Bible Defense

[TonyC]

The NIV does take a more liberal wording,

Ahh, of course. I should have picked up on that when you quoted from the Expositor's Bible Commentary which is based on the NIV, and filled with the translators' doctrine. In fact, I prefer to think of the NIV as a commentary and “dynamic equivalent” all wrapped up into one.

If by “liberal” you mean the “translators” took liberties with the meanings of the original texts, I must agree. Clearly, they took a far different approach to translating than the others you've supplied – “after the similitude of,” “after the likeness of,” and “in the likeness of” are far less specific than the commentators of the NIV chose to be in spelling out their doctrine that those “did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam.” In inserting their opinion here, they were forced to take liberties with the original.

A big problem with the NIV, although it does tend to “read” more easily, is that it's loose “translation” is littered with human doctrine. This passage is a perfect example. Now whether you agree with the doctrine or not (I'd say it's fair to judge at the moment that you agree with it, and I do not) you must admit that the doctrine has clearly influenced the “translation” of the original text into present day language.

but the intent which is the focus of a dynamic equivalent translation is not too terribly different than the other wordings.

As I just discussed, the focus of the “dynamic equivalent” is vastly different from the other translations you quoted, and we can both see the dramatic difference.

It just so happens that I picked up a translation I had not seen before while I was attending a lectureship series this week. The English Standard Version, according to its preface, claims to be an “essential literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

Contrast that with the “thought-for-thought” rather than “word-for-word” translation philosophy, emphasizing “dynamic equivalence” rather than the “essentially literal” meaning of the original. A “thought-for-thought” translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture.

The ESV translates Romans 5:12-14 like this:

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Adam's offence was to break a direct command, while others did not do that -that is break an explicit command either because they didn't know the Law, or lived before the Law was given: they still sinned.

That's your interpretation of verse 14, and the interpretation of the NIV, but it's just that — an interpretation. That interpretation supports the opinion that we are born with the guilt of Adam's sin, but it has to stretch from the original meanings of the original text to make that assertion.

All we know is that the sins of those from Adam to Moses was that their sinning was not like the sin of Adam. It can be “not like” in a multitude of ways.

Further, I have given a reasoned response for a quality of children that is desirous of us to come to faith in Jesus by and that is humility. After all, it's pretty hard to be arrogant and boastful when you hardly come up to a man's waist as a child.

As I agreed before, your reasoned response may very well be correct — I take no issue with it. Humility may have been the very quality that Christ was referring to when he beckoned the children to Him. However, my reasoned response includes qualities that they should NOT possess. The children, for example, would not have been held up as models for members of God's kingdom if they had been known to be thieves and robbers. Christ would not have held up a humble little thief and said, “See, this is what the kingdom will be made up of.” Likewise, He would not have held up children to be models of the ideal members of the kingdom if they had been known to be sinners, stained by the guilt of Adam's sin.

Although we cannot be certain from the text what qualities He had in mind when He held up the children as models for the kingdom, we can certainly exclude qualities that He would NOT have had in mind. SIN can be excluded.

Similitude... back to that word. It's in this verse, too...
(the original Greek words are slightly different, but essentially synonymous: hōmōiôma in Romans 5:14, and hōmōiôsis in James 3:19)

James 3:9 (NKJV)
With it (referring to the tongue discussed in verses prior) we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God.

We are all made in the likeness of God, not just Adam. God has no sin. We cannot be in His likeness if we are made with sin.

Isaiah tells of how we are separated from God:

Isaiah 59 (NKJV)
1 Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened,
That it cannot save;
Nor His ear heavy,
That it cannot hear.
2 But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,
So that He will not hear.
3 For your hands are defiled with blood,
And your fingers with iniquity;
Your lips have spoken lies,
Your tongue has muttered perversity.

Notice, Isaiah didn’t say that “Adam’s sin has separated you from God” or that “Adam’s sin has hidden His face from you.” The sinner is clearly defined as the one to whom Isaiah is directly speaking, and the audience is clearly NOT Adam.

Ezekiel, again speaking for God, proclaims:

Ezekiel 28 (NKJV)
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

According to this, man does not come into the world labored with the guilt of someone else’s sin.

You’ve mentioned the sin of David, and specifically the passage in Psalm 51:5. I fear that again the NIV suffers from the injection of opinion, as your quote strays quite a bit from others.

Originally posted by Super 80
PS 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Contrast that with the ESV:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin did my mother conceive me.

The NKJV is essentially the same: :

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

This speaks as much to the nature of his conception and the sin of his mother as it does to the nature of David. The “word-for-word” approach to translating the original gives a far different rendering than the biased “thought-for-thought,” or “dynamic equivalence” of the NIV.

Given the translation of the “word-for-word” translators, I see no conflict in Psalms with the concept that mankind does not bear the guilt of Adam's sin.

 

[TonyC]

Idle thread?

Do my eyes deceive me, or did this thread just sit idle for 24 hours?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Idle thread?

Do my eyes deceive me, or did this thread just sit idle for 24 hours?

Thank god!

 

[Super 80]

(This is an extract of a paper I wrote last year. I can supply a full bibliography and footnotes.)

The King James / Modern translation Controversy
The Difference between the Byzantine and Alexandrian Greek Texts

There are two main versions of the Bible in us today, the King James Version and the modern versions. The difference in these versions is not so much in the translation of the Greek but the manuscript basis for the Greek itself. The two versions come from two different family of texts, Byzantine and Alexandria. Some minor controversy exists between the two.

The Byzantine text has most of the manuscripts in number, and tradition on its side. It also has the distinction of being the region traveled extensively by the Apostles and the seat of the Eastern half of Rome with continuous Christian occupation of Constantinople from the fourth to tenth centuries. However, the manuscripts tend to be fairly modern with most dating after A.D. 1000, and those originate in Medieval Europe. The Alexandrian texts have the distinction of being older, and in some methods determined by textual critics, more reliable. The trouble lies in that there are differences between the two families of manuscripts.

The Alexandrian texts composed primarily of two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, were first combined between 1853 and 1881 by Westcott and Hort producing the Neutral Text. While the two Codexes are at variance with each other, and Westcott and Hort were not model Christians, the modern versions are not based solely on their work, even though they are Alexandrian in nature. The basic foundation for modern versions of the NT Bible are the Greek New Testament texts of Nestle-Aland (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). These are occasionally abbreviated as NU, as they both use the same source Codex and papyri in the Alexandrian family. Any objection to modern versions based on reservations about Westcott and Hort is misplaced as their work is not the basis for the English translations we now use.

The King James Version is based largely on what is called the Textus Receptus or received text. “It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.” Professor Hodge of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and co-editor of a Greek New Testament book, writes. “Thus the Majority Text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text...based on its dominance in the transmissional [sic] history of the New Testament text.”

The Textus Receptus is based on the Lucian text. It was predated the Diocletian persecution of A.D. 303. The Lucian text is a definite recension characterized by smooth language achieved by alleviating difficult language, and harmonization. The Byzantine manuscripts share these characteristics and through Erasmus proceeds into the King James Version.

The Codex Vaticanus has been in the Vatican’s possession since 1481, but was not released until the mid-nineteenth century. It dates to A.D. 325 and is Alexandrian in nature. Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai in the nineteenth century. It dates to A.D. 350. Codex Alexandrinus, dated around A.D. 400 was brought to England in the seventeenth century. It was the discovery of a second source of Greek manuscripts after the primacy of the Byzantine had been established that led to a scholarly examination of the two families, and the controversy over the replacement of the traditional King James Version.

The difficulty in rendering first a Greek foundation and then an English translation is explained by Dr. Philip Comfort in his book Essential Guide to Bible Versions. The Writer’s autograph or original, may not be one document. Editing does not cancel out inspiration, so there may be more than one book made by an author, but we have none of these in our possession because the paper material could not be maintained and still used. So the task of replicating the text falls to a scribe before it wears out. These scribes are of differing abilities, involvement, and resources. They are all working completely by hand and during some very troubling times in Church history. The culture of their age differs greatly too, there is no impetus for exact copy, and often errors in the manuscript record are introduced by the Scribe to either explain difficult word usage, interweave theology into the narrative, or emphasize Biblical principles.

Even with all the difficulty in obtaining ancient manuscripts, certain elements do manifest themselves as errors interjected into the text over time. Two errors when noting the differences in the Greek manuscripts in antiquity are additions and omissions. Omissions are usually evident in that they pass over an entire passage and either the end of the passages or the beginnings are the same, obviously an oversight by the scribe in marking his starting or ending point. The majority of the differences in text involve improving the language, smoothing over and modifying a previous manuscript. This characteristic of the Byzantine family can be traced to the Lucian text. Because of this known flaw, the first rule in textual criticism favors the shorter version as being closer to the original. The Byzantine texts as a whole show more additions than the Alexandrian texts and so the latter are favored in the Nestle/United Greek texts.

Differences also crop up when translating. The two schools of thought on bringing the Greek into English are word for word, or thought for thought whereby the impact in each language is the same to its reader. At the heart of either method though is the attempt to ascertain what the original author meant, and that is impossible, so all translations in one respect or another are flawed.

The largest complaint however, is that the modern translations go against the Traditional Bible of King James. The omission of verses and passages is said to have taken away from the inerrant Word of God. However we know that the process of getting the King James Version was a long succession of men with differing viewpoints, agendas and means. Scripture does not profess to be pure in its entirety, only to be inspired or God-breathed. The Greek basis for the KJV is based on the work of Erasmus in the previous century. We do know of some faults of the KJV in Revelation, due to a lack of resources Erasmus was faced with in 1516 where he had incomplete Greek manuscripts. He used a Latin text and translated it back into Greek to complete that book. The wording of “do His commandments” as compared to “wash their robes”—Rev 22:14 and a word change in 22:19 of tree to book have some minor theological impact. So with the discovery in the twentieth century of additional Greek manuscripts and papyri we have existing material with less intervening steps from the original books of the Bible than the King James scholars had and can make a correction to some of Erasmus’ mistakes.

Furthermore, sections in the more modern versions are not immune from adding theology into their text as with the NIV at Daniel 9:27. Here the Hebrew words, wing, abominations and desolator are woven in with Paul’s eschatology in 2 Thessalonians to interject words not found in the original. The NIV injects on the wing of the Temple to reflect the statue that will be erected. However, there is no wing in the Tribulation Temple as described in Ezekiel. The trouble with translation here is the use of three nouns in succession. There are valid translations that interpret wing in the Biblical figurative sense; the King James Version uses overshadowing. Another valid figurative interpretive translation (though not used in any translation I know of) is quickly.

The question of whether the Alexandrian or Byzantine text is right though, is still beyond our means to fully determine. We can not rule out the possibility that the additions were original and omitted in the other texts. Twenty different versions exist in the English today, ranging from the KJV relying entirely on the Byzantine family to the Revised Standard Version relying nearly entirely on the Alexandrian family with variations in between. However after the two KJ versions, most rely on the Alexandrian text predominantly with variations on selections from the Byzantine family for certain verses. Thus, the predominant opinion of the scholars today places more confidence in the older though not as numerous Alexandrian sources.

In reading a version from either family of Greek text, the reader can still sense the same meaning from both. The NIV is simpler in language, but the NKJV flows better with the additions. However, the work of many individuals to sincerely convey God’s Word as they think best, even with all the differences in basis and final form, still presents the Gospel in a fashion that does not change the fundamental truth of Jesus Christ. The final choice is left to the reader to find a style of writing that is suitable for them. Essentially the message stays intact, and if a particular passage becomes key for interpretation, then further word study can illuminate how its meanings can be denoted and how the verse can be interpreted.

 

[Super 80]

Ahh, of course. I should have picked up on that when you quoted from the Expositor's Bible Commentary which is based on the NIV, and filled with the translators' doctrine. In fact, I prefer to think of the NIV as a commentary and “dynamic equivalent” all wrapped up into one.

There is nothing wrong with the NIV version. At times, it does not do a good job of rendering a verse if you want to study fine points, but on the whole, it does a remarkable job of presenting the Bible in the language of the everyday man, and since that was how the Bible was originally written, I see nothing wrong with that attempt.

The Expositor's Bible Commentary is a legitimate and well respected work which is firmly in the Evangelical Camp. It is used in various Seminaries and by Pastors throughout Christianity. Your complaint of human doctrine is going to be evidenced in any version of the Bible you choose. It simply is impossible to remove man's study of God from any work concerning the transmission of God's Word to us since men have had so much to do with it. This does not make the Bible flawed, since it never seeks to claim that it is the inerrant Word of God, only God-breathed.

As far as your contention that there is no original sin, I would like to know death spread to all men as per your English Standard Version. The concept that something was not contained with Adam is reflected in the original language and the ESV is no different than the NASB at this point, both being good word-for-word translations. While we do not have to answer for Adam's sin, his sin did not end with just him now did it?

As I agreed before, your reasoned response may very well be correct — I take no issue with it. Humility may have been the very quality that Christ was referring to when he beckoned the children to Him. However, my reasoned response includes qualities that they should NOT possess. The children, for example, would not have been held up as models for members of God's kingdom if they had been known to be thieves and robbers. Christ would not have held up a humble little thief and said, “See, this is what the kingdom will be made up of.” Likewise, He would not have held up children to be models of the ideal members of the kingdom if they had been known to be sinners, stained by the guilt of Adam's sin.

But since we are all sinners, then how does Jesus promise anyone a place in Heaven if He cannot justify that person in His righteousness by paying their price on the cross?

Besides, we do not know who these children are. Jesus has shown that He knows men's hearts - something you and I cannot know - and since the way it is worded, there is no way we can assume Jesus is talking about any one else but these particular children, then to make a blanket statement of ALL children is not supported by the text and other sayings of Jesus calling certain people who probably won't see Heaven as being children of the devil.

Skipping over some of what you wrote here, not that it's incorrect or unimportant, but I think you are misapplying Bible verses to a concept they don't address: Adam's sin. I'm not in disagreement with what you write because these passages do refer to sin; it's just that they are not focused on the relation of Adam's sin to us as Paul spoke of. We can put out competing Bible verses and so divide our brothers continually, or you can address the places where Adam's sin is mentioned in the Epistles. However, I'd like to address something you said:

You’ve mentioned the sin of David, and specifically the passage in Psalm 51:5. I fear that again the NIV suffers from the injection of opinion, as your quote strays quite a bit from others.

While certainly different, I don't see where the ESV differs in the essential message of this passage as relating that sin was an issue even before David's birth! So to editorialize that the NIV version has "opinion" in it, really does a disservice to the intent of the translators to render a thought for thought translation. The "in sin" refers back to his nature before birth. The only way to apply sin to the mother is to invalidate the marriage covenant and ascribe sin to procreation, which the Bible never does.

Again, if you do not want to address these points but just show me where sin affects each person, I am not in disagreement with you on those passages. If you do not want to accept the principle that Paul does talk about, again, I have no real problem with your removing original sin from the equation, because there is ample material in everyone's life to point to sin as an issue that needs to be reconciled to God. So the concept of original sin or what I think of as an inherited nature is not a lynchpin of the Bible, and no essential theology makes its foundation on it.

 

[TonyC]

(This is an extract of a paper I wrote last year. I can supply a full bibliography and footnotes.)

The King James / Modern translation Controversy
The Difference between the Byzantine and Alexandrian Greek Texts

There are two main versions of the Bible in us today, the King James Version and the modern versions. The difference in these versions is not so much in the translation of the Greek but the manuscript basis for the Greek itself. The two versions come from two different family of texts, Byzantine and Alexandria. Some minor controversy exists between the two.

You have stated a premise that dismisses the fact that there IS a difference in intent AND outcome between a "word-for-word" translation philosophy and a "thought-for-thought" translation philosophy. You must admit that in the verses I referred to in my previous post that the outcome of these two translation philosophies is quite different, and the difference is NOT owed to a different set of manuscripts.

Differences also crop up when translating. The two schools of thought on bringing the Greek into English are word for word, or thought for thought whereby the impact in each language is the same to its reader. At the heart of either method though is the attempt to ascertain what the original author meant, and that is impossible, so all translations in one respect or another are flawed.

The two "schools of thought" do not produce equally valid products. The "word-for-word" procedure is faced with selecting words to replace words, while the "thought-for-thought" process is free to develop entire phrases based upon the translator's concern with, as you said, impact.

The largest complaint however, is that the modern translations go against the Traditional Bible of King James.

Restating your premise does not make it any more true. There IS indeed more to the criticism of the NIV than the texts upon which it is based. I certainly do not hold the KJV up to be a perfect translation, and you have done an excellent job of stating its weaknesses. You overlook, however, the fundamental differences between the philosophies of interpretation, which result in fundamentally different translations. The NIV is not flawed because of the texts upon which the translation is based, it is flawed because of the presumptions of the translators that they could divine the thoughts and intended impact of the author.

By your definition, the ESV that I spoke of, being based on the texts distinguish modern translations, IS a modern translation. Indeed, it is based on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27thed.), edited by Nestle and Aland. The differences, then, between the NIV and the ESV are born in the stated philosophies of interpretation. The NIV, taking the “thought-for-thought” approach, is allowed to interject, even required to interject doctrine, when composing the thoughts. On the other hand, the ESV, being thoughtfully constrained by a “word-for-word” approach, results in a quite different, and necessarily more accurate result.

To return to the second sentence of your extract:

The difference in these versions is not so much in the translation of the Greek but the manuscript basis for the Greek itself.

The New International Version and the English Standard Version stand together as proof that this statement is false. The process of translation is KEY.

The final choice is left to the reader to find a style of writing that is suitable for them. Essentially the message stays intact, and if a particular passage becomes key for interpretation, then further word study can illuminate how its meanings can be denoted and how the verse can be interpreted.

If it were simply a matter of style of writing, I would agree wholeheartedly. However, I’ve shown that there is more than style involved. The passages that we have studied clearly demonstrate different renderings of the same verse, the differences being the result of the difference between a “thought-for-thought” approach and a “word-for-word” approach. You cannot attribute the differences that we have examined together to a difference in the texts used. Indeed, you have offered in your extract yet another example of the flaws of the “thought-for-thought” approach.

These differences become critical in matters of doctrine where the translators took liberties with those thoughts. You can point to a passage in the NIV and say “See here, it says this!” where the original texts —any of them—simply do not. And this is how we arrive at this point of this discussion. The NIV uses thoughts and phrases that teach that all man is guilty of Adam’s sin, where the original text does not so state.

 

[kevdog]

Jesus H. Christ, I can't believe this thread is still going on.

 

[TonyC]

There is nothing wrong with the NIV version. At times, it does not do a good job of rendering a verse if you want to study fine points, but on the whole, it does a remarkable job of presenting the Bible in the language of the everyday man, and since that was how the Bible was originally written, I see nothing wrong with that attempt.

Were it simply an attempt to translate the original text to the language of everyday man, I might agree. However, its “thought-for-thought” approach in reaching that goal is seriously flawed, and as such, requires the injection of doctrine. Anyone who is satisfied with this approach can also feel comfortable with the concept that the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God. Indeed, the NIV is errant.

The statement that there is nothing wrong with the NIV is an opinion which I do not share.

The Expositor's Bible Commentary is a legitimate and well respected work which is firmly in the Evangelical Camp. It is used in various Seminaries and by Pastors throughout Christianity.

Again, an opinion I am not required to share. The fact that it is “well-respected” and “widely-used” in no way serves to validate its accuracy. After all, we can both point to any number of books that have comparable credentials that are NOT profitable for instruction.

Your complaint of human doctrine is going to be evidenced in any version of the Bible you choose. It simply is impossible to remove man's study of God from any work concerning the transmission of God's Word to us since men have had so much to do with it. This does not make the Bible flawed, since it never seeks to claim that it is the inerrant Word of God, only God-breathed.

I’ll pass on the last phrase for now, and agree with the first part. Indeed, even the translators of the KJV used “Easter” instead of “Passover” when rendering words for words. Their INTENT, though, and I value intent, was to produce as accurate as possible translation of the original text to the then modern language. There was no presumption that they could translate thoughts of the authors into thoughts, intents, and impacts of then-modern thoughts, intents, and impacts.

As far as your contention that there is no original sin, I would like to know death spread to all men as per your English Standard Version. The concept that something was not contained with Adam is reflected in the original language and the ESV is no different than the NASB at this point, both being good word-for-word translations. While we do not have to answer for Adam's sin, his sin did not end with just him now did it?
But since we are all sinners, then how does Jesus promise anyone a place in Heaven if He cannot justify that person in His righteousness by paying their price on the cross?

Perhaps we should pause and make sure that after this lengthy discussion we really know what we’re discussing. We both acknowledge that Adam sinned. We can discuss whether the word Adam is meant to describe the man in the garden of Eden, or whether it is used to describe mankind in general, or whether it is used to collectively refer to the man AND the woman in the garden of Eden as it is sometimes used. Regardless, we agree that sin entered the world by Adam in the garden of Eden. God said to Adam “of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” and he further instructed him of the consequences for violating that instruction: “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:17)

Inasmuch as Adam DID eat, and he WAS punished, sin entered into the world, and death as punishment for that sin. Every member of mankind hence is subject to the consequences of that sin, as we must all face death.

On these things I believe we agree. On the following, I believe we disagree. While we all suffer consequences of that sin, we do not bear GUILT for that sin, nor will we stand before God on the Day of Judgment and bear the weight of that sin. Indeed, we bear the guilt of only those sins we individually commit, and we will give an answer on that day for only those things that we have done or failed to do.

Now, as to which phrase we want to use to describe these concepts I don’t care. I suppose it is instructive to understand what we mean by the terms so that we know what we’re talking about. Whether it be “Original Sin” or “Total Depravity” matters little to me. I do not believe that a human being comes into the world gaining along with his first breath of air the guilt of Adam’s sin. While that child certainly is born into a world where the consequence of that sin — death — still reigns, he does not suffer the guilt of that sin, and he would not be required to answer for that sin were his judgment to come before he could take in the second breath of air.

The verses I quoted and you chose to ignore go to support this stance.

Besides, we do not know who these children are. Jesus has shown that He knows men's hearts - something you and I cannot know - and since the way it is worded, there is no way we can assume Jesus is talking about any one else but these particular children, then to make a blanket statement of ALL children is not supported by the text and other sayings of Jesus calling certain people who probably won't see Heaven as being children of the devil.

Certainly, Jesus was talking about the very children that were present, and I did not infer that it applied to anyone else. The charge here, though, does not negate the fact that were those children in his presence known to be sinners, Christ would certainly not have held them up as model examples of the citizens of His Kingdom.

Skipping over some of what you wrote here, not that it's incorrect or unimportant, but I think you are misapplying Bible verses to a concept they don't address: Adam's sin.

They do not address Adam’s sin as you would like to think of it, but they do address the state of men when they enter this world.

James 5:19 — they have been made “in the likeness of God.” Is God stained with sin?

Isaiah 59:2 —“But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,” You contend that we enter the world in sin, which would require that we were never with God. How, then, could we be separated if we were never together in the first place? Separation in the second place requires communion in the first place. Birth into total depravity denies that possibility.

Ezekiel 28:15 — “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,” Perfect - - from the day you were created. How could we be perfect, and at the same time stained with the guilt of Adam’s sin?

I'm not in disagreement with what you write because these passages do refer to sin; it's just that they are not focused on the relation of Adam's sin to us as Paul spoke of. We can put out competing Bible verses and so divide our brothers continually, or you can address the places where Adam's sin is mentioned in the Epistles.

Adam’s sin spoken of in any part of the Bible does not teach the guilt for Adam’s sin being transferred to any other person. Sin entered the world through Adam. Agreed. The sentence for sin is death. Agreed. All men suffer the consequence of Adam’s sin, death. Agreed. All men must give an answer for the sins that they, and only they, commit. Agreed? All men come into this world “perfect in [his] ways.” (EZ 28:15) and are separated from God when they sin (ISA 59:2). Agreed?

However, I'd like to address something you said:
While certainly different, I don't see where the ESV differs in the essential message of this passage as relating that sin was an issue even before David's birth!

As learned as you present yourself to be, as articulately as you have expressed your opinions, and as intellectually honest as I know you desire to be and to be perceived to be, I find it incredibly difficult that you can see no difference between the two renderings of the passage in Psalm 51 by the NIV and by other modern or not-as-modern translations.

So to editorialize that the NIV version has "opinion" in it, really does a disservice to the intent of the translators to render a thought for thought translation.

It is quite disheartening to me that the commentators of the NIV are allowed to interject doctrine in cultivating thoughts-for thoughts, yet I am the one who is accused of editorializing.

 

[TonyC]

The "in sin" refers back to his nature before birth. The only way to apply sin to the mother is to invalidate the marriage covenant and ascribe sin to procreation, which the Bible never does.

Again, if you do not want to address these points but just show me where sin affects each person, I am not in disagreement with you on those passages. If you do not want to accept the principle that Paul does talk about, again, I have no real problem with your removing original sin from the equation, because there is ample material in everyone's life to point to sin as an issue that needs to be reconciled to God. So the concept of original sin or what I think of as an inherited nature is not a lynchpin of the Bible, and no essential theology makes its foundation on it.

If your last statement were true, I would be satisfied to file this under the list of things to “agree to disagree” on. However, the “inherited nature” of sin is THE fundamental element of Calvinist doctrine that requires infant baptism. Misconstruing the application, even the mechanics of baptism, undermines the essential teachings on baptism in the New Testament. As such, I feel it is key.

 

[enigma]

You guys are so far above my head I can't even see ya. Does anyone know how to save the entire string so that I can print it out for future study? Specifically, a way to save only the text?

regards,
enigma

 

[Timebuilder]

However, the “inherited nature” of sin is THE fundamental element of Calvinist doctrine that requires infant baptism. Misconstruing the application, even the mechanics of baptism, undermines the essential teachings on baptism in the New Testament. As such, I feel it is key.

The Calvinists are just as wrong to use this element as a "reason" for infant baptism as they are when they ignore the Great Commisssion.

God's knowlege of the elect does not relieve us of the responsibility of continuing to do the work we are called to do as believers.

 

[Super 80]

Tony,

You cover a lot of material here so I'm going to take them bit by bit in return. First, you have taken some quotes out of context in presenting your argument on the lack of sin in the newborn or with children. I think before anyone thinks that we can have dueling Bibles or something like that, they ought to realize that this can only happen if you take a single verse or a part of a verse out of context and stretch that to induce a principle that would otherwise not be found in the Bible.

Now I did not choose to ignore your references on Isaiah, Ezekiel and James 3:9 (not 5:19) but I looked at them and saw they did not address the issue of original sin at all. Furthermore, unless you just want to make accusations and sully the argument this does not constitute proof. It is your responsibility to present the Bible in context and on point with the correct theme so as not to twist a verse to mean something it doesn't. You can start by making sure you know who the speaker is, the audience he is addressing, context of the passage (and the form of literature it encompasses), the appropriate historical custom or culture, and any word study from the original language.

Now I will do that for you and try to show you that what you have presented does not fit the bill and in no way proves your point that at some point in our lives we are sinless. I don't know why you are having such a hard time accepting this or why you are dividing the Bible with this principle, but it is only a fanciful notion that we are as pure as Adam was before he sinned as infants. Adam's creation even if as a baby, was not like our existence. He had a perfect relation with God throughout until he sinned. We come into the world as self-centered rather than being God-centered. This is part of the separation we endure as a result of Adam's sin.

The verses I quoted and you chose to ignore go to support this stance.

They do not address Adam’s sin as you would like to think of it, but they do address the state of men when they enter this world.

James 5:19 — they have been made “in the likeness of God.” Is God stained with sin?

James is talking about the tongue. He is contrasting how men bless God but curse men. Since men are made in the image of God, which is right out of Genesis, this portion of a verse does not mean we are the same as the Father - and this ought to be made plain: to be made in the image is not the same as being made as God. That was the serpents lie wasn't it? There is no equivalence here but the things we have on earth like our bodies are like what is in heaven. Have you not read Hebrews 8:5?

They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.

So if you curse men, it is like cursing God because we are made in His image.

Isaiah 59:2 —“But your iniquities have separated you from your God;
And your sins have hidden His face from you,” You contend that we enter the world in sin, which would require that we were never with God. How, then, could we be separated if we were never together in the first place? Separation in the second place requires communion in the first place. Birth into total depravity denies that possibility.

Isaiah is contrasting Israel's transgressions against obedience. Going back in the book of comfort (ch 40-66) to chapter 56 we can see that rewards come for obedience. Chapter 58 starts the third part where he talks about eternal deliverance and eternal judgment. So when we come to chapter 59, Israel has indeed separated herself from God. This is the message of the Prophets, to call Israel back into a right relation with God, and it is not by the mere going through the motions. Haven't you read this same theme in the Bible at these places?

ZEC 3:7 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: `If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here."

NE 1:8 "Remember the instruction you gave your servant Moses, saying, `If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the nations, 9 but if you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name.'

MAL 3:6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty.
"But you ask, `How are we to return?'

God states over and over again how we are to return to Him.

MIC 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.

However, instead of noting the contrast between obedience and transgression as causing this separation, you are made an inference that is not supported in the Bible: that we (or more properly they) were without sin.

You cannot use a verse that shows how transgression separates us from God to say we had no sin since this is to the nation of Israel as the audience that God is addressing. Read Ezekiel chapter 16. In that chapter, God goes over the history of the nation of Israel in figurative form. At her height under Solomon, Israel turned away from God. Since then, she became a home to all kinds of sin in the land. God is now saying (in much of Isaiah and Jeremiah) to Israel that there is a clause for punishment under the covenant He made with her (and she accepted) and that there is going to be a consequence for her transgressions. This separateness is not only from God spiritually, but being physically separated from His presence as well in the Temple that is in Jerusalem. That happened in Jeremiah's day as the Babylonians conquered and enslaved Israel.

Ezekiel 28:15 — “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,” Perfect - - from the day you were created. How could we be perfect, and at the same time stained with the guilt of Adam’s sin?

God through Ezekiel is addressing the King of Tyre and in a supreme example of irony is comparing him to Adam. Start reading at verse 28:11. Here God is addressing the King and building him up. Was the King of Tyre in the Garden of Eden? Was he covered by God in every precious stone? Was he sealed with perfection? Was he an anointed cherub? NO.

Now read in the next verse where he was internally filled with violence and he sinned. Doesn't look like he had to do anything but have the wrong heart attitude doesn't it? That could be a metaphor for our newborn baby's self-orientation couldn't it? Now read on McDuff to the end of verse 28:19 and see how far the mighty have fallen. In fact, it ends appropriately enough with his ceasing forever...which is in theme with this section of the book.

So your contention that WE are made perfect by using the King of Tyre's example as representing us, is no comparison that I want to be a part of at all. Furthermore God is using irony to make the point of how far this King will fall. So NO again, this verse does not show that we are born perfect. Only Adam was born perfect. And that is who God is likening the King to. Haven't you ever heard the expression the bigger they are the harder they fall?

The one thing you are going to have to do if you are going to present the Bible, is to do so without making it say what you want to say. You have to take the Bible as it is. You have to understand the various forms of literature within it, who is speaking, who is the intended audience, the context of the passage in the broader narrative, the cultural mores and customs of the day that are included in the account, and all the shades of meaning within the words, because you cannot just plug an English word in for every Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek word and make sense of it.

 

[Super 80]

So the concept of original sin or what I think of as an inherited nature is not a lynchpin of the Bible, and no essential theology makes its foundation on it.

If your last statement were true, I would be satisfied to file this under the list of things to “agree to disagree” on. However, the “inherited nature” of sin is THE fundamental element of Calvinist doctrine that requires infant baptism. Misconstruing the application, even the mechanics of baptism, undermines the essential teachings on baptism in the New Testament. As such, I feel it is key.

This is muddying the water Tony. Infant baptism, Calvinist doctrine and any other teaching of infant baptism has nothing to do with essential theology which is the study of God. Let me make this clear, if your theology is not founded on the rock of Christ, then Romans 16:17 might just apply to you. Now essentially, we ALL have sin. We are also all separated from God because of sin. Jesus provides the way to reach God.

Now if you read in Acts, Peter converted and baptized the first 3000 on the day of Pentecost.

Phillip met an Ethopian enuch reading Isaiah. After Phillip had explained Jesus to this high official, he came to believe in Jesus and rightly asked why he shouldn't be baptized, and Phillip baptized him.

When Paul came to belief in Jesus, the first thing he did was to be baptized.

When Lydia came to believe in Jesus (for she was already a worshipper of the Lord) she was baptized, and all her household (which were already obstensibly worshippers of God too, and were baptized once they heard the Gospel message as well).

Paul and Silas baptize the jailer and his family (which would have followed the headship of the father) once they believed.

When Crispus, his household and many Corinthinians when they heard and believed then they were bapitized.

At Ephesus, Paul baptized the disciples there after they heard of Jesus Christ.

So the Bible's examples are fairly clear, baptism happens only after belief. There is no example of someone being baptized in our Lord Jesus without first coming to a belief in Him. So there is no Biblical basis for infant baptism. As a preacher I know said, getting babies wet doesn't do anything for them, and just makes them cry.

However, this is not a key for any Church doctrine that I know of, even though some that practise this. While it may have grown out of the applied concept of original sin, that concept is just an outgrowth of other Bible passages. The Bible itself may allude to original sin, but at no time does Jesus or any of the Apostles make it the absolute reason we need Jesus. Like I said, Paul has the strongest reference to this, and certainly it has been carried forward from the time before Christ as with David.

Since it is not basic to the Gospel message, I am willing to let you believe as you like, but like you cannot twist meanings of Bible verses, you cannot take a side issue and say it is THE fundamental reason for a whole doctrine when no Church I know preaches salvation through infant baptism.

 

[Super 80]

The statement that there is nothing wrong with the NIV is an opinion which I do not share.
Again, an opinion I am not required to share. The fact that it is “well-respected” and “widely-used” in no way serves to validate its accuracy. After all, we can both point to any number of books that have comparable credentials that are NOT profitable for instruction.
I’ll pass on the last phrase for now, and agree with the first part. Indeed, even the translators of the KJV used “Easter” instead of “Passover” when rendering words for words. Their INTENT, though, and I value intent, was to produce as accurate as possible translation of the original text to the then modern language. There was no presumption that they could translate thoughts of the authors into thoughts, intents, and impacts of then-modern thoughts, intents, and impacts.

I don't know why you are trying to tear down a perfectly good and accepted translation. You cannot convey the varied nuances of the Greek case, voice, mood or tense when some of these do not even have an English equivalent with a simple word for word plug.

However, one thing should be pointed out. The KJV may have "Easter" in it, but the word in the Greek is still Passover. The KJV authors did that to support the pagan celebration of Eostre as practised then as what we know as Easter. So if their intent was to get the best word for word translation, they compromised themselves on this one. Likewise, I have already said the NIV has its weaknesses, but on the whole, I like to read it because the language does convey more impact as it probably would have if the Apostles could have written the Bible in modern English.

However, I also use the NASB extensively for study purposes and when examining a verse for teaching, I will review the underlying original language and other versions to make sure I am comfortable with the version I am using accurately conveys how I read it.

I am using a program that has the NIV for my quotes in a series of papers that may become a book one day. In order to ascertain that I was not leading people astray by using it, I read Essential Guide to Bible Versions by Phillip W. Comfort Ph.D. His was one of six sources I used for the paper I wrote, of which some of it is on page 10 of this thread. After researching it, I am confident that the NIV is just as good as any other version for conveying the essential truths of the Gospel message.

That you don't like it is your opinion, but the NIV is accepted in the academic community of bibliognosts, theological colleges and in many religious circles one of which is the evangelical community.

 

[TonyC]

I think before anyone thinks that we can have dueling Bibles or something like that, they ought to realize that this can only happen if you take a single verse or a part of a verse out of context and stretch that to induce a principle that would otherwise not be found in the Bible.

Furthermore, unless you just want to make accusations and sully the argument this does not constitute proof.

It is your responsibility to present the Bible in context and on point with the correct theme so as not to twist a verse to mean something it doesn't.

The one thing you are going to have to do if you are going to present the Bible, is to do so without making it say what you want to say. You have to take the Bible as it is.

I certainly don't want to appear to have dueling Bibles, to make accusations and sully any arguments, to misrepresent the Bible, or to twist verses. If that's all you can see from my efforts, then I am not encouraged to continue.

 

[TonyC]

This is muddying the water Tony. Infant baptism, Calvinist doctrine and any other teaching of infant baptism has nothing to do with essential theology which is the study of God.

...

So the Bible's examples are fairly clear, baptism happens only after belief. There is no example of someone being baptized in our Lord Jesus without first coming to a belief in Him. So there is no Biblical basis for infant baptism. As a preacher I know said, getting babies wet doesn't do anything for them, and just makes them cry.

...

Since it is not basic to the Gospel message, I am willing to let you believe as you like, but like you cannot twist meanings of Bible verses, you cannot take a side issue and say it is THE fundamental reason for a whole doctrine when no Church I know preaches salvation through infant baptism.

At the risk of muddying the water or twisting meanings, may I point out that many denominatiosn DO in fact baptize infants. Why? Because they are sinful, and would suffer the punishment of hell were they to die before being baptized. Why do they think that? You know the answer.

 

[TonyC]

That you don't like it is your opinion, but the NIV is accepted in the academic community of bibliognosts, theological colleges and in many religious circles one of which is the evangelical community.

Acceptance, popularity, or wide usage do not make a translation "perfectly good." Just because Dr. Comfort likes it doesn't mean it's adequate.

You have failed to address the obvious differences in the rendering of passages from Modern Translations using the "word-for-word" approach to translation versus the "thought-for-thought" or "dynamic equivalency" approach.

 

[johnpeace]

At the risk of muddying the water or twisting meanings, may I point out that many denominatiosn DO in fact baptize infants. Why? Because they are sinful, and would suffer the punishment of hell were they to die before being baptized. Why do they think that? You know the answer.

Wait a minute...
One of these same denominations also worships Mary (a practice I'm quite sure fits the definition of idolatry). Does their denominational practice make it right or biblical or theologically sound?

Hardly!

Jesus' primary ministry was to set people free from religion (manmade systems) that they could know and experience God in relationship. The doctrines of rites of salvation just digs man deeper into the same hole that Jesus came to dig us out of; worshipping our religion instead of God.

Biblical baptism is a proclamation of faith...a rite of passage. The rite does not bring salvation, faith in Christ brings salvation. Baptism is simply a rite that allows the believer to demonstrate before man their faith in Christ. It's a symbolic gesture that represents the believer's death and resurrection in Christ.

It's like communion...a rite that believers participate in that draws their attention to what Christ has done for us. Baptism doesn't make someone 'saved' any more than eating the wafer and drinking the wine will make someone 'saved'.

To sprinkle babies in order to 'save' them is misguided, but it totally fits man's 'salvation comes by what we do' delusion. From the beginning, we've wanted to create for ourselves a system by which we don't need God, sprinkling babies to keep them from going to hell is just more of the same.

Infants who die do or don't go to hell because God is a just God. Not because they were or weren't sprinkled with water.

 

[Super 80]

I certainly don't want to appear to have dueling Bibles, to make accusations and sully any arguments, to misrepresent the Bible, or to twist verses. If that's all you can see from my efforts, then I am not encouraged to continue.

I'm glad to see that you don't want to force a division among brothers. We are united in belief but we do have differences in doctrines among the various schools of thought, denominations and even religions within Christianity. I am quite willing to let others differ from me in the basics and application of their religion. I don't consider them lost because they have a doctrine at odds with the Bible, however, when those doctrines that are at odds with the Bible are presented as Biblical; I am compelled by the example of the Apostles to challenge them. Not all teaching is Scriptural. Since you seem to be a passionate believer who holds onto your convictions with what seems to be steadfastness (although this medium is a terrible vehicle for discerning someone's emotional state or intent) I took the time to try to persuade you that Adam's sin has tainted us all; we inherited, in my line of thinking, a nature that is in rebellion to God. I find this principle at work in my flesh daily. I think this is the same principle that Paul talks about in Romans 7:7-25 when he talks about his sinful nature (NIV) in RO 7:18 (or sin which dwelleth in me -ASV or the willing is present in me -NASB).

Now I'm sorry to rebuke you, but the verses you used were being used out of context. You were, intentionally or not, teaching something that is not supported in the Bible. It is admirable that you took the time to find those references, but it is then your duty to make sure they actually support your position from a Biblical basis before bringing them out as evidence for being born pure and free of sin. They do not. Now I have given you some verses that do address this issue of being sinful that are in context.

I readily agree that the Bible does not state we are guilty of Adam's sin. I also acknowledge that the Bible does not speak directly of original sin. However, David, a man after God's own heart spoke about his sinfulness from conception and Paul puts forth the contrast of sin entering the world through one man, Adam, and the price of the sin being paid by one (like) man, Jesus. Furthermore, we have in the Bible a plethora of verses in context that speak about man's heart as being far from God, or wicked, or sinful - they are all synonymous terms although the connotations differ. Finally, the Bible does state explicitly that ALL have sinned. So I can see through all of this how the concept of original sin was developed through study (theology) of the Scripture although I use it only as a shorthand for a quality that is inherited which I don't think of as inherited guilt, but rather an inherited nature.

While your cases of the children in the Synoptic Gospels are an example for us to be like to enter Heaven, sinners will, because of Jesus, enter Heaven. Jesus was sent to those that were sick. So, these children cannot be said NOT to be sinners just because of this example, but that they do have a quality that is admirable and worthy of emulation by us grown-ups. The case for humbleness being a childlike quality we need to adopt was made by Jesus in a previous situation:

MT 18:2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

(And you see, I learned something from this too, I had always thought the children were admirable because of their absolute childlike faith. That is not the case that Jesus makes in the previous I have just quoted.)

So, while I may not have persuaded you at this time, perhaps we have both learned something from the discussion, and that is a positive result when we can discuss a Bible question. So as iron sharpens iron, we will keep ourselves honed and pointing towards Jesus as the ultimate answer for our sin.

 

[Timebuilder]

To sprinkle babies in order to 'save' them is misguided, but it totally fits man's 'salvation comes by what we do' delusion. From the beginning, we've wanted to create for ourselves a system by which we don't need God, sprinkling babies to keep them from going to hell is just more of the same.

It is, indeed.

Baptism is an act of obedience by someone of sufficient age to appreciate the meaning of the act. It comes after salvation.

Sprinkling babies is one of those things that we have devised to make us feel better in the event of an infant death, which is a genuine tragedy for a family. The big difference is between something that is scriptural and something that is made up by man as a part of religion.