which version of the Bible to be 100% accurate .

Having said that, however, I will also say that no errors, grammatical or otherwise, can keep the Holy Spirit from reaching into the minds and hearts of people. Human errors CANNOT hold back the Spirit's teaching !

And to qualify my answer: I believe all things recorded in the gospels actually happened. The personalities of the writers would definately influence how they recorded things, but I don't believe they mixed words to make things coincide with their beliefs.

Good luck with your questions. You said to keep it brief; sorry

Good answer. Translations will always suffer in terms of literal accuracy. However, I believe that the grammatical inaccuracies do not detract from doctrinal/spiritual truth. For instance, in Greek, the word "if" is clearly given with four different connotations: if and it is, if and it isn't, if and maybe it is and maybe it isn't, and if....I were you...open to debate. Yet, in English, we have only the single word "if" to convey all these clearly different meanings. Therefore the Gospels, in their original language, are inerrant. In their translations, the inspiration is inerrant but there may be grammatical ambiguities.

I read in the newspaper the other day about a group of Christians who were attempting to translate the Bible into an obscure African dialect. They were wondering how to translate "the joy of the Lord" because every word that seemed consistent with "joy" as in "the joy of the Lord", seemed to have other connotations - particularly erotic ones. Eventually a dog ran into the tent where they were working and wagged his tail vigorously on seeing his master. The translators asked which word would they use for the emotion of pleasure that the dog was exhibiting when wagging his tail on seeing his master. They then used this word in their translation. Thus, the joy of the Lord literally translates, in their dialect, as "wagging a tail"..... Such are the difficulties of translation. It is the Spirit of the Word not the letter of the Word that is contained in faithful translations of the original Bible manuscripts.

Blessings in Jesus,

Ruth

Ok, so methinkshe, do you answer yes to all three of the questions? I can't decide if you believe there are any grammatical or accidental errors in the accounts or not.

[VelvetVoice]

I agree with Isaiah 43:4. There could be grammatical errors, but the Holy Spirit will speak with those elect who will hear His message.

[systemstrike_7]

I agree with Isaiah 43:4. There could be grammatical errors, but the Holy Spirit will speak with those elect who will hear His message.

Awesome, thanks for the reply!

[systemstrike_7]

I've just thought of something. Do any of you believe that some of the gospel stories could have been symbolic, which wouldn't make them historically true, but nevertheless God-breathed to teach a lesson of some sort?

[methinkshe]

I've just thought of something. Do any of you believe that some of the gospel stories could have been symbolic, which wouldn't make them historically true, but nevertheless God-breathed to teach a lesson of some sort?

I believe the Gospel accounts are true and are witness accounts of 4 different people. They are not symbolic unless stated - i.e. whe Jesus clearly said He was telling a parable. They are eye-wwitness accounts. I also believe that in their original languages they are inerrant, in terms of faithfully relaying God's Word. In translation, errors creep in, but Godly translations retain the Spirit of the Gospels. I do have concerns about some modern translations that are the product of committtees where some of the linguists are not necessarily Bible-believing Christians and thus are not Spirit led. They will bring their own humanistic/secular bias as they translate. Which is why I tend to rely on the AV because I believe the translators were Godly men guided by the Holy Spirit. That is not necessarily the case with some modern translations where sometimes the expertise of linguists is considered of greater worth than the Spritual guidance of the Holy Spirt.

In Jesus,

Ruth

Edited April 17, 2007 by methinkshe