In a comment at , Adrian Warnock says the following:
Dr Grudem has expressed regret for the use of the word “blasphemy”, and as far as the quote from his systematic theology goes you have to understand that his aim is explicitly to build a theology based on the assumption that the bible is inerrant – I am not too sure how you think a liberal theology would help in that aim…
(See also Dr. Grudem’s retraction of his agreement to the use of the word blasphemy.)
In my Bible Translations FAQ, I respond to a common question about Bible translation and about the NIV in particular. Let me quote my basic response first, and then I’ll discuss why I’m bringing this up now. No, this is not a post about Bible translation, though I’m going to use a translation issue as an illustration.
In my materials for my Bible Translation Selection Tool, I only have one entry for the New American Standard Version even though that version was revised in 1995. The major change was the removal of archaic language in prayer–no more thee’s and thou’s. A few other changes were made.
In preparing an entry on exegesis of Isaiah 27 I noticed some differences between the two editions. There are three changes for the NASB95, and one phrase that it seems odd was not changed.
Here are the four items:
| Verse | NASB | NASB95 |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Lest anyone damage it, | So that no one will damage it, |
| The change is minor, but perhaps it makes God’s activity in guarding the vineyard more positive. I’m not sure if modern readers would hear any difference unless it was pointed out to them. | ||
| 8 | Thou didst content with them by banishing them, | You contended with them by banishing them, |
| Changes language that addresses God to modern forms. | ||
| 12 | It will come about in that day, that the LORD will start His threshing | In that day the LORD will start His threshing |
| This is what I would call a “student exercise” type of change. This translates a common Hebrew idiom often translated “It came to pass” or just “It happened” but when translated into modern English it is more of a form of punctuation. Generally modern translators count on English punctuation to translate this idea adequately. Thus it has been removed. | ||
| 13 | It will come about also in that day, | It will come about also in that day |
| This is the non-change that I noted. Verses 12 and 13 start identically in Hebrew. I’m uncertain why one was changed to a more natural English rendering, while the other was not. | ||
The changes here are not terribly significant, but this little review will give you an idea of the extent, or lack of it, of the changes to the NASB95.
The new, young associate pastor was praying, and in her prayer she referred to God as “Father-Mother God.” Silence settled over the congregation as mental gasps replaced “Amens.” The associate pastor had transgressed the unofficial line. You can represent God as vengeful or loving, gentle or angry, gracious or demanding, present or distant, but don’t you ever present God as male and female.
I was preparing a communion service with a slightly non-traditional text. Someone reading the material brought a portion of it to me. Was I sure I wanted to use this passage? Wasn’t it feminized? My text had crossed the line. I can represent God as just about anything, but never use feminine language. The feminized language in question? ” . . . gather us under your wing as a hen gathers her chicks . . .” (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34).
We constantly use images for God, mental images, yes, but images nonetheless. And there is nothing wrong with mental images, provided you don’t cast them in stone–real stone or mental stone. The Bible uses plenty of images of God, including the feminine image of divine wisdom as used in Proverbs.
The problem comes in when you fix the images in place so that they become your picture of God instead of allowing God to constantly interact with you, shatter your images, and grow you up. As I previously commented on this:
Well, I wasn’t sure it would happen, but it has. I agree with a portion of Dr. Wayne Grudem’s comments in the seventh part of Adrian Warnock’s interview with him, Things We Can Agree to Disagree About?
Of course, he reaffirms the key points on which I disagree profoundly, namely that making penal substitutionary atonement the key meaning of the atonement is the heart of the gospel or that male authority is somehow a substantial part of the gospel message. Nonetheless, I take it as a good thing that he sees the fairly clear (in my opinion) meaning of 1 Corinthians 13:10, which does not mean that miraculous gifts cease in the church at some artificial point prior to the realizaiton of the kingdom.
Or perhaps it had set in a long time ago. I hadn’t really meant to comment on the current uproar about the Discovery Institute’s apparent “discovery” that part of Judge Jones’s ruling in the Dover case came “almost verbatim” from the propose findings of fact from the plaintiff’s attorneys. I’m not an attorney, and I hardly consider myself qualified to discuss that. But I can read, and I can see what’s similar and what’s not, and I can smell desperation.
As a non-lawyer, some interesting questions come to mind.
Dave Warnock has made an interesting discovery while looking at the interview with Wayne Grudem that Adrian Warnock is publishing on his blog (#6 entry). Jesus has been almost totally left out of the argument.
I commented on the type of view of scripture that seems to lead to this previously, and in my recent post on deciding who is saved I note that one of the problems I see with current evangelical views on atonement, and particularly on putting penal substitutionary atonement front and center, is that it puts the material out of order.
In the history of salvation, Jesus came first, and then Paul interpreted him. While the gospels are generally dated after the letters of Paul (though this can be contested), the oral traditions of Jesus on which Christianity first rode forth into the world obviously predate anything Paul wrote. Many modern Christians seem like art critics who, instead of actually looking at a painting, read from a description while the painting itself is readily available. The direction of study should start with Jesus, and who he is, and then read Paul where he fits in, which is in applying the message of Jesus to a broader community. In particular, the kingdom parables say some fairly definitive things about the kingdom, which we often permit theology to override.
Some time ago I posted an entry that dealt broadly with apportionments and accountability in churches. A very good friend of mine, Dr. Bob McKibben, author of Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire!, which I publish, wrote me an impassioned and information filled e-mail in response. Some of the contents of that e-mail were not appropriate to post publicly, but I asked Bob to edit it, and he was willing.
Bob is pastor of Pine Forest United Methodist Church, in the Pensacola District of the Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church.
I have now persuaded him to become an occasional contributor to the Pacesetters Bible School news blog, and as his first posting we will have Inspired and Empowered – Apportionments and Connectionalism. I’m posting a link here because I’m hooked into the Methodist blogosphere, while Pacesetters Bible School, as an interdenominational organization, is not so linked.
Head over there and check it out. Please comment there.
It’s at Buzz Blog and looks like some good stuff. Go read and stir up the blogosphere!
. . . at least as defined by Dr. Wayne Grudem, a point he makes in the current (6th) installment of Adrian’s interview. Again, he’s not talking about me. I’m just going ahead and pleading guilty under an “if the shoe fits” standard.
