| Author | Message | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 237 Registered: 9-2006 |
Hi Everyone, I would like to join this excellent discussion too. Dana said: "Sorry if this is too controversial, I cannot help but wonder if the spirit of EGW/Adventism is behind the YEC fear mongering and division it's been causing in the body of Christ." Very intriguing Dana, and I am wondering the same. Ron Numbers' book really raises some questions about the effect of Adventism on evangelicalism in the US, and their priorities in evangelism (Mark Noll's essays on the history of the American evangelical church address these concerns, Biologos website). In the link you gave, author Michael Hawley, reading Numbers, says that the authors of a primary creationist science text, The Genesis Flood, 1961, apparently hid their dependence on their primary source, SDA George McCready-Price. They wanted to make the book more acceptable to their Protestant readers, and so avoided the less-than-respectable SDA connection. Says Hawley, "Morris and Whitcomb repackaged Prices discarded flood geology creationism into something that the fundamentalist and evangelical community finally embraced. The Genesis Flood was an instant success with 29 reprints and sales in excess of 200,000 by the 1980s. It became the scientific support and justification for the belief in young earth creationism, especially since this movement was named creation science. One reason for its success, besides the more refined methods of persuasion in the book, is because Morris came from the mainline Baptist community rather than the fringe Seventh-day Adventist community as did Price. This made it more palatable for mainstream evangelicals." Price was devoted to Ellen White's authority and vision on the creation and formation of the earth. Mrs. White had said, [humans, animals, and trees] were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; butthe things which God gave them [i.e., to us humans] as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them [scientists]. I am not saying that it is heresy or ignorance to believe in a young earth from reading Genesis, nor that we should all accept every pronouncement from the church of Darwin. But I share your concerns with the spirit of YEC polemics that pervades their approach to faith, the Bible, and evangelism of non-believers that so many evangelical leaders have taken. There is a distinctive feel to it like the historic Adventism I grew up in. It also serves the worst impulses on the militant secular side, feeding a destructive culture war. It's not really about the gospel, but other, less noble agendas. Martin C | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 622 Registered: 7-2005 |
The irony of history. Ellen White made a fortune plagiarizing Christian authors, Morris and Whitcomb plagiarized McCready-Price and wrote a bestselling book. Gabriel | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 2060 Registered: 10-2002  |
Yes, that's what I mean, Michael... unfortunately I only remember hearing it come from a man who interviewed and was following the research of the person who first discovered it. But what he said was that the variable in/accuracies of instrumental development were factored in, and still a slowing down was visible. When I ran a search on this some years ago, I could find a little on the theory and its origin, but not an actual research paper or presentation. Since it first came out some years ago, I expected to find opposing views/research but didn't see anything then. **shrug** | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 2061 Registered: 10-2002 |
The reality is that the "spirit of Adventism" is not uniquely Adventist. There are larger spirits at work that exist in various measures throughout the body of Christ. Here because we focus so much on Adventism, and just from post-traumatic shock probably, we tend to isolate everything back to Adventism and it really ends up blinding us to the fact that this stuff is out there in the rest of the body, too. Often we are so traumatized that we turn a blind eye to things in our new churches or theological systems that are really no different than some of the SDA errors. By focusing on the shell (the container of "SDAism"), we miss the spiritual realities underneath. We prefer the black-and-white simplicity of discerning by the label "SDA". | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 379 Registered: 7-2010  |
Ramone, This YEC supporter site site urges caution: http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/ The question is what can be derived from this data? Statistics can prove almost anything (the above article argues about which statistical analysis to use), but even the untrained eye can look at the chart and see that the only thing it proves is that we have a better measurement methodology today than we did before 1900. For some info on the changing methodologies over time, here is a brief summary: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html This does not even consider the data points that were left off of the chart. Michael | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 568 Registered: 3-2009 |
Ramone, thank you for bringing out this point. I suppose my broader aim is to show how EGW residual influences *may* still be influencing how evangelicals approach the Biblical text. But more importantly, I believe the residual influences of SDA on the Christian world are causing totally unnecessary heartache and division. I'm glad we're having this conversation--because it extends way past SDA issues and touches on questions regarding how Scripture is to be read and applied. I've elaborated on another thread on this forum (I forgot where it is now...) that, at some point, I think formers should perhaps progress beyond thinking of things in SDA/evangelical dichotomous terms and begin to focus on more expansive topics. Examples include: (1) how to develop a Jesus-centered hermeneutic when reading Scripture, (2) how to graciously interact with Christians who have doctrinal differences, (3) how to talk to skeptics about the evidence for the resurrection,(4) how to answer questions re: textual criticism. I go to a terrific church that teaches the Bible and touches on some of these topics very lightly. However, I don't think most churches are giving these topics any air time at all. So, some formers are vulnerable to agnosticism and Judaism, and this happens, IMO, bc they were only focused on disproving SDA and not much else.... This conversation has been awesome. Thanks Gabriel and Martin for jumping in with your insights. I didn't know the KJV-only thing could be traced back to SDAs, but it doesn't surprise me. I earnestly pray that dogmatic YEC folks really take a serious look at Hawley's & Numbers' information and think about the potential damage that they could be inadvertently doing to the cause of Christ as it is presented to skeptics. This issue is SO not worth the culture/political war that it has created here in the U.S. There is so much tied up in this, I cannot even get into it all! (e.g., distrust of science, global warming research, etc). My heart is hurting b/c the name of Jesus is being reviled among unbelievers because of (1) the particular issues that Christians insist on being dogmatic about and, more importantly (2) the *manner* in which they are dogmatic about them. I know this because I teach at a univ. with skeptical young people and they have had about enough of the rhetoric in certain Christian circles. Enough said on this point  Gabriel, I've listened to part of Peter Williams' talk, and it's really fascinating. These are the kinds of discourses that *need* to be happening right now with loud voices in the U.S. culture like Ehrman, Spong, Hitchens, and Dawkins. The thing is that their ideas aren't new, but they feel new and fresh to many unsuspecting individuals. Let's keep these kinds of discussions going and encourage one another to defend the name and honor of Christ alone with our intellect and interactions among one another as believers and with the cultures in which we live. | ||
| Michaelmiller Registered user Username: Michaelmiller Post Number: 380 Registered: 7-2010 |
Ramone, I neglected to add my opening paragraph after I typed the data/links portion of the above post (sorry, I think backward). Anyway, I meant to start by pointing out that I was sharing a link to an opposing view (what you didn't find back then). Michael | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2081 Registered: 7-2007 |
I noticed that Job (which is the very first book of the Bible that was written) describes a dinosaur in Job 40. Notice in verse 17 how he says that the creature moved it's tail "like a cedar." He must have been an eyewitness. Who knows, maybe Noah had the book of Job with him on the ark! (After all Abraham lived only about 600 or so years after the flood.) | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 238 Registered: 9-2006 |
Ramone, thanks for your comment about the spirit of Adventism, the larger spirits at work in the church, and our tendency to see through former SDA glasses. Good points. Dana, very helpful comments about our need to develop a Jesus-centered hermeneutic and think in more expansive terms instead of our usual SDA/Evangelical dichotomy. Back to the discussion about the decaying speed of light: the main proponent is Barry Setterfield from Australia. For our other readers on this forum, here is a rough summary of that debate. Setterfield is widely criticized on the web for his selective use of data and faulty math. From what I am reading, he took a selected number of light speed ("c") measurements beginning in 1675 (his value for that measurement is questioned), and constructed a curve showing a significant decrease of speed beginning in 4040BC. At creation, he says, light speed was infinite, and stayed the same until the Fall; but after the Fall, it steadily decreased. He also believes other physical constants have changed. His results depend heavily on many of these early c measurements which used primitive technology and are not reliable. When all the c measurements are factored, his curve flattens out. There are many other problems that his c-decay proposal raises for physics and many other disciplines. His dogmatic certainties and later qualifications of his theory, without admitting real errors, has not helped his credibility. Has anyone read "The End of Christianity" by William Dembski? There are good reviews of the book on Biologos and Amazon. I just finished it, then it was promptly stolen. I hope they read it. Dembski accepts an ancient earth and universe, but also believes that natural evil is a result of the Fall of man. In an old earth where life already existed long before Adam and Eve, there would have been much natural evil in the world outside the Garden, as we see in the fossil record. By natural evil, he means disease, disaster, and death. Dembski proposes that God anticipated the Fall by putting death and suffering into the universe in preparation for sin, and for a human redeemer who carries the suffering on Himself. He challenges the commonsense notion that causes must always precede effects, and gives Biblical examples where God declares things before they occur in human chronological time. The saving effects of the Cross for Old Testament believers is the prime example. I do like the idea that since the universe was created by Christ and for His glory, that His greatest glory was bearing our pain and becoming a curse for us. In other words, the violent death of the Son of God to save and display His glory was the original divine plan for the cosmos. Since our own flesh and blood suffered death to destroy its power, we can experience His greatness infinitely more. Unfallen utopians could never know God's glory and joy in that way. For those reasons, suffering is part of the original fabric of the universe and in God's omnipotent hands has great redemptive value. The sufferings of this time aren't worthy of comparison anyway. Adventists, and most Christians, believe that salvation was God's desperate response to the tragedy of the Fall, and that His real "Plan A" was for a clean, eternal, harmonious utopia. Being clean and pain-free was the end-all of creation. Many of us hoped for a final cleansing in these words: "The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation..." For Ellen as for many Christians, Salvation was Plan B. In that, we diminish the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the universe. Great discussion my friends, gotta to go change my oil. Martin C | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 569 Registered: 3-2009 |
Martin, that book sounds fascinating. I will have to add it to my growing Amazon wish list. Do you happen to recall how the author reconciled his theory with Romans 5:12, which appears indicate that sin temporally preceded death? In any case, I have a feeling that we're missing a very large piece to this puzzle. Once we have the missing info (if God chooses to reveal it to us later on), the whole thing will fall together and make total sense. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12919 Registered: 12-2003  |
Seekinglight, good question. Martin, there's something really fascinating about Dembki's thesis. I have trouble understanding it in some ways, partly because of Romans 5:12, etc., but for sure Lucifer sinned before Adam and Eve. So there definitely was sin and disaster and other effects of sin before Adam and Eve. We're not told the story, but there's SOMETHING there... I can see how his thesis does make Jesus' eternal sacrifice (and "eternal" works outside of time and applies to ALL time) even more intense and central and purposeful...and makes it the centerpiece of all reality. It helps me see a fragment more of the possible meaning of Colossians 1:20:
Colleen Colleen | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 239 Registered: 9-2006 |
Glad you jumped in Colleen. There is an infinite depth to the story of grace in our cosmos that the Bible tells. Yes, Colossians 1:20 says a lot, and the theologians have wrestled with Christ reconciling all things to Himself through the peace by His blood. Was Paul hinting to us that the cosmos has always been alienated and travailing until now? Romans 5:12: Is it saying that death spread to all men because of sin, and this could only refer to linear time as we experience it? I know that Dembski would say, "No, it doesn't have to. Paul is stating the causal relationship between sin and death, regardless of the sequence of time involved." Remember, in Romans 8 he says that the creation was subjected, not willingly, to futility in hope. This was the infinite, timeless God's doing, in kairos time, not a natural consequence of sin, as we were taught. Jesus arrival and death also took place in kairos "appointed time." This makes me think of the story in John 9 of the man blind from birth. Jesus' disciples asked Him if he was blind because his parents' or his own sin. Jesus said something immensely profound: "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life." The man's blindness was not just an unfortunate accident that God (finally) decided to use after the fact. John Piper's sermon on this story made these points: 1. The disciples were not to look for past causes for the man's suffering, but to God's future purposes. God is present in the womb and is not passive about each child's development. "The Lord said to Moses, 'Who made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?'" (Ex. 4:11) 2. There is no suffering outside God's purposes and designs. When we look only for natural causality in suffering, we leave God out of nature and out of our lives. We surrender to meaninglessness and chaos. Look for the purposes and plans of God. Actually, Dembski does not mention John 9's blind man, or portray God as strongly sovereign as Piper does. However, Dembski's thesis actually makes more sense if God ordains and permits sin and suffering for his long term purposes. So when we consider all the suffering in our cosmos, we can look for the "grace principle" at work to display His glory in the future, instead of trying to ask about past causes. This really has many implications about our view of nature, and of life and death. The future purpose of creation has always been for the slain Lamb to suffer death and shower grace upon those He loves. Martin C | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 2062 Registered: 10-2002 |
Seekinglight, I'm suggesting turning the telescope around and looking at things from the other end: That "EGW" is a product of human and spiritual conditions, all of which exist in various measures in the body of Christ (because we're all human and all have spiritual junk from time to time). This also means that "EGW" herself or "her spirit" were not the problem. The roots are the more important things to recognize: for example, not wanting to admit mistakes, not wanting to face the possibility that all the faith they exerted (in 1844) was for nothing, and coming to unbiblical conclusions for the sake of making their theological system more systematic (trying to make it work within itself instead of let Scripture challenge it). At the end of his review of the movie "Downfall" (about the final days of Hitler), film critic Roger Ebert wrote: I believe we ought to recognize the same thing. It is very easy for us to focus on "EGW" and even call her a spirit, but she was a human, and "she" was not the problem. She listened to other spirits and her pride opened the door to them, but if we think it's "EGW" then we may miss keeping the doors closed ourselves. Her ministry was a manifestation of various problems. Simply identifying "her" does not innoculate us against or even open our eyes to the steps her heart took in its walk away from Christ. It is better for us to understand those steps than to concentrate on the person who took them. Bless you all in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 570 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thank you for the reminder, Ramone. It is interesting to me to observe SDA historical connection to the current strife over YEC in the Christian community. I believe it's worth pondering a bit. But you're absolutely right about SDA not being the source of the problem. I mentioned above that I'm not so much against SDA per se as I am against all bad doctrine--from any source. I want to be on guard against theological ideas that are not centered on Jesus. I also want to preserve unity by taking care not to pick battles w/ believers where they are not necessary. Dana | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 2063 Registered: 10-2002 |
Welcome Dana. =) You know, one of the things that I'm finding is that "doctrine" is not an island, so to speak. It's not something divorced from personal feelings. It's not as isolated or "objective" as we'd like to think. This is true both in helping people free from stuff, and also in how that stuff gets formed in the first place. Firstly, the stuff that people need freedom from is not necessarily incorrectness. People need freedom in many departments, and "correctness" just doesn't fix things. The main thing people need is healing in their hearts. Along the way, truth plays a big helping hand. But the goal is a healed heart instead of doctrinal purity. I know too many people with pure doctrines but who have broken hearts. Isaiah 61 reflects all of these things: Giving good news to the poor (and not just the "spiritually poor" either!), and freedom for those in captivity and darkness... and to bind up the brokenhearted! It's easier for us to focus on doctrines. It's less messy, less involved... it requires less of us. Caring about truths is easier than caring about people. Relationship, loving, adopting... means more than the academic or personal pursuit of correctness. And then understanding that, looking back through history, it's helpful to recognize and realize that it was more than incorrect doctrines that formed SDA, EGW, and all of their doctrines. Ooops, lunchtime. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7491 Registered: 9-2006  |
Quote: It is very easy for us to focus on "EGW" and even call her a spirit, but she was a human, and "she" was not the problem. She listened to other spirits and her pride opened the door to them, but if we think it's "EGW" then we may miss keeping the doors closed ourselves. Her ministry was a manifestation of various problems. Simply identifying "her" does not innoculate us against or even open our eyes to the steps her heart took in its walk away from Christ. It is better for us to understand those steps than to concentrate on the person who took them. Amen Ramone. What I glimpse at times is the grandiose way Adventism seems to loom in most formers mind, not that I am finding fault with it, but just that, that looking back at EGW and Adventism in general and zeroing in on that can keep one from seeing the larger picture. Now I am struggling to find the right words to use to describe my thinking on this. We make reference to 'The spirit behind Adventism' and that reference is correct, but this spirit works in all the churches (Lets call them stick churches to differentiate between the true glorious and triumphant church of Jesus) and the denominations or non-denominations, whichever you prefer. Ramone touched on that. Ramone forgive me if I seem to be repeating what you just said, but I would like license to elaborate on it a bit. This spiritual force that works in Adventism is not unique to Adventism, wasnt born in Adventism or with EGW, it just found fertile ground to work in Adventism. The Bible describes it in these terms: John I 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. John I 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: John I 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. When he says Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he means the savior of our souls, not some fanciful Jesus thought up by Adventist, but a knowable Jesus who is touched with the feeling of our infirmities and who will never leave us nor forsake us. This spirit slinks into the stick churches and everywhere else Christians gather, even slinks onto this forum to divide, to discourage, to get those who love one another to feel badly toward one another. I'm susceptible, you're susceptible. The bible describes this in Peter I 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Peter I 5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. In Vietnam the gooks planted hidden beds of pungi sticks (sharpend sticks soaked in human excrement) Why? Because it takes two or three healthy fighting men to take care of one wounded soldier who can't walk, the Viet Cong didn't need to kill you, just get you out of the battle. Is it any different in the spiritual world? I doubt it. Ive seen whole congregations get to bickering and split to the four winds, hurt, confused, wounded. That spirit of antichrist that is even now in the world. A whole congregation giving way to the devil because they were not vigilant. Oh no sir, were in the fightyeah right, and my grandma left me a million. Paul gives us the way to fight this spirit of antichrist in Ephesians 6:11. And Romans 13:12 puts it like this, The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Romans 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. Romans 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. But we do let the old flesh get in the way and we aint as dead as we would like to thinkno this thing wasnt born in Adventismit was here before it was a gleam in Ellen Whites eye and it can take many forms. It blinds evangelicals or Adventists as we go blindly along never getting a glimpse of the larger picture as Ramone described. Bout all the far most of us can see at any one time is too the end of the pew we are sitting on. We go around hollering Oh God Im saved and in the Spirit! Then let someone say something negative about our own little cabbage patch of a church name (Insert name) and we are down on all fours stunned like weed been shot. Feet sticking up like a bunch of cock roaches at a black flag convention. Oh yes bruthas and sistas I been a fastin and a prayin I skipped a Mcdonald quarter pounder jist yisterdey bless gawd! River | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 623 Registered: 7-2005 |
Dana I'm glad you liked the presentation from Dr Peter J Williams, and I want to give you something more to chew (as somebody use to say). A team comprising Dr Peter J Williams and Dr Dirk Jongkind of Tyndale House and Dr Simon Gathercole of Cambridge University took part in a day conference titled True or False' at Charlotte Chapel, Edinburgh , on 29 January 2011. The link for the audio files is here. They used PowerPoint slides and you can find them by googling the name of the audio files, like Tof_session1, Tof_session2, Tof_session3 in order to download the PDF's. I didn't listen to the third lecture, and I can't comment on it. But I can comment on the second lecture, Dr Jongkind making an argument against Bart Ehrman's idea that a particular text was modified by the scribes who copied the manuscripts in order to counteract the heresy of adoptionism. It's about the elimination of the word "father" from Mary's lips when she told Jesus that she and "his father" sought him. Look for Jonkind's reply. Martinc I was stuck with "no death before the fall in the animal world" until somebody pointed me to Psalm 140:19-28:
Here is described the work of creation in connection with the current state of facts: lions and predators using the night to find their prey, while man using the day to work for his food. Notice that the psalm affirms that God made this night/day cycle in order to give food for different kind of beings: predators (night), man (day). The most interesting fact is that the nature's violent side, with the predators hunting the prey is pictured not as a consequence of sin, or as sinful, but as something positive: God giving the animals the food they need, and maintaining creation in balance. The psalmists praises the Lord for his works, including this violent giving of food to predators. Personally I was surprised to notice this picture. Michael Regarding the historicity of the Old Testament, I have a very interesting material about it at this link. The owner of the site is subscribing to inerrancy, nevertheless he's struggling toward a definition of inerrancy that's true with both Bible's claim and with the biblical phenomenon. He's domain of expertise is the OT and biblical hebrew and he's painfully aware that many of the current treatments of inerrancy are quite defective and need to be adjusted. He had posted online 2 chapters from Philips Long's book The Art of Biblical History". He says
This guy is like those of us who are aware of the problems related to issues like inerrancy and is looking for a definition of inerrancy that fits the phenomenon of Scripture, or the biblical data. Somebody wrote on his blog the following:
NA 27 is what I have and stands for Nestle-Alland Greek NT, and when you know greek and see the NT authors quote massively a translation of OT (LXX), you wonder how attributing inerrancy to autographs and rejecting it in translations works. How could it work? Honesty asks us to deal with these facts and modify our views of inerrancy accordingly. Gabriel | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3790 Registered: 10-2004  |
Gabriel, Issues such as the NT quotations of the OT/LXX have been dealt with by Christian scholars--they are not something that has gone unaddressed. For example, the book Inerrancy, edited by Norman Geisler, addresses the issue of the NT quoting the LXX in chapter 6 (written by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen). You can read that section online at Google Books, here, starting on page 170. My concern with your link above would be that it is not only redefining inerrancy, but would also seem to undermine verbal inspiration (which the Bible claims for itself). Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3791 Registered: 10-2004 |
Gabriel wrote:
However, that passage is clearly describing the world post-Fall (for example, man working and laboring until evening for food--a result of the Fall/curse). Just because God--sovereignly and in His foreknowledge--created things for a post-Fall world does not mean that things were not different before the Fall. Yes, the animals catching prey for food is spoken of positively, but God also speaks positively about man killing and eating animals for food (even though God did not add meat to man's diet until Genesis 9). In fact, 1 Timothy 4 even states that all animals, both clean and unclean, "God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;" (1 Timothy 4:3b-4 NASB). As someone once said, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, then why did He make them out of meat?" However, even though God created animals with good nutritional value for humans and created them for us to eat, man did not kill and eat animals before the Fall. The same can be said for predatory animals. Jeremy | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 624 Registered: 7-2005 |
Jeremy It seems to me that what it appears as an undermining of verbal inspiration is an attempt to make a distinction between accuracy and exactness, or precision. If you read page 171, Bahnsen argues that the quotations from LXX, a translation doesn't have to be precise renderings of the original, but only faithful to the original text, true to the sense of the passage. In a similar way, three different renderings of Jesus' words in three gospels while not being verbatim, precise quotations, are nevertheless historically accurate. It is what A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield argued in the book Inspiration
Yes, indeed, quotations from LXX are quotations from a translation, but the important thing learned from this fact is that inerrancy is not tied to exactness and strict precision, but it refers to the accuracy of meaning. Yes, the Bible is verbally inspired, every word is inspired in the sense that when all the words are combined together, the final result is a faithful and accurate communication of truth (historical truth, the truth rendered in the original) Gabriel |
