AnyBook4Less.com	Find the Best Price on the Web Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Home  |  Store List  |  FAQ  |  Contact Us  |
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money Keyword AuthorISBN

Title: Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God by Edward W. Goodrick, Rodney L. Morris ISBN: 0-88070-287-7 Publisher: Multnomah Publishers Inc. Pub. Date: March, 1989 Format: Paperback Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $6.95

Your Country USA Canada United Kingdom Australia Austria Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands Switzerland Currency AutoUSD CAD GBP EUR AUD CHF Delivery Only cheapest delivery All delivery options Include Used Books Are you a club member of: Barnes and Noble Books A Million Chapters.Indigo.ca

Average Customer Rating: 3 (2 reviews)

Rating: 5
Summary: A Clear Analysis of Bible Translation and Interpretation
Comment: It is amazing how complex many Christians make the doctrine of verbal inspiration to be ! Goodrick approaches this matter in a simple, common-sense approach that should blow away all the fog and confusion brought into the subject. I think the first reviewer missed the whole point, when Goodrick says that the 'meaning' of the original autographs are inspired, he does not deny verbal inspiration - what he means is that the words by themselves have no meaning, they only take up meaning in sentences - so we have to take in the context of the words. Goodrick gives us confidence that all translations (even the most erroneous) "contain the word of God, Nay is the word of God" (a quote from the KJV translators). What struck me the most from this book is the assertion that most pollution comes from amateurs who interpret Greek and Hebrew based on wrong exegesis, many times modern teachers will 'analyze' the wording and come up with new 'hidden' revelations that are actually misunderstood grammatical structures ! I highly recommed this book to anyone interested in Bible translation and interpretation.

Rating: 1
Summary: Faulty theory of inspiration and Bible translation
Comment: In this book, Goodrick claims that the original autographs of the Bible are inspired, that all copies (i.e. manuscripts) of the autographs are inspired, and that all translations of the Bible are inspired.

The first claim I agree with, but there are so many problems with the other two claims I really don't know where to begin. But let's begin with a few facts.

Some manuscripts have "God" at the beginning of 1Timonthy 3:16, some have "who," and a couple have "which." So the question is, which of these readings is inspired? They are inherently contradictory. But most of all, all textual critics agree that the last reading is an obvious mistake. So did God inspired a scribe to make a mistake?

As for translations being inspired, there are so many differences between them its hard to see how anyone could claim they are all inspired. For instance, in 1Corinthians 7:1, some versions have Paul writing, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," some have "not to get married," others have "not to have sexual relations with a woman," along with a variety of other readings, like "have nothing to do with women." Again, these readings are very clearly different.

So how does Goodrick defend his ideas of inspiration of manuscripts and versions? Answer: by his doctrine of inspiration. Goodrick believes in "conceptual inspiration" while specifically disavowing verbal inspiration (p.78). IOW, Goodrick believes the meaning of the Scriptures is inspired but not their very words. So God inspired the thoughts of the Biblical writers but not their very words.

And if God only inspired the thoughts of the Biblical writers then a translation should strive to translate their thoughts rather than their words. This would lead to a dynamic equivalency method of translation, which a is thought for thought method. This method is opposed to literal or formal methods, which are word for methods.

So it would be logical for a person who believes in verbal inspiration to believe that a literal or formal equivalence method is the best for translating the Bible. And conversely, a person who believes in conceptual inspiration would logically favor dynamic equivalence. However, most people today who advocate a dynamic equivalence method say they believe in verbal inspiration, and thus are rather inconsistent. But at least Goodrick is consistent in this regard.

So the questions then becomes, did God only inspire the thoughts of the Biblical writers, or did He inspire their very words and even the grammatical forms of the words they wrote?

The following quote is taken from my book "Differences Between Bible Versions" (p.16): "That the Biblical authors believed in verbal inspiration is evident. Jesus appealed to the tense of a verb for proof of resurrection and the exact wording of a Psalm to demonstrate His Lordship (Matt 22:31,32, 41-45). Paul pointed out that a word was singular, not plural, to show a prophecy applied to Christ (Gal 3:16; see also Deut 4:2; 1Kings 8:56; Josh 21:43-45; 23:14; Prov 30:5,6; Jer 26:2; John 6:63)."

To look at one of these examples, Paul stated in Galatians 3:16 that since the word "Seed" in Genesis 12:3 is singular, the prophecy was referring to one Person, Christ. But what is notable is that most dynamic equivalency versions have the plural "decedents" rather than the singular "Seed" in Gen 12:3. So if one were only reading such a version, you would think Paul was a liar.

The point is, when a translation tries to render only the supposed "thoughts" of the Bible then important points can and are missed. Moreover, it is not always clear what the intended thoughts or the author's actual words were. For instance, in 1Cor 7:1 above, a comparison of different versions will show that the opinions of the translators as to what Paul was thinking when he wrote "not to touch a woman" vary considerably. I discuss the differences between these versions in much greater detail in my book.

Moreover, the meaning of a passage can change due to textual variants. When Paul wrote 1Tim 3:16, was he thinking of Christ's deity or not? With the reading of "God" he was, but with the reading of "who" he was not. So one of these class of manuscripts do not capture the "thought" of what Paul originally wrote."

The fact remains is, there are very real and clear differences between manuscripts and between Bible versions. And these differences are not just a difference of words but of thoughts and meanings. I give many specific verses of where the meaning changes between manuscripts and versions in my book "Differences Between Bible Versions" (hence the name). So it simply is not and cannot be true that all manuscripts and versions are inspired, even if one ascribes to conceptual inspiration.

To go along with his idea of conceptual inspiration, Goodrick writes, "It is impossible to translate the Bible word for word" (p.71). Since I produced the "Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament," I know first hand that a word for word translation IS possible. Now Goodrick claims such a translation would not be readable, but a common comment I have received in regards to my translation is that it is surprisingly easy to read. And in my book on Bible versions go into details why this is so.

Given these very serious problems, I would not recommend Goodrick's book. It advocates a very faulty theory of inspiration and Bible translation.