Torch, Spring 1990

llllrE~--------------------------------~ Sixth, the Bible is inerrant [free from error] and infallible [incapable of error] in all matters which it addresses. . "!'he Bible is inspired truth, not only m issues of doctrinal faith and moral living, but also in areas of history , geography, and science. Members of the Evangelical Theological Society, to which I belong, subscribe annually to a basic doctrinal statement: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is, therefore, inerrant in the autographs." The issue of the complete inerrancy and infallibility of the total original Scriptures is the real doctrinal battle– ground today. Those who embrace this foundational doctrine should unite against the attacks made by both liberals and some evangelicals. A person who uses the KJV should be committed to the full inerrancy of the Scriptures. Likewise, those who employ the NIV or NASB also should embrace the position of total inerrancy. The common acceptance of inerrancy should overrule and govern the relationships of those who use different English translations. Charges of heresy should be hurled at those who deny inerrancy, not at those who believe in inerrancy but who use a different English version. Seventh, the Bible is the supreme authoritative basis offaith and practice. That concept means that only the Bible can be the supreme, written norm by which God can bind our consciences. When Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms in 1521, he was asked to give a plain answer to the question: "Will you recant?" His classic answer has been quoted for almost 470 years: "If the emperor desires a plain answer, I will give it to him. It is impossible for me to recant unless I am proved to be wrong by the testimony of Scripture. My con– science is bound to the Word of God. It is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience. Here I stand. God help me. I cannot do otherwise." Luther's allegiance was not to a German translation of the Scriptures nor to the Hebrew and Greek texts which he possessed. His vow of commitment was to the inspired, inerrant Word of God, as originally breathed out by God and as faithfully represented in the version before him. In like manner, we evangelicals must tenaciously stand for the inerrancy and inspiration of the written Word without compromise. However, we must allow our fellow-soldiers of the faith to express their commitment through the usage of Spanish, French, German, Bengali, Japanese, and various English translations. We must not allow the usage of one version to become the standard of ortho– doxy , a fundamental of the faith comparable to the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ. Work of Translators Translation is no simple task. It is difficult to translate the meaning of the idiom and grammatical structure of one language into that of another. Linguistic scholars and translators are a rare breed. Good translators desire good translations. They want their work to manifest the true meaning of the source text. They want their text to be clear and natural. Good translators follow accepted principles of translation. Basically, there are two methods of doing translation work. Each method will lead to a different result. The methods are known as formal equiva– lence and dynamic equivalence. In formal equivalence, the attention is focused on the actual text---0n its form and content. In a word, what the text is. The translator then tries to reproduce that form and content into a second language. In this sense the KJV and the NKJV (New King James Version) are formal equivalent translations of the Received Greek Text and the Hebrew text. In like manner, the NASB is a for– mal equivalent translation of the Critical Greek text and Hebrew text. The NIV also is a formal equivalent translation, but it stresses the meaning of the idiom and, thus, is not as literal as the NASB . In dynamic equivalence, the attention is focused on the meaning of the text to the reader-in a word, what the text means. The translator then tries to reproduce the meaning of the source language into the second language. In so doing, he may change the words of the text so that the reader might not be confused by the result. He is thus seeking for an idiomatic, meaning-for-meaning translation. Scrip– tural paraphrases, such as Phillips' New Testament and Taylor's The Living Bible are illustrations of dynamic equivalence. Language has two levels: surface structure or form and deep structure or meaning. Forms change from language to language, but the meaning in good translation should not. Since no two languages have the same surface structure, the translator faces a double task- to interpret and to translate. In the original biblical writings, both the form and meaning were inspired and