Item description for Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God? by Edward W. Goodrick & Ray Lubeck...
Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God? by Edward W. Goodrick
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: Wipf & Stock Publishers
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 8.49" Width: 5.65" Height: 0.31" Weight: 0.39 lbs.
Release Date May 1, 2007
Publisher Wipf & Stock Publishers
ISBN 1556353766 ISBN13 9781556353765
Availability 0 units.
More About Edward W. Goodrick & Ray Lubeck
The late Edward W. Goodrick was on the faculty at Multnomah Bible College for many years and coedited with John Kohlenberger various biblical language study tools, including the Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance.
Reviews - What do customers think about Is My Bible the Inspired Word of God??
Helpful answer to sensible question Jan 15, 2005
Christians say that the original autographs of the bible are inspired, infallible and inerrant, but all of these have disappeared. So the obvious question is "But is my bible the inspired Word of God?"
Goodrick gives an excellent answer to this question which will satisfy nearly everyone, but not those who would like to hold an inerrant bible in their hands.
He says: 1. Yes the original is inspired, inerrant, infallible. 2. What we have today is 99% or even more the same as this inspired,inerrant, infallible original.
If you know the bible well, and are honest you will admit that the bible we have today has discrepancies and apparent contradictions in a very small number of places. If you are familiar with your bible, you will know that there are a few puzzles with your bible which may be transcriptional errors, or may be only apparent contradictions because we don't have all the facts.
We also have minor wording and meaning differences between the various bibles we have [including minor differences between various versions of the King James].
But none of these affects any Christian doctrine.
We can have complete confidence that the bible as we have it today in all major versions is substantially the same in the vast majority of cases as the inspired original.
But there is value in limiting what we call inspired, inerrant and infallible to the original, because of the small number of differences between the versions we have today.
We dare not make a pronouncement that a particular one is THE Bible, because of *our* fallibility, not the bible's.
Worth reading if you have been asking this question.
A Clear Analysis of Bible Translation and Interpretation Dec 14, 2001
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.
Faulty theory of inspiration and Bible translation Aug 12, 2001
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.