Universalism - Thayer's biblical errors

There has been some controversy on this here union (and others around these parts) over universalism, the meaning and usage of the Koine Greek word "aion", etc.

I note one definition has been lauded as to the "everlasting" meaning of the word from Thayer's definitions, in some attempt to "refute the claims of universalism". It is worth pointing out that Joseph Thayer worked on his definitions and bibliography specifically as a result of attempting to translate the bible from Greek. Further discoveries (Egyptian papyri), made around the time of his death in 1901, shed new light on Koine Greek usage and made his translations obsolete.

That source of evidence aside, I also find it intriguing to read that Joesph Henry Thayer actually disagreed with biblical inerrancy! He even published a lecture asserting "his own acceptance of various errors of history and science in the Bible did not materially detract from his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity."

Is there a conflict here in clinging to definitions made to justify an infallible book, when the person making those definitions themselves thinks the book is fallible? 

Source: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer 

Yeah, basically, it's no use incalling The Bible fallible, or at least the original text, because that creates a whole host of problems. Having said that though, Thayer own views don't make his translatins any more or less valid by their own virtue, but can only hope to explain why he had made an error, if he did.MetalGear_Ninty

Why not? I think the translations are surely made less valid when used by one claiming biblical inerrancy - since the translator lectured on biblical errancy apologetics.

Thayer spent 25 years translating the bible, then went around telling people you couldn't believe everything you read in it. Are you sure that wouldn't diminish the authenticity of the translation to a biblical creationist, using those potentially errant translations to assert their dogma?

I don't think there's necessarily a conflict, actually.  The man's beliefs on whether or not the Bible is inerrant have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not his definitions of the words in the Bible are correct.  Thayer is typically invoked as an expert on the Greek of the New Testament, not as an expert on the Bible. 

I don't think there's necessarily a conflict, actually.  The man's beliefs on whether or not the Bible is inerrant have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not his definitions of the words in the Bible are correct.  Thayer is typically invoked as an expert on the Greek of the New Testament, not as an expert on the Bible. 

GabuEx

I can't see how the two are not inextricably linked! Are you saying that the bible being wrong has no bearing whatsoever on words translated being wrong? Couldn't that be the basis for the error? Judging by the conflict in various other thread here, I'd say contextual definitions and interpretations are uber-important in getting "truth" from the bible. Isn't this definition split one of the differences in the basis of your own Christian faith?

Moreover, how and when is being an expert on the "Greek of the New Testament", not being an "expert on the bible"? 

I can see how a fundamentalist Christian might be uncomfortable with Thayer's stance on the Bible's errancy. Nevertheless if his translation is valid it's valid regardless of his personal beliefs about it. Moreover if his translation agrees with their dogma then it's not a big mystery that they would cling to it.

I can't see how the two are not inextricably linked! Are you saying that the bible being wrong has no bearing whatsoever on words translated being wrong? Couldn't that be the basis for the error?

RationalAtheist

I don't see why.  The question of Biblical inerrancy has to do with the question of whether or not the text of the Bible was directly inspired by God.  But whether the Bible was written by God or by fallible men, that does not change the language used in the Bible.  If I find that a text is pseudographical, and therefore not written by the person whom I previously thought it was written by, that doesn't somehow redefine any of the language used within the text.  It might change whether I trust the assertions made in the text, but it doesn't change the assertions themselves.

Judging by the conflict in various other thread here, I'd say contextual definitions and interpretations are uber-important in getting "truth" from the bible. Isn't this definition split one of the differences in the basis of your own Christian faith?

RationalAtheist

Sure, and I've never asserted otherwise.  What I'm asserting is that the question of whether or not God wrote the Bible has basically nothing to do with the definition of the words used within the Bible.  If the Bible was written by men, then it would have been written in the language that they spoke; and if it was written by God, then surely it would have still been written in the language that the people spoke, considering that the whole point of writing something is so that people will understand what you're writing.

 

Moreover, how and when is being an expert on the "Greek of the New Testament", not being an "expert on the bible"? 

RationalAtheist

I speak English, which means that anything written in English I can understand the words of, but that doesn't necessarily mean I will be able to glean the proper semantic meaning from the writing.  The Bible is not just a collection of words.

In truth chaps - I agree.

I just made this thread to make a point. I think its been made now.

Thanks.