An Explanation of Position

After pondering some of the things I talked about in Sunday school class this past Sunday I became concerned about the possibility of some misunderstanding. In addition, Audrey voiced some misunderstandings that she had. In order to clear up any possible concerns I am providing the following statement of my beliefs concerning the issues of Bible translations and inerrancy/infallibility. I also want to explain what I meant concerning the issue of modern day preachers/teachers using the prophetic utterance “Thus saith the Lord!” At the end of my statement there will be a couple of links to articles that would be beneficial. Please read them. I emphasize the importance of you reading these articles to better understand my position in case there was any confusion or misunderstanding.

I. The Bible Translations & Inerrancy/Infallibility
a. I do not believe there is any promise from Scripture of inerrancy and infallibility in any biblical translation outside of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts. In other words, only the original biblical manuscripts are truly inerrant (without error) and infallible (trustworthy, sure, without error). Now, what does this say about the translations that we use in English? None of the Bible translations from any era, including today, should be considered inerrant or infallible in the same way the original manuscripts are considered inerrant or infallible. There are errors of grammar, syntax, history, etc... in the translations of the original manuscripts but some of these “errors” are at a minimum within the more reliable translations noted below. There are some good translations out there that I think have done a good job of accurately translating the original languages enabling believers to better understand and study the Word of God. Do I believe that English translations are the Word of God? Yes, but not in the same sense as the inerrant and infallible original manuscripts. When we read the Scriptures in English are we reading the Word of God? If we are reading from reliable literal translations of the Bible then I would say that we are reading the Word of God but again, not on the same level as we would if we were reading the original biblical languages. This point emphasizes the importance of using good Bible translations. Examples of good translations include the following:
i. New American Standard Bible
ii. English Standard Version
iii. Holman Christian Standard Bible
Note: Literal translations (NASB, ESV, NKJV) are word for word translations. Dynamic Equivalent translations (NIV, NRSV, NLT, TNIV) are thought for thought. One of the problems with thought for thought translations is that they involve more opinion (less accuracy) on the part of the scholars doing the translating whereas with literal translations scholars simply have to find a word in the modern language that corresponds to the word in the original. There is less scholarly opinion involved in this process. No doubt, sometimes with literal translations, there is difficulty understanding the text but some of the more modern literal translations (NASB, ESV) have done an excellent job of aleviating these kinds of problems.

b. The statement concerning this issue in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith: 8. “The Old Testament in15 Hebrew which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore16 authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them17. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read18 and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they19 come, that the Word of God dwelling20 plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.”

c. Other Links:

1. John Piper and his church's doctrinal statement concerning this issue of Scripture. Please notice primarily the first paragraph. I affirm this statement.

2. "Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?" This is an article by Norman Geisler who is a sound theologian and respected Christian apologists.

II. The Modern Preacher/Teacher & The Prophetic Utterance “Thus Saith The LORD!”
a. I now believe that I jumped the gun, so to speak, with my injunction that it is inappropriate for the modern day preacher/teacher to use this declaration when preaching the Word of God. I do believe that the phrase should be used with great reverence and respect for God and His Word. The declaration originally was only used by those who God had chosen to be His spokespersons in the world of men. God directly revealed Himself, His commandments and His will to His prophets and they affirmed their message and attached God’s authority with the phrase “Thus saith the Lord.” The modern preacher/teacher must be diligent to only use the term when they are sure that it is God’s Word and not their own word that is being proclaimed.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings and concerns about my statements from Sunday morning. If you still have any concerns etc…please let me know. I want to encourage all of you to feel free to voice any concerns or disagreements that you might have with me or something that I teach. Our goal should be to work out the faith together so that God will be glorified and His Church edified.

Blessings,

Craig