# Extent of infallibility



## Leslie (May 22, 2008)

Are inspired and infallible coextensive--that is inspired in the theological sense? I'm familiar with the basic meaning of both. In particular, are translations and paraphrases inspired and therefore infallible or do these terms refer only to the original manuscripts in the original languages?


----------



## DTK (May 22, 2008)

Leslie said:


> In particular, are translations and paraphrases inspired and therefore infallible or do these terms refer only to the original manuscripts in the original languages?



My response is not so much intended to answer your question directly, but rather to help you think through this issue.

Consider: It is well known by students of the Bible that textual variations between the Hebrew text, the Septuagint (LXX), and copies of both existed in the days of our Lord’s flesh, yet the Lord Jesus and the New Testament writers themselves quote repeatedly from contemporary copies of both the extant Hebrew texts and translations of the Septuagint, never once calling into question the certainty, integrity, and adequacy of these copies to communicate infallibly the word of the true and living God.

DTK


----------



## bookslover (May 22, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Are inspired and infallible coextensive--that is inspired in the theological sense? I'm familiar with the basic meaning of both. In particular, are translations and paraphrases inspired and therefore infallible or do these terms refer only to the original manuscripts in the original languages?



Inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy apply *only* to the original autograph manuscripts of the Scriptures, none of which has survived (in God's providence). No translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (into whatever language, including English) is to be considered in these terms. 

Inspiration, especially, is used in regard to how the Word of God was transmitted from God's mind to the minds of the human writers in the original autographs and, thus, has no relation whatsoever to translations.


----------



## MW (May 22, 2008)

bookslover said:


> Inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy apply *only* to the original autograph manuscripts of the Scriptures, none of which has survived (in God's providence). No translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (into whatever language, including English) is to be considered in these terms.



This is contrary to the New Testament witness. Timothy was not raised with the original autograph mss., and yet the apostle Paul explicitly ascribed the quality of theopneustos to the Scriptures which Timothy read. Furthermore, we have Greek translations of Hebrew Scriptures quoted in the New Testament accompanied with the assertion that these are the words of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## JOwen (May 22, 2008)

> Inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy apply *only* to the original autograph manuscripts of the Scriptures, none of which has survived (in God's providence). No translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (into whatever language, including English) is to be considered in these terms.



One correction brother. Many Reformed folk, including myself would disagree with your assertion that infallibility and inerrancy only apply to the autographs. 

WCF, Chapter One:
VIII. The Old Testament in 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 therefore authentical."

This is the doctrine of providential preservation, and contends that the copies in posession today (in the Received Text family) are kept pure in all ages. We would not say this per se is the case with translations nessisarily, but would hold that the Recieved Text is both inspired and infallible.

Kind regards,


----------



## Leslie (May 25, 2008)

DTK said:


> Leslie said:
> 
> 
> > In particular, are translations and paraphrases inspired and therefore infallible or do these terms refer only to the original manuscripts in the original languages?
> ...



Good point. I never thought of it that way. It makes sense. If it is only the original manuscripts that are infallible (and by extension, faithful copies of the same), then it does not make sense to distinguish between singing psalms (or other scripture) and singing uninspired hymns. Jesus Himself, though he countered the Pharisees on many other points, never disputed their practice of paraphrasing the scriptures. I hate paraphrases myself but there probably is no reason for me to get on my holier-than-though high horse over them.


----------



## HaigLaw (May 25, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Good point. I never thought of it that way. It makes sense. If it is only the original manuscripts that are infallible (and by extension, faithful copies of the same), then it does not make sense to distinguish between singing psalms (or other scripture) and singing uninspired hymns. Jesus Himself, though he countered the Pharisees on many other points, never disputed their practice of paraphrasing the scriptures. I hate paraphrases myself but there probably is no reason for me to get on my holier-than-though high horse over them.



Leslie, I think you have drawn an unintended inference from what Pastor Lewis and others have shared. The doctrine of "providential preservation," as I understand his point, applies to the "received texts" only, not to translations, and much less to paraphrases.

I certainly do not draw any inference from what Jesus did not say to the Pharisees on paraphrases.


----------



## HaigLaw (May 25, 2008)

But, Pastor Lewis, could you kindly explain to us what exactly the "received texts" are?


----------



## DTK (May 25, 2008)

Leslie said:


> ...then it does not make sense to distinguish between singing psalms (or other scripture) and singing uninspired hymns. Jesus Himself, though he countered the Pharisees on many other points, never disputed their practice of paraphrasing the scriptures. I hate paraphrases myself but there probably is no reason for me to get on my holier-than-though high horse over them.


I don't agree that this particular inference from my words follows, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate it. Besides, my own holier-than-thou, high horse is too busy repenting these days.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 25, 2008)

Hello Dave,

This is a slightly technical definition of the "received texts" -- I hope it is what you wanted.

There were a number of Greek texts in the Reformation era, the primary of which were, Stephen’s, Beza’s, and the Elzevirs. The TBS’s 1894 TR was put together by Scrivener to indicate the exact Greek text underlying the KJV. As a distinct Greek text it never existed before Scrivener complied it. The 1611 translators picked and chose from the different Greek texts, the previous English versions – and other language versions – when rendering the AV. The TR 1894 but gives a Greek text exactly corresponding to the English of the AV.

Here is some background on the “TRs”.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition contains F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902). In the Preface this TBS edition says, 

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation--"Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." [you have the text that is now accepted by all]. The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].​
It is the early TR editions (and the Masoretic Hebrew) the Westminster Confession refers to, which Jerrold quoted at 1:8, when it says:

The Old Testament in 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 therefore authentical...​
True, this is no longer commonly held to in most Presbyterian and Reformed churches, as B.B. Warfield sort of redefined the meaning of the WCF at this point, though the history of this has been documented.

[I took some of the beginning of this post from the thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/tr-editions-19120/.]

Please, regards to Becky -- an old friend from Image!

Steve


----------



## Leslie (May 25, 2008)

Please show me where my logic is wrong. If translations and paraphrases are not inspired/infallible, then it follows that paraphrases of translations are also not inspired/infallible. The psalms that are sung in English are paraphrases (to correlate with the musical beat) of English translations. Therefore they are not inspired/infallible. So people who insist on singing only "inspired" songs, either EP or scripture-only, seem to be making a false distinction. Neither what they sing nor "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" is inspired/infallible--or am I missing something?


----------



## Hippo (May 25, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Please show me where my logic is wrong. If translations and paraphrases are not inspired/infallible, then it follows that paraphrases of translations are also not inspired/infallible. The psalms that are sung in English are paraphrases (to correlate with the musical beat) of English translations. Therefore they are not inspired/infallible. So people who insist on singing only "inspired" songs, either EP or scripture-only, seem to be making a false distinction. Neither what they sing nor "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" is inspired/infallible--or am I missing something?



That is why we interpret scripture as a whole, with single passages interpreted in the light of the the full message of scripture. 

The early church fathers thought that the multiple and widespread writings (Gospels and epistles) were evidence of the truth of the received Bible against private traditions and readings. 

This is why we have an open discussion of translations and the authority of the Church to ensure that translations are true to the originals.

If you think that a transalation renders a passage so different that its message is not inspired then by all means make that point, but a theoretical problem that does not exist and against which the Church is to guard does not make a denial of infallibility logical or reasonable.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2008)

Leslie said:


> Please show me where my logic is wrong. If translations and paraphrases are not inspired/infallible, then it follows that paraphrases of translations are also not inspired/infallible. The psalms that are sung in English are paraphrases (to correlate with the musical beat) of English translations. Therefore they are not inspired/infallible. So people who insist on singing only "inspired" songs, either EP or scripture-only, seem to be making a false distinction. Neither what they sing nor "Great Is Thy Faithfulness" is inspired/infallible--or am I missing something?



You seem to be leaving out of view the fact that the original autographs are described as being *immediately* inspired by God. When the sense of the original is accurately translated into another language it retains its quality as the inspired Word of God, or what may be called *mediate* inspiration. Hence, in Heb. 3:7ff, we read that the Holy Ghost says the words of Ps 95 in Greek (or English in our version), which was originally written in Hebrew. The fact has not been altered that this is the inspired word of God even though it has been translated into another language.


----------



## bookslover (May 25, 2008)

JOwen said:


> This is the doctrine of providential preservation, and contends that the copies in posession today (in the Received Text family) are kept pure in all ages. We would not say this per se is the case with translations nessisarily, but would hold that the Recieved Text is both inspired and infallible.



Here's an interesting quote from Francis R. Beattie in this regard:

_Infallible truth as to contents, divine accuracy as to form, and supreme authority as to their claim are the qualities of the sacred Scriptures as of no other writings. It is proper to add that *these qualities belong, in an absolute sense, to the original writings* of the inspired authors. Subsequent copies have been kept pure and authentic by divine providence in a most remarkable way. It is in this field that the work of the textual critic renders such a useful service, *but the question of the correct text should never be confounded with that of the inspiration of the text*, no matter how closely they may be related._

From: _The Presbyterian Standards: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms_ by the Rev. Francis R. Beattie; reprint (Greenville: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1997 [1896]), p. 47.

On the doctrine of providential preservation: is this an assumption, or can it be objectively proved?


----------



## Leslie (May 27, 2008)

It appears that the consensus is that the original manuscripts are inspired and infallible but that translations and paraphrases are "sort of". They are not inspired but they are infallible to the extent that they correspond to the original. Is that correct? Therefore, if some secular writings were discovered that clarified some of the obscure words in Job, we could, supposedly, realize that our translations of a passage was off-base and correct it. That seems reasonable to me.


----------

