How to Choose a Good Translation – Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Translations

The choice of a good translation begins with understanding that God has always intended for his written revelation to be communicated in the common language. After one realizes this truth, the discussion must turn theological. Choosing a translation is more than merely a matter of preference, for one must consider how the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy come into play. I will attempt to provide a brief overview of these doctrines and show how they relate to choosing a good English Bible translation.

Inspiration

The Biblical view of inspiration is referred to as being both verbal and plenary. Verbal inspiration of the Bible refers to the fact that the very words of Scripture are inspired by God; that God guided the original authors of Scripture in their choice of the words used in those original writings. The writers of Scripture expressed their own styles, vocabularies, and personalities as they penned their opinions, prayers, joys, and fears. Though this is true, inspiration states that God so guided the Bible’s authors that the words they chose to express those opinions, joys, and fears were those expressly intended by God. This inspiration is plenary, or full. Plenary inspiration states that all of Scripture is equally inspired by God; denouncing any form of partial inspiration for the Bible. Thus, inspiration guarantees that the actual words and all of the words, of the autographs (original writings) of Scripture are what God intended them to be and convey the ideas and meanings God intended them to convey.

Inerrancy

A corollary to inspiration is the much needed doctrine of inerrancy. Inerrancy can be defined as to be without error. Inerrancy is not only to be without error, but refers to the accuracy of the statement, not necessarily the exactness of the statement. Allow me to illustrate. An accused murderer might say, “I have never killed anyone,” or he might say, “I ain’t never killed nobody, no how.” While the first statement is grammatically correct and superior to the second, both statements are equally accurate (provided the accused truly is innocent of murder). God, in inspiration, allowed the Bible writers to use their own vocabulary, grammar, and style to express exactly the words He wanted used in the production of Scripture. The original writings produced were completely without error and totally accurate in every matter they touch. This is not to say that the Bible is a textbook, or that it touches on all topics; it does not. But, when it does address a matter, it does so with complete accuracy and infallibility.

Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Translations

You might have noticed by now that I repeatedly referred to the original writings (autographs) of Scripture when summarizing the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. That was done intentionally, for these doctrines apply directly only to these original writings. Understanding that there are so many translations, versions, variations on versions, texts, etc. available on the Christian market today, how does one cope with the fact that the original writings are no longer available? Which version or translation is truly the Word of God if no one has the originals anymore? There are a couple of ways people handle this tension. Some, who seek to protect Scripture, do not make the distinction theologically between the originals and copies, translations, or reproductions. For some in this camp, copies are inspired in the same way as the originals, meaning the Holy Spirit re-inspires every translator, copyist, and publisher in exactly the same way as he did the original authors. It is on this foundation that they claim inspiration and inerrancy for modern translations. Conversely, for the Bible’s critics, if copies contain error (and many have been shown to), so might the originals. The conflict lies in that critics and radical rights want to draw a false linear continuity between the original writings (autographs) and copies and reproductions.  In order to understand the solution to this dilemma one must logically and properly apply the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy to the fact that copies and reproductions do exist and are all mankind has with which to work. Let me, then, proffer a solution.

The Primal Authority of the Autographs

As I’ve said, only the original writings (autographs) partake of direct inspiration and inerrancy. However, copies do partake of derivative authority. By derivative authority is meant that copies and translations derive their authority from the originals. Thus, when looking at a translation, one assumes two things.

1. The words, phrases, and concepts used in the translation appear in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which the translation was made. Without them appearing in these manuscripts; the argument would have no weight.

2. The words or phrases used appeared in the original autograph. If it did not appear in the autograph, then there was no authority for it to appear in the copy in the first place. Modern Bible readers must trust that the translators did their homework and used proper textual criticism when choosing the manuscripts they chose to use and that they were skilled in the original languages.

With these two assumptions in mind, we can say that translations are authoritative as long as they accurately and faithfully reproduce the message of the original autograph. The autographs had primal authority. Today’s translations have derived their authority from them. 

Derivative Inspiration and Inerrancy

We cannot say that today’s translations are inspired and inerrant in the same way as the originals were. Translations derive their inspiration and inerrancy from the originals. So long as a translation accurately and faithfully reproduces the message of the originals it can be called inspired and inerrant. If a translation is a faithful reproduction of the original, inspired by God, then in some way that inspiration passes to them; perhaps an inherited inspiration.

               

CONCLUSION

Can anyone truly stand to his feet and claim, without doubt, that he has the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God? How does one know that his chosen translation is faithful to the originals if they are no longer available to us (extant)? In simplest terms, one must take it by faith. Bolstering faith is the little matter of scientific evidence. There have been developed over the centuries a set of reliable scientific methods for textual criticism (the analyzing of available manuscripts in the original languages to ascertain with great certainty the wording of the originals). These methods, when employed accurately and without biased presuppositions, lead researchers to the most accurate text possible. It is due to the science of textual criticism, combined with the over-riding belief in a true and faithful God who communicated His truth to His creation, not in order to be lost or corrupted, but to be preserved clear and accurate for all that we can reliably know whether or not a translation is accurately and faithfully representing the originals. God has always intended for his written revelation to be communicated in the common language. We take this truth by faith and rely on the fact that God has preserved the words of the originals in the available manuscript evidence and allowed men to develop the scientific skills to accurately examine these manuscripts to ascertain the wording of the originals. It also helps to know a bit about the intent of the translators themselves. Thus, in the forthcoming posts I will reproduce the stated intents of the translators of many of the mainline English translations of the Bible. I think you’ll see how committed they all are to accurately and faithfully representing the message of the originals.