Jack Williamson posted:
CALVIN: Jack, thanks for your reply. I don't believe I was commenting on the grammatical correctness of the translation, though in re reading my post I can see how I have inadvertently misled you into thinking that was my point.
The translation seems OK, I was questioning the Greek itself that is.................well OK, given that we do not have the original manuscript, but a copy of a copy of.... it seems to me that there exists a possibility of a transcription error, please note that I am not declaring that this is so, just considering the possibility. I would also consider the possibility that at certain times Luke might have employed
an 'amanuencsis' when writing/compiling his work.
I know you stated :"
But, regardless of that point, I happen to believe in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Bible that means every word is the Word of God. The text is not in dispute, but many people differ over how they interpret it." We might one day have a discussion on that.
JACK: Of course, Luke may have used a secretary as did Paul, but as I mentioned before my belief is in the inspiration of the "documents" as they were written, not as we wished they were written.
CALVIN: But I am not that far different from you anyway, just maybe a bit more flexible.
Let me just say, the original was, but what we have today???..... compare Mark 15:28. in the Kjv, Nkjv with it the Esv, Niv,...it seems to be included in the Nasb, and it is included in the UBS texts but where is it in the Niv or Esv? Why is it not there? (no answer needed here
just making a point).
Me, personally I do not use the Niv, but the point still remains that when we look at the Bible as God's word, we can't afford to have 'blinkers' on.
Well, as I recall you said:"
I'm a theologian and seminary teacher by profession and I enjoy understanding how other people see things and interpret the Bible" (reply #71)
I just consider the possibility that what we have in our hot little hands today is not 100.000% what the original documents had; if it was, then there would be a lot of Hebrew and Greek linguistic scholars out of work.
JACK: The internal textual evidence for Mark 15:28 is sketchy at best. The earliest manuscripts in both the Alexandrian and Western text types omits the verse. There is pretty good external evidence as well that a textual slip from a passage in Luke may account for the inclusion of this verse from a marginal notation. Mark, of the four gospel writers, had a tendency not to include OT quotations. So, I think the English Bibles are quite correct to include this verse in brackets and note it as a highly suspicious inclusion.
CALVIN: Another example, and why I have an intense dislike for the Niv would be Deut 22:28. Note the fact that '
they are discovered', not 'he is discovered' Getting off topic I know, my only defense is in laying out a reason for my not blindly following either a particular version/translation or being in awe of the learning of those ostensibly ordained to translate the Word of God.
Getting back on topic, What I thought I was postulating was the possibility that the order of those verses could have been shuffled at some point.
JACK: I'm not understanding your point with this example. "They" is the correct reading. Are you saying that because the reading of this verse doesn't square with reasonable human understanding it must be suspicious? If that is your point--and I'm not sure it is--I would retreat to my stand on inspiration that involves the documents and not the writers. We must accept the Bible the way it was written and not as we wish it were written. We need to form our thinking around the Scripture and not the other way around.
CALVIN: I agree, however there is by the same reasoning nothing to suggest that those events were separated by sufficient time so as not to distort Luke's language. Indeed reading again those verses, there is probably nothing other than poor composition skills to exclude the possibility that the disciples mentioned in v52, were in fact disciples in Iconium, not Antioch. But nobody, me included thinks that!....or do they? Jack, your point I think is that the events in v49,50 could have spanned an indefinite period of Time? Doesn't v51 logically follow on from the persecution by the Jews though? They were driven out of town, they shook the dust of their feet and went to
Iconium. That is what the text says. why would anyone argue for a significant time interval between them being driven out of town and them shaking the dust off their feet here?
JACK: Of course, the events in verse 49 and following could have occurred immediately after verse 48 and certainly occurred with hours or a few days at most. I was trying to make the argument that subsequent events wouldn't have much impact on what verse 48 says. Like it or not, it seems to me that Acts 13:48 quite clearly says that those among that group who heard the Word of God and believed were chosen before hand. If I get the opportunity in the next day or two, I have a presentation to make on Unconditional Election on the "Bible Study" board and see how that plays out. I think the readers would enjoy seeing a debate on that subject.
CALVIN: So what might the relevance be here that the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit? Is that a logical sequence? If one of your students submitted an essay structured like that, what would you say? Wouldn't you ask for an amplification to establish relevance? Where is Luke's amplification, where is his relevance? So, if you agree that an essay structured like Luke's account of the acts of the Apostles here in v49,50,51,52 needs more work.....Q.E.D.
JACK: I think it is a very logical sequence that God elects, man believes, and, as a result, rejoices in the knowledge of his new life. Your question about a student of mine is irrelevant. Luke wrote inspired Scriptures; none of my students do that. I have a hard enough time getting them to put together a cohesive paragraph, but that's another story.
