Inspiration Only or Inspiration and Preservation?
Lifeway’s New Bible: Holman Christian Study Bible (HCSB)
“The complete Holman Christian Standard Bible® is now available! More than twenty years in the making, crafted by the shared expertise of nearly a hundred conservative scholars and English stylists, the Holman CSB® sets the standard in painstaking biblical accuracy and pure literary form. Accurate, yet highly readable, it’s a translation committed to leaving both the grace and gravity of the original languages intact while carefully creating a smooth flow of wording for the reader.” Quote from the Lifeway website.
Here are a few excerpts from this 'so-called' fine work of accurate biblical scholarship.
Psalms 8:3-6 HCSB
When I observe Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You set in place, what is man that You remember him, the son of man that You look after him? You made him little less than Godand crowned him with glory and honor. You made him lord over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet: Footnotes found in the HCSB for this verse are [7] LXX reads angels [8] Or gods, or a god, or heavenly beings; Hb Elohim
Now that’s interesting. According the HCSB translation, Jesus was made a little less than God. This 'scholarly work' chose to make it read 'God' in light of the Septuagint's angel translation and the otherwise understood usage of the word angels in Hebrew! So I ask again, why did these 'scholars' change the Word of God? Clearly the Word of God teaches us that Jesus the 'Son of Man' is God, not less than God. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. This same scholarship is evident in many of the other modern versions. Now, let’s look at the verses in Hebrews 2 that quote Psalms 8.
Hebrews 2:6-8 HCSB
But one has somewhere testified: What is man, that You remember him, or the son of man, that You care for him? You made him lower than the angels for a short time; You crowned him with glory and honor and subjected everything under his feet.
Did you notice they didn’t have the heart to make the New Testament quote read the same as the Psalms passage? Hebrews gets it right and Psalms is wrong. This is a clear error in doctrine and a contradiction between the Testaments. Similar problems exist in the New American Standard and the many other modern versions. The HCSB refers the reader in Psalms to a footnote that the passage is translated from the LXX (Septuagint – simply put, a Greek translation of the Hebrew with many revisions to that underlying Hebrew text) versus the Bible that Jesus studied and quoted – the Hebrew Massoretic text. The Massoretic text clearly reads the son of man was made a little lower than the angels in English as opposed to 'a little less than God'.
Here’s another interesting example in the HCSB:
Luke 2:33 His father and mother (Footnote: Other mss read But Joseph and His mother as contained in the King James Version)were amazed at what was being said about Him.
Which text is correct?
Joseph and his mother or his father and his mother?
Let me ask it another way, which text did the Holy Spirit author? Which text magnifies the Lord Jesus Christ and affirms the critical doctrine of the virgin birth? Which version builds faith and which one destroys faith because it whispers in your ear and tells you that you can’t really be sure what God says – because the oldest and so-called more reliable manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sianaticus) say ‘his father’ while a more modern text (Textus Receptus) reads Joseph?
The battle lines have been drawn. We are being asked to believe in the doctrine of inspiration. However, the Scriptures not only teach the inspiration of God’s Holy Word, they also proclaim its preservation! Psalms 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
Jesus also said in Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
I am reminded of another verse with a stern warning from the LORD regarding His Word. Mark 8:38 “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Beloved, we are living in an age when the norm is to be ashamed of God’s Word. I believe the apostasy swirling around us today fosters this. The numerous modern Bible versions calling themselves ‘Holy Bible’ are fraught with error, conflicting passages, and even heretical teachings. The doctrine of preservation forces us to either believe what God says: He will protect and preserve His Word, or sadly we turn our back on that truth and reject what He proclaimed. If we do believe God in the matter of preservation, then we must contend for the faith and in so doing we must understand that there is no confusion with the LORD. Therefore, if one so-called Bible contains a passage that leaves out the blood of Jesus, omits Hell, casts doubt on the virgin birth, states that Jesus is a little lower than God, then we must decide for ourselves: Which version is God’s Word?
I realize this topic is about as popular as a snake in high grass (yea hath God said?). But in the days ahead, we will all be faced with tests that stretch us and if we doubt the veracity of God’s Word, we may just be persuaded to follow the 'yea hath God said?' crowd and not the LORD. I’m sure you can guess it if you haven’t done so by now after reading this, but I recommend the King James Version for the follower of Jesus. Granted some of the language is archaic, but scholarship has shown it to be accurate to the underlying texts and believe it or not, easier to memorize due to the nature of its prose. Truly the LORD does magnify His Word above His Name (Psalms 138:2).
In Him,
Eye
posted by Eye at
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
20 Comments:
Actually, the Masoretic text at Ps 8:5 reads Elohim, "God." The LXX reads "angels." Also, the HCSB did not capitalize "son of man" and "him" in verse 4, so it is not referring to Christ, but to a human being--God made human beings a little lower than Himself. The author of Hebrews was quoting from the LXX. He was also applying the passage to Christ, the ultimate human being. HCSB translated Ps 8:5 from the Masoretic text and translated Heb 2:7 from the Greek. The KJV translated Ps 8:5 from the LXX. You could say that the KJV changed the Bible in Psalms!
By
Anonymous, at April 27, 2006 9:43 AM
dr davy,
Welcome and thanks for stopping by and posting a comment. You are correct in that the Massoretic Text reads Elohim. That is a generic term for a heavenly being -- can mean God, angel, superantural beings. The Greek text reads Anglos which is not a generic term -- rather it is a very specific word in the Greek that clearly means Angel. The Holy Spirit wrote the Bible, not man. I believe God in His infinite wisdom provides the New Testament quote of the Old Testament passage to clear up any misconception around what the text truly means.
By the way, the KJV does not capitalize 'son of man'. I would point you back to Psalms 8:4 and reread it. It says 'What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? Clearly the author is distinguishing man and the 'son of man'. Jesus is referred to as the 'son of man' through out the New Testament as it is a title. This OT verse makes use of that title.
dr davy -- I think you need to re-read what you wrote about God making human beings a little lower than Himself. That is ridiculous. The Creator of the universe is so High above His creation that one can't fathom. To say the created being is just a little lower than the Creator is incomprehensible!!!
Thus the reason for the post. If you meant to say that man was created a little lower than the angels before man sinned, then you are correct. Hope this helps.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at April 27, 2006 6:47 PM
Eye,
It is certainly true that there exist too many translations of the Bible. I cannot believe that any reason other than profit exist for many of these translations. I suppose lack of copyrights, capitalism and cynicism make all of this possible. I do not deny that language changes over time and that some up dating of wording is necessary. But these companies and scholars should really evaluate their motives before they put out new translations.
I agree too that older is not necessarily better when it comes to texts.
Concerning, Psalm 8 do you think that David in his mind was writing of the coming Messiah?
By
Leo, at April 29, 2006 3:36 PM
Leo,
Great post and thanks for stopping by! Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit was prophetically referring to Jesus and we see that clearly in Hebrews 2:9.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at May 01, 2006 8:30 AM
Great post Eye! From what I've learned about the history of the the texts which make up the KJV and other versions I'm convinced that the Mosoretic and Textus Receptus are THE proper texts.
The LXX has been changed so many times and for obvious reasons. Namely, men were "correcting" the Hebrew manuscripts because they "thought" there were errors in the Hebrew. How scary is that?! Thankfully there are men out there who are dedicated to the word of God no matter what it says and God has revealed a few things to them showing them that the Hebrew text IS correct. Just goes to show that humility, diligent study and prayer will bring about true answers that were there all along.
Also, its (LXX) date of origin is most likely 2nd or 3rd century AD (I can't remember which) and not 3rd century BC.
Leo, I agree. Older is not necessarily better, especially in the case of the Holy Writ.
I agree, too, that much of what drives these new translations is profit, but I also believe it to be arrogance on the part of some as well.
By
Dawn, at May 01, 2006 10:52 AM
Dawn,
Great to hear from you and as always -- a direct hit!
When you boil it all down, it is an attack of the very words of God and we know where that originates from...
As an aside, check out the various churches and ministries you hold in high regard and see what they have to say about Scripture -- most, but not all, will simply parrot the inspiration doctrine and it is a rare group indeed that will also include the preservation doctrine.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at May 01, 2006 11:55 AM
Eye,
The KJV capitalizes "Son of man" when it is referring to Jesus. You see this throughout the NT and also in Daniel 7:13. However, in Ps 8:4 the KJV does not capitalize it, therefore the KJV does not consider this a direct reference to the Messiah. The KJV does not capitalize "son of man" when it means "mortal human." See Num 23:19; Job 25:6; Isa 51:12. Therefore, in Ps 8:4 the KJV interprets this as speaking of a mortal human. Look at Job 7:17 and Ps 144:3 in context, and you can see that there, too, it is obviously referring to a mortal human. Also, as Hebrew poetry repeats a similar thing in one line and the next, "man" in the first line is similar to "son of man" in the second.
Then look at Ps 8:6-8. This is speaking of creation, when God gave man dominion of all creation--over sheep and oxen, beasts, foul, and fish. But as the writer of Hebrews points out, the Messiah will fulfill this more than any mere human ever did; everything will be subjected to Jesus! Not just animals, but all humans and all powers of the air.
What Ps 8:4 is saying is that God created mortal humans a little lower than Himself at the time of creation. Part of the idea of "in His image" was dominion over creation. But man sinned and failed in this dominion. The Messiah, however, will succeed perfectly where man failed!
While the Hebrew word Elohim can refer to mighty ones (Gen 23:6), in Ps 8:5 I think the KJV was translating from the LXX.
By the way, Dawn, the LXX was translated in the third century BC. The Pentateuch was finished about 250 BC.
Some of you wonder about the motivations of those who publish new versions. What were the motivations of the translators of the KJV? Were they entirely pure? We know that James himself was not an entirely good man. One motivation for those who translated the Bible into English back then was to make it understandable for all. Those are also the motivations for some today who are publishing new translations, revisions, and paraphrases. Don't assume that their motivations are mercenary until you have spoken to them.
By
Anonymous, at May 01, 2006 3:55 PM
dr davy,
You said:The KJV capitalizes "Son of man" when it is referring to Jesus.
Eye's response: The book of Ezekiel makes use of this phrase numerous times and capitalizes Son even though the phrase is specifically used of Ezekiel.
I understand your point with regard to the use of 'son of man' in lower caps being that of a mortal only and not necessarily referring to Jesus. However, I respectfully disagree the use of the 'son of man' used in Psalms 8 is referring to mankind only. Especially in light of the Hebrews 2 passage. Please see the Matthew Henry commentary on this passage below:
**********************************
...And for making even the heavenly bodies useful to man, thereby placing him but little lower than the angels.
We are to consider the heavens, that man thus may be directed to set his affections on things above. What is man, so mean a creature, that he should be thus honoured! so sinful a creature, that he should be thus favoured! Man has sovereign dominion over the inferior creatures, under God, and is appointed their lord. This refers to Christ. In Heb 2:6 to 8, the apostle, to prove the sovereign dominion of Christ, shows he is that Man, that Son of
man, here spoken of, whom God has made to have dominion over the works of his hands. The greatest favour ever showed to the human race, and the greatest honour ever put upon human nature, were exemplified in the Lord Jesus. With good reason does the psalmist conclude as he began, Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth, which has been honoured with the presence of the Redeemer, and is still enlightened by his gospel, and governed by his wisdom and power! What words can reach his praises, who has a right to our obedience as our Redeemer?
About this commentary:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible is available in the Public Domain.
Again, my primary point of contention in using the English word God versus Angel in the Psalms 8 passage as many of the modern Bibles do, teaches us something about humanity that is not correct! Man in his unfallen state was never a 'little lower than God' -- however, man was created in his unfallen state a little lower than the angels, but even they (the angels) are separated by an infinite chasm as a created being at the hand of their Creator!!
Scholarship, or the lack of it, chose to take into account the clear Greek text of the New Testament on this passage and therefore misrepresented the clear teaching found in Psalms 8. That is inexcusable...
What is your take on Luke 2:33? Someone's editorialization changed the very Word of God. There is a big difference in the word Joseph and father in the Greek. Was this an unfortunate scribal error? If so, then we have a real dilemma on our hands with the doctrine of preservation...
Let me be clear again, the Scriptures teach both preservation and inspiration -- they are two strands of the same cord, never to be broken. So, when we see 'one highly regarded scholarly work' state that Jesus's father and mother versus Joseph and his mother we see a group of individuals who wink at inspiration and willfully refuse to believe in preservation -- 'Joseph' teaches the virgin birth and 'father' implies Jesus had an earthly daddy...
One text is right and the other is wrong -- it really is that simple.
With regard to motives - I concede that I do not know eveyone's motives, but then again I don't have to. When one text reads dramatically different from another TR versus Nestle, well then I am left with a line drawn in the sand...
Will I believe what God said about preservation and seek to understand his Providential use of individuals over time to validate His promise of preservation, or do I sadly reject the clear teaching? Eye believes what God has said....
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at May 02, 2006 1:33 PM
Eye,
You said KJV capitalizes Son of man even when it is referring to Ezekiel. It does that because it is at the beginning of a quotation (even though there are no quotation marks).
I'm not saying that Ps 8:4 is referring to mortal man only. But if it's referring to the Messiah only, why didn't KJV capitalize it?
I think our main point of disagreement is how exactly God preserved His Holy Word. You believe He did so by somehow canonizing the MT, the TR, and the KJV. I believe He preserved His word by literally preserving thousands of manuscripts. We can study these manuscripts and use the intelligence he gave us to determine what Moses and Luke and Paul wrote. Those who compiled the TR favored the Byzantine texts because there were more of them. I think there are other possible means to determine what are the best readings.
Suppose, for example, you found 25 printouts posted in cubicles in an office building that said, "Office Party, July 1." in several different fonts and sizes. But there were 250 that said, "Office Party, July 12." But when you looked closer, you could see that all the ones that said "July 12" used 48-point Helvetica Bold and had a smudge on the lower left corner. You would conclude that someone made a mistake, and all the rest were photocopies of that one bad one. You used your intelligence to figure out what the original was. If you had showed up for the party on the 12th because there were more posters that had that date, you would have missed the party.
With regard to Luke 2:33, you imply that this is crucial for the doctrine of preservation. The original probably read "father" because Joseph was Jesus' adoptive father on earth. The best and oldest manuscripts have "father." Luke 2:48 has the same sense--certainly Mary knew who Jesus' real Father was. This does not challenge our theology. If we want to know who Jesus' Father was, there are plenty of clear passages that explain it, especially Luke 1:35.
That's enough for now, but I enjoy this kind of debate.
Dr Davy
By
Anonymous, at May 02, 2006 5:23 PM
dr davy,
Thanks for coming back around and posting more thoughts. I well understand the arguments around the different manuscripts, autographs,sianaticus aleph, beta, 'older and more reliable' versus the textus receptus work of Erasmus, on and on...
That said, you can attempt to use your intellect if you like, but that begs the question of do you have all the pieces (preservation)? In other words, if all you had was Luke 2:33 and it read his father, you would miss the affirmation of the virgin birth...
This simply requires faith -- believing what God said regarding preservation. Yes, I think Luke 2:33 along with a host of other verses are critical in that God did say one thing and yet we see clear doctrine diminished by other manuscripts that teach other things. God not only inspired His word, He preserved it!
Why do people want to make this so hard???
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at May 02, 2006 9:12 PM
Eye,
After further consideration, we will allow your name on the blogsite. It is not the ideal situation, but it is better than no name at all. The method behind the name issue has much to do with people like baptistfire.com who write many things but are unwilling to make known who they actually are.
Keep up the study and writing - stay involved with our discussions at the P.T.D. site.
Josh Buice
Practical Theology Discussions
http://www.joshbuice.blogspot.com
By
Josh Buice, at May 04, 2006 7:29 AM
Eye,
We need to find a different verse to support the doctrine of preservation. Ps 12:6-7 does not support it. In the Hebrew of v. 6 "words" is feminine, but when v. 7 says "Thou shalt keep them" the word "them" is masculine, and where it says "thou shalt preserve them" the word "them" in Hebrew is actually masculine singular. Verse 7 is actually referring to the poor and needy in v. 5. So this passage teaches that God will look after the poor and needy forever.
Matthew 5:18 and 24:35 are better passages to teach preservation.
Dr Davy
By
Anonymous, at May 05, 2006 9:06 AM
Dr Davy,
So you agree the Scriptures clearly teach the doctrine of Preservation?
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at May 08, 2006 7:30 AM
Eye,
Yes, I believe the sovereign God preserved His word. The two passages I mentioned, along with Isa 55:11 and the many strong passages about the sovereignty of God, lead me to conclude that God preserved His Word.
The question is what that looks like. There is a problem saying that the KJV is the Word of God preserved perfectly. The original 1611 had many mistakes that were corrected in later editions. Some printed editions of the KJV had printer's mistakes--one read "Thou shalt commit adultery." So our definition of "Preservation" has to take into account first edition errors and printer's mistakes.
KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha. Our definition of Preservation has to allow us to exclude the Apocrypha. But we need a strong position on the canonical books--we will not exclude any of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible!
Finally, how do we define what "Bible" God preserved? The KJV? That runs into the objections above concerning the errors in the 1611 edition. Also, we see that we have changed the spelling of the English of the KJV. Should we have kept the spelling of the original 1611?
Maybe we should argue that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts were preserved by God? Well, we don't have Galatians in Paul's handwriting; all we have are copies of copies. So did God fail to preserve Galatians? No, I will not allow that conclusion! What then?
If we choose a particular existing manuscript, say the Leningrad Codex of the OT and the TR of the NT, then we are saying that perhaps God failed to preserve the Bible until Leningrad was discovered and until the TR was compiled. That is, for centuries God's preservation failed, but then He moved in history and produced the Leningrad Codex and the TR. (Then, we might say, He moved again in 1611 and produced, or perhaps inspired, the KJV.)
I believe in God's preservation of His Word, but it is not a "simple" doctrine, and it is not easy to defend against attacks. I want to think carefully how to define it and how to explain it so that it is correct and it can be defended.
How do you define the doctine, and how do you defend it against hard questions?
Dr Davy
By
Anonymous, at May 08, 2006 3:44 PM
Dr Davy said:I believe in God's preservation of His Word, but it is not a "simple" doctrine, and it is not easy to defend against attacks. I want to think carefully how to define it and how to explain it so that it is correct and it can be defended.
How do you define the doctine, and how do you defend it against hard questions?
Dr Davy -- great questions. I've pondered this and I will devote my research and responses to you questions in a soon forthcoming post. Thank again for stopping by and check back soon.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at May 10, 2006 12:08 PM
Isn't it interesting that Jesus always called himself the Son of Man and never addressed Himself as the Son of God. He only ever would answer "Yes this is true" when confronted.
He even asked I think the blind man he healed "Do you believe in the Son of Man.. It is him you are speaking to"
By
Correy, at May 23, 2006 7:43 PM
You Said:
You are correct in that the Massoretic Text reads Elohim. That is a generic term for a heavenly being -- can mean God, angel, superantural beings.
Can you perhaps explain this a bit more.
By
Correy, at May 23, 2006 7:45 PM
PB,
It is really rather simple. The word Elohim is used in the Hebrew Massoretic Text. That word has different meanings. However, the word used in quoting the OT passage in the NT for the same concept is Anglos in the Greek. The word Anglos does not have multiple meanings -- it means angel.
God knew what He was doing when He used two different languages to clarify various words that might have multiple meanings in one language but only one meaning in the other language.
Hope that helps.
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at June 12, 2006 7:41 PM
It most definitely is both inspiration and preservation. Thanks for the post and God bless!!!
In Christ,
JLG
By
Jeremy Green, at July 01, 2006 6:46 PM
Dear SBC Pastor,
Thank you for your encouragement!
In Him,
Eye
By
Eye, at July 14, 2006 11:22 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home