Originals

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

CREA
    In a number of recent translations (NRSV, NAB, NASB and TEV among the
versions I have on hand) the translators are frank enough to point out that
the Greek of this passage is ambiguous ("scripture" is singular rather than
plural, and "inspiration" is an adjective and not the subject of a
coordinate clause) and can also be legitimately translated along the lines
of:

  [2Tim. 3:16]  "Every inspired writing [or: Every writing WHICH is
inspired] is profitable for teaching, etc....".


CREA
    But you're right, its fascinating to think that THE KEY PASSAGE
supporting Biblical inerrancy may well have been corrupted in transmission
-- and even if it is assumed to have been accurately preserved and
transmitted though the ages, is open to two quite divergent readings at a
crucial phrase/clause.

EDWARDS
You know, for the life of me, I can't figure out why bibliolaters point to
this verse as "proof" that the bible was inspired.  First of all, there's
the issue that you quite well pointed out.  Second, there's the issue of
what would have constituted "scripture" to the author, because it would be
very difficult to argue that the author would have had anything other than
the OT (LXX) in mind.  Finally, there's the issue of authorship.  It's
increasingly hard to find scholars who believe that Paul actually wrote the
Pastorals; if this is the case, then what is the author's basis of
authority?  But you know, in spite of this, many folks will still cite this
verse and solemnly claim that it proves inspiration.  Why ask why, right?

• Previous message: Originals
• Next message: Originals
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]