Natural theologians constantly commit one of the simplest errors. They take an idealized and romantic modern concept of human “Reason,” that developed during the Renaissance, particularly during the French Revolution, and insert it back into biblical times and even attempt to insert it into biblical texts. But is it possible that ancient writers, most of whom died thousands of years before the Renaissance, knew of and believed in modern Renaissance romantic ideals of an exalted and abstract “Reason,” before whom all must bow, including God?
Ideas have a history that we cannot ignore. We can trace when, where, and through whom an idea first appeared in history. Newton’s idea of the “law of gravity” and Einstein’s “theory of relativity” are good examples of this.
The attempt to take a modern idea and push it back thousands of years before it appeared in history is a grave mistake. If someone claimed that Einstein’s theory of relativity was taught in the Bible, they would be grossly mistaken. But this is exactly what those who believe in Natural Theology, Natural Law, and Philosophy do all the time.
When they use Renaissance idiomatic phrases such as “before the Bar of Reason,” “the demands of Reason,” etc., this is a dead give away that they are guilty of this fundamental error. This phrase “before the Bar of Reason” requires an explanation today as public education no longer teaches the rudiments of European history.
The French Natural Philosophers had abstracted, idealized, romanticized, and then absolutized human reason into an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent, infallible, “Reason.” They took man’s limited and faulty ability to think about issues and then came to a conclusion and elevated it into the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. “Reason” was the measure of all things, including God. They had replaced “God” with “Reason.” During the French Revolution, people were dragged before the “bar” or bench of a rationalist judge who proclaimed their guilty verdict in the name of “Reason.”
This is one of the fundamental methodological errors of J.P. Moreland, Norman Geisler, William lane Craig, Greg Koukl, Francis Beckwith, et al. They cite such texts as Isa. 1:18 (“Let us reason together”) and Acts 17:2 (“Paul…reasoned with them”), to prove (sic) that the modern Renaissance concept of “Reason” can be found in the Bible. They assume that the mere presence of the verb “reason” in such passages is sufficient proof that the authors of Scripture knew of and believed in the Renaissance concept of the noun “Reason.”
First, it is outrageous for them to insert a modern idea into ancient biblical times and texts.
Second, none of them even attempt to do any exegesis of the texts they cite. It would appear that they never bothered to check the Hebrew or Greek. They cite texts much like Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Third, even if we pretended, in a moment of insanity, that modern Renaissance ideas like “Reason” could magically appear in ancient biblical times and texts, this would still require hard exegetical work to support it.
To test the vaunted claims of Natural Theologians that their modern ideas of “Reason” can be found in the Bible, you must take several steps.
Step One: You must identify all the Hebrew and Greek words that were translated “reason” in English translations. What will you find? There were nine different Hebrew words and eleven different Greek words that were sometimes translated as “reason” by some versions some of the time.
Step Two: You must analyze these Hebrew and Greek words grammatically. When you do, you will first discover that, for the most part, they are usually verbs, not nouns. This is significant. Natural theologians appeal to some “thing” called “Reason,” which is supposedly the Origin of truth and morals. But there is no Hebrew or Greek noun in Scripture that corresponds to the Renaissance noun “Reason.”
Step Three: Since there are over one hundred biblical passages where the word “reason” appears in some English versions, you have to exegete each passage in its context. When you do, you will find that most versions are in error to use the word “reason.”
Nearly all the Hebrew and Greek words translated “reason” have nothing to do with human “reason” per se but are simple conjunctions. They are grammatical, not anthropological, in nature.
Old Testament Vocabulary
There is only one Hebrew word of interest: 
.
This verb means to rebuke, admonish, argue or discuss. In a few places, it is used in a judicial sense of a judge rendering a verdict. It is a verb and not a noun and thus never appears in the Bible with the meaning of “Reason.”
Isa. 1:18 has always been quoted by Naturalists to prove (sic) that the Renaissance concept of “Reason” is in the Bible. What can be said about this text?
First, the word 
in this passage has nothing to do with an anthropological or metaphysical concept of “Reason.” I translated it as follows:
“Come on now!
And let us sit down and
discuss your sins,”
says YHWH.
“Although your sins are scarlet in color;
They can be as white as snow.
Although they are as red as crimson,
They will be white like wool.”
God invites His people to sit down and “discuss” a certain issue with Him. The word “reason” is a verb and refers to the activity of discussing or talking. It is not a noun, i.e. the Renaissance “Reason.” What was the issue that they were invited to discuss? Was it the existence of God? No. Was it God and evil? No.
The passage is clear that the issue in focus was man’s sin, not God’s existence. Therefore, any use of this passage to justify Natural theology and its modern concept of “Reason” is erroneous.
But what was the basis of the discussion between God and man? According to Isa. 1:10, the basis of the discussion is “the Word of YHWH,” special revelation, not human reason. To use this passage (Isa. 1:18) to prove the Renaissance concept of “Reason” as the basis of the discussion is erroneous.
When we look to the New Testament, most of the Greek words translated “reason” have nothing to do with human reason per se. Once again they are grammatical, and not anthropological or metaphysical in nature.
New Testament Vocabulary
There is one word 
that appears in the Greek Testament that is of interest. It appears with different prefixes 
.
usually means to discuss, talk about, compute in your mind or with others. The discussion can be a dialogue as well as a monologue. It can even be a group discussion. The important point is that this Greek verb cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be twisted to refer to the modern Renaissance concept of “Reason.”
One last comment is in order. Some Natural theologians have argued that if we reject the Renaissance abstract concept of “Reason,” we are denying that man can “reason” from point A to point B. But this argument is an example of the fallacy of equivocation.
To reject an abstract idealized “Reason,” i.e. Rationalism, is not the same thing as rejecting man’s capacity to “reason.” The biblical authors viewed man’s capacity to think through issues and to come a conclusion as a reflection of the image of God. While they believed in “reasoning,” this does not mean they knew or believed in “Reason.”
Another Natural theologian objected to our use of the lower case “r” and the capital letter “R.” But his objection fell flat when we asked, “If the use of capital and lower case letters bothers you, does the distinction between the capital “G” and the lower case “g” in “god” and “God” bother you as well?”
In conclusion, the authors of Scripture did not know of or believe in the modern Renaissance concept of an abstract absolute “Reason.” Any attempt is to read that concept back into the Bible is sheer ignorance at best and gross deception at worse. Thus, Natural Theology is a total sham.
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
You know, your just being unreasonable Dr. Bob. LOL!!!
Excellent Dr. Bob. It is good to know the origin of this thinking and how it has come out of the Renaissance and not Revelation. We can use these passages you cited and how they use them as great examples of eisegesis on their part, as opposed to how the clarity of the text comes when exegesis is implemented.
The clarity of your reasoning against Reason is very reasonable.
Pretty open & shut case. Love the exegesis.
May the Lord use this to open the eyes of the Christians to embrace the Scriptures in a biblical manner. We pray the Lord removes those humanistic lenses that are used to interpret scripture. May God grant many the ability to see with the lenses of Special Revelation!
I am in process of reading this and I want to make some comments as basic as they may be but I think are important, first comment is on the “bar of reason” and I will have to agree with Dr. Bob it needs explanation. What does Dr. Bob always say Define your terms, he starts out with many debates and sermons with defining his terms. This being one thing I realize as I live among a lot of evangelicals and open theists, they never define what the mean.
I have a question come to mind after reading a part Dr. Bob’s new book that cites many great works he has done, this particular part was the debate on the inerrancy of scripture, the question was posed, and I will have to pose it again because I am curious on the reactions of readers to this blog. Is it necessary to know the original languages and history of scripture? I say this not because I want to slack on my learning of these issues but because I am in the process of learning Greek and Hebrew and am curious to see the responses about those who do not have the opportunity to learn these languages.
Travis,
You have a great question! Reformed theology always believed in educated pastors who knew the original languages. In order to expound Scripture and read the great commentaries, he needs to know the languages.
Arminians believe that there are only three requirements to be a pastor: good looks, the gift of gab and a quitar. Calvary Chapel, TBN, etc. are filled with such men.
But I am dealing with so-called Christian philosophers and theologians who claim to be knowledgable. They of all people should know what they are talking about. Thus when Moreland, Craig, et al, cite Scripture in a sloppy way that violates the grammar of the text, they are either ignnorant or deceptive. Either way they should be fired from teaching in any Christian institution.
I understand Dr. Bob,
It makes me angry and sad that these men claim to be authoritative in Greek and Hebrew but when challenged could not tell you the difference between verb and a noun.
Another question I would bring up in this blog would be why is it that legitimate Christians cannot see certain issues with their hermeneutic and exegesis, but having the same spirit as we do?
I am realizing how important it is to study the original languages, and to not be afraid to ask question, I personally do not see many grown men and women asking questions, everyone want to be perceived as knowing scripture like the back of their hand!
THIS IS A GREAT POST WHERE ARE ALL THE COMMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
This IS a great post. Although the post refutes the idea of reading back into Scripture the Renaissance view of human Reason, what I found extremely helpful was the following:
-The French Natural Philosophers had abstracted, idealized, romanticized, and then absolutized human reason into an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipresent, omnipotent, infallible, “Reason.” They took man’s limited and faulty ability to think about issues and then came to a conclusion and elevated it into the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. “Reason” was the measure of all things, including God. They had replaced “God” with “Reason.”-
Whenever Scripture is displaced and anything else is inserted in its place, God is being replaced by that thing, whatever it may be. It could be feelings, faith, experience, etc.
God has spoken in His Word. Thus Scripture alone is the final arbiter in matters of morals and doctrine. Not the pope, not your feelings, not your experiences, not what you believe, and thank God not man’s fallen ability to reason.
The devil has obviously been very effective in shifting mankind’s focus of mind and heart from “God is God” to “Reason is God”. Thank God for using Dr. Bob to refocus us to Him.
Dr. Bob,
I like how you look for the Greek/Hebrew words which are translated “reason” in English versions. What about the passages which do not use the word itself but might be said to contain the concept (or idea) of rationalism? what are they, if any, and how would you address them?
Is anyone looking into using Greek and Hebrew fonts instead of posting pictures of Greek and Hebrew words? They are available for free on the BibleWorks website:
http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html
Reading blog entries such as this and general reflection of what I have learned these last few years from Dr. Bob, make me so grateful to the Lord Jesus Christ!
The opposite of “Reason”, God and His Sovereignty have set me free! I wish the Natural theologians could taste of this freedom…and stop striving, struggling and wrestling against God…such high views of man. It amazes me and not in a good way!
Consider these Eastern Orthodox “thoughts”:
“Man is created in the image of God, but he is called to grow into the likeness of God by the use of his free will.”-Clark Carlton
“All men are made in God’s image; but to be in His likeness is granted only to those who through great love have brought their own freedom into subjection to God. For only when we do not belong to ourselves do we become like Him who through love has reconciled us to Himself. No one achieves this unless he persuades his soul not to be distracted by the false glitter of this life.”-St. Diadochos
“Man’s salvation, then, is founded upon his creation in the image of God.”-Clark Carlton
“The more we live out our humanity in the way in which God intended, the more like God we become.”-Clark Carlton
“The glory to which man is called is that he should grow more god-like by growing ever more human.”-Fr. Dimitru Staniloae
“The Logos became man, so that man might become Logos.”-St. Mark the ascetic…or is that Mark the um…heretic?
Is this what we get at the “bar of reason”??
Glenn, our problem is with getting the fonts to display on the blog. It shows up fine on our computers, but when we upload the posts to the editor, we lose the formatting and get symbols instead. If you know of a plug-in that we can use (we use WordPress) to retain the UTF-8 code, shoot over a link. Everything we’ve tried so far hasn’t worked!
>> They take an idealized and romantic modern concept of human “Reason,” that developed during the Renaissance, particularly during the French Revolution, and insert it back into biblical times and even attempt to insert it into biblical texts.
I’m not sure what the Renaissance concept of human Reason is, but that there existed, in biblical times, the concept of one’s ideas either conforming, or not, to reality, is a fact.
The Bible says that in god there is no darkness; Was this god’s choice, or is a fact which god is incapable of changing?
The point is that not only does the Bible convey the notion that ideas either do, or do not, conform to reality (the state of conformity being “reasonable”, the attempt to conform being “reason”, the body of principles which one must employ in order to convey “reasonable” ideas being “Reason”), but that god is subject to reality, himself – that is, that god does not define reality.
Agilius, you wrote: “The Bible says that in god [sic] there is no darkness; Was this god’s [sic] choice, or is a fact which god [sic] is incapable of changing?”
God cannot be God and non-God at the same time.
“god is subject to reality, himself – that is, that god does not define reality.”
Perhaps this true for the lower-case “g” god.
Agilius also wrote: the state of conformity being “reasonable”,
the attempt to conform being “reason”,
the body of principles which one must employ in order to convey “reasonable” ideas being “Reason”
This is a perfect example of reading the Renaissance concept of human Reason back into the Bible. Like Dr. Morey said, it’s a simple fallacy.
Agulius,
Let me take a guess at your next question.
Can God make a rock so big he can’t move it?
>> God cannot be God and non-God at the same time.
God doesn’t seem to have a problem with the notion of conforming to reality. It’s not idolatry to him.
In fact, god thought Reason was so keen, that he employed Wisdom – a circumspect application of Reason – in the creation of the universe.
>> Perhaps this true for the lower-case “g” god.
“God” is a common noun, so I use a lower-case “g”.
>> This is a perfect example of reading the Renaissance concept of human Reason back into the Bible.
If this is true, then the Renaissance definition is correct. If.
>> Can God make a rock so big he can’t move it?
God doesn’t use physical strength; the question uses a category error.
But I understand what the question is designed to do, and I think there’s a better way to do it.
But to the mocker who usually asks this question, I say that god is no less god for having the capacity to command the universe.
Natural theology is a like a poison that has seeped into the water supply and infected everything. One of the reasons I found Dr. Morey’s ministry was because I was thirsty for truth, truth that I wasn’t getting from my pastor or from my church (I later left that church). One of the problems I face in witnessing is that most people I talk to profess they are Christians and yet deny even basic essential doctrine. My latest conversation was with a man who says he was a Christian and a minister! He says the Bible is open to interpretation and believed that I was the one in error because my “version of Christianity” can’t have all the answers. Despite the blatant overexxageration of my criticisms regarding his faith, I remained committed to sola scriptura in my witnessing. However, I could not get him away from his view that there were many ways to interpret the Bible and that “human reason” played a role in determining the truth (along with nonsense about seeking the truth for yourself, blah, blah). I have often felt very sad about my conversations with Christians who view reason as more authoritative than scripture. And they speak of logic? How is it logical that everyone is right? Certainly it is more logical that one view is right and the others are wrong?
Isn’t “Can God make a rock so big he can’t move it” an old and childish question? I remember pondering such questions in the 5th grade. It really shows that the mocker asking the question hasn’t given serious thought to the character and nature of God. God can’t do a lot of things…such as contradict himself, sin, lie, etc. I think Dr. Morey actually answered a question like this once. Which reminds me…I was thinking of actually doing an index of all the CD topics, etc. for easy reference.
Agogley,
Just want to make sure that you understand Tad was being sarcastic in bringing up the “rock so big” question- it seemed to be the direction Agilius was moving in…hope you are not referring to Tad as the “mocker”…that would be very uncool!
>> it seemed to be the direction Agilius was moving in…hope you are not referring to Tad as the “mocker”…that would be very uncool!
And I certainly wasn’t calling Tad a mocker. I’ve gotten the “can god make a rock” question several times from unbelievers, and usually they are mockers.
Now, not everyone is a mocker who asks this, but since they usually are, in my experience, I felt justified in my generalization.
It should be said that this question uses a pretty clever category error, in that it tends to distract the believer from the structure of the argument. The structure is not sound, but we’re too busy trying to defend god’s honor to see it.
[Aside: This is not to say that everyone who asks this question is trying to trip up believers for fun; They may honestly believe that the question makes sense.]
“God doesn’t seem to have a problem with the notion of conforming to reality. It’s not idolatry to him.”
Idolatry was not implied. You referenced 1 Jn. 1:5 “The Bible says that in god [sic] there is no darkness; Was this god’s [sic] choice, or is a fact which god [sic] is incapable of changing?”
Here’s the text: “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”
My response to you was utilizing the logical principle of noncontradiction, thus my response was “God cannot be God and non-God at the same time.”
Makes sense?
>> My response to you was utilizing the logical principle of noncontradiction, thus my response was “God cannot be God and non-God at the same time.”
>>
>> Makes sense?
Yup. Sorry about that. I skipped a step there.
The assumption on my part was that since you believe that the notion of god necessarily conforming to reality would mean that god couldn’t be god, that you also believe that anyone who believes that god must conform to reality is making reality their god; thus the reference to idolatry.
May I ask, if this was not your line of reasoning, then what was?
The text states that “God is light.” The text also states “that in Him there is no darkness at all.” So when you asked the following question,
“Was this god’s [sic] choice, or is a fact which god [sic] is incapable of changing?”
I answered that God [who is light] cannot be God and non-God [with darkness] at the same time. This is also why God cannot lie. He can’t lie because He is Truth, not because of a choice or a question of his ability. If He lied, He wouldn’t be God!
Just found this post. I went to a Calvary Chapel for years. I grew tremendously as a Christian. I don’t know whether or not my pastor knows Greek and Hebrew. I do know he graduated from a reputable seminary. You sure do seem to paint Calvary Chapels with a very broad brush when you make statements like that.
Also, it almost seems as if your argument for knowledge of original languages borders on the Islamic claim that the Qu’ran can only be read properly in the original language.
I would be interested to know which Bible translation you would recommend for us who do not have the privilege of a learning the original languages (and how that translation renders the word identified as “reason” in the apparently erroneous trnaslations – and why did the scholars on the translation committee get it so wrong if it is an obvious mistake?)
reformedmama,
No, I wasn’t referring to anybody specifically (espceially not Tad), but in general to the mocker who is usually the one who asks such a question as was mentioned in a post subsequent to mine. I find that people who are truly seeking truth are more often worried about more weighty issues (like salvation).
Justin,
Dr. Morey recommends the NASB. My church also uses the NASB.
Justin, perhaps I can shed some light on the translation issue. I’m an amateur so bare with me.
The problem is that translation is very complex. There are nuances, cultural influences, and other factors that enter into a translation. A couple years ago, I went to Russia. My coworkers and I first asked to have our words translated word for word. She said she could do it, but the meaning of what we were actually trying to say might be lost. Often she would translate thought for thought. In some other cases, what we said would not translate at all or she would have to translate as best she could based on her understanding of both American culture and Russian culture. In a couple instances we had two translators. Sometimes they would disagree on the exact translation. The disagreement was that one translation was inaccurate or wrong but over who had the translation that best convey the meaning.
The different Bible translations are not necessarily inaccurate, but designed to do different things. The NASB is the closest word for word translation. The NIV is a thought for thought translation. So just picture somebody trying to make a doctrinal stand on a couple words in a couple of verses in a thought for thought translation. Such a stand would be difficult because a thought for thought translation was not intended to be picked apart word by word.
In addition, English is a very difficult language and has changed a bit since the KJV. Many words such as “love” and “reason” mean many things in English. Take for instance I love my wife and I love my daughter and I love Oreo cookines. All the statements are accurate are they not? But even in the same context they have slightly different meanings. I could rephrase and say I love my wife, am devoted to my daughter, and have a hankering for Oreos. Is either translation incorrect? Nah. But you can see how creating a doctrinal position on either translation might prove to be problematic without careful analysis of the original comment.
I hope that’s helpful (and accurate).
Agogley, it is helpful, thanks. The original languages are critically important, especially if someone did the theological equivalent of making you out as having a hankering for your wife but loving Oreos!
Thanks, agogley. I do to some extent understand the major differences in dynamic equivalence and word-for-word translation. I agree with you that for study purposes word-for-word would probably be the best choice. (Although word-for-word can be a nightmare when trying to put thoughts together in a cohesive manner. I’m a French teacher and that doesn’t even work with French to English very well.)
I just looked up Isaiah 1:18 and Acts 17:2 in my NASB and found that both instances translated the Hebrew and Greek with the word “reason” (or “reasoned” in the case of Acts). I’m wondering why the translation committee – hopefully made up of a panel of experts in the original languages- would make such an error if it really is closer to “”Come on now! And let us sit down and discuss your sins.”
Some things I forgot to add: First,that was a wonderfully clear explanation of the differences in translation philosophies. I’ll probably try to note the way you worded it so that I can explain it better in the future.
Second, my Calvary Chapel pastor used NASB.
Thanks Justin.
I believe the overwhelming objection to “Calvary Chapel” are some of the views espoused by it’s founder, Chuck Smith. I believe Smith has collaborated with Warren in the past. I know that each Calvary Chapel Church can be a bit different (I attended at least two different ones during my youth) but the concern is for the group of Calvary Chapels collectively. The Purpose Driven Life is very seductive, IMHO, and I think a lot of well meaning Christians and Pastors have fallen under its influence. I’m not applying this to your Pastor and your specific Church, but in general to what I know about Calvary Chapels nationwide. I would recommend to you that you discuss any issues you have with your Pastor to see if there are any Scriptural differences that should concern you.
On the note of reason:
I looked it up on Thesaurus.com and found the following:
1.) verb 1
Definition: analyze
Synonyms: adduce, cerebrate, cogitate, conclude, contemplate, decide, deduce, deduct, deliberate, draw conclusion, draw from, examine, figure out, gather, generalize, infer, make out, philosophize, ratiocinate, rationalize, reflect, resolve, solve, speculate, study, suppose, syllogize, think, think through, thresh out, work out
2.) reason
Part of Speech: verb 2
Definition: argue
Synonyms: bring around, contend, debate, demonstrate, discourse, discuss, dispute, dissuade, establish, expostulate, justify, move, persuade, point out, prevail upon, prove, remonstrate, talk into, trace, urge, win over
Now looking at the verses in context, does it appear that either verses are suggesting that we sit down together, pool our ignorance, and apply human reason to find salvation? I’m no trained theologian and haven’t studied the original text, but if you allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, I don’t see how the text supports that conclusion.
agogley,
I’m not following you – none of the definitions you quoted said “pool our ignorance.” Instead, most of them meant something very close to “debate” or “contemplate.”
For example, when Paul spoke about the “unknown god” to reveal to the people the one true God, was he not reasoning with them?
Agogley,
I could not be any clearer that the verb “reasoning” is not the same as the Western concept of the noun “Reason.”
Some people, some of the time, have a finite and fallible ability to move sometimes from point A to point B.
I have taught high school and the idea that all men all of the time can use “reason” to find truth is romantic language that does not correspond to reality.
Our limited ability to follow a chain of arguments to the truth was abstracted into an infinite and infallible romantic ideal. Once you have a child, you will see your child add 2+2 and end up with 5!
What is “Reason” but an idealize abstract concept?
I have an entire lecture series on biblical anthropology that reveals the difference between the biblical view of man and the humanistic ideas. It is part of my refutation of Natural theology.
As to translations of Isa. and elsewhere, I have yet to find a translation with “Reason” as a noun. The Hebrew and Greek terms are clear in their meaning.
Dr. Morey:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I want to make clear that I am not at all under any circumstance disputing your thesis in this area, but in fact, am in complete agreement (actually how could I be anything else…I don’t have any knowledge of Greek or Hebrew to dispute it!) And BTW, I have nearly every one of your CD series (saving money to afford the rest).
The question under discussion now is why the translators of certain versions translated the text “reason” instead of how you have translated it. In other words, WHY ARE THE VERSIONS MISTRANSLATED? I was offering the point that “reason” actually means a variety of things in English other than the more popular current usage and therefore, the translators may not have necessarily erred but instead we (current modern readers) have applied the wrong meaning of “reason.” When looking up reason in the dictionary I found “discuss” as one of the definitions and that is the verb you use in your English translation of the text.
Justin:
Here is the NASB of ISA 1:18 “Come now, and (AS)let us reason together,”Says the LORD, “(AT)Though your sins are as scarlet,They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.”
And here is Dr. Morey’s interpretation, “Come on now! And let us sit down and discuss your sins,” says YHWH. “Although your sins are scarlet in color; They can be as white as snow. Although they are as red as crimson, They will be white like wool.”
Can we agree that the only meaningful change is from “let us reason together” to “let us sit down and discuss your sins?”
If I understand Dr. Morey’s blog correctly, the text shows “reason” to be a verb in Greek and Hebrew. In fact, the English translations use reason as a verb in the text as well. But those who argue that man can use “reason” are using the definition of “reason” as a noun not as a verb. And I would argue that they are using a very narrow, specific definition that has become the popular concept and use of the word. However, the dictionary definitions of reason as both a verb and a noun are vast. Is it possible that the translators then were using one of the alternative uses of reason rather than the current “romantic” language (that Dr. Morey refered to in his last post?). I don’t know when the whole “reason” movement started but it seems to me that it was within the last twenty years or so. The Bible translations go back much farther I believe. Is it possible that the translators did not mistranslate the text but that our current definition of reason has changed? If if has, is it now necessary to offer a clearer translation for modern use?
If you use the dictionary definition and swap “let us reason together” to “let us discuss together.” then Dr. Morey’s translation looks very, very close. The subsequent text would make it grammatically clear that the discussion is about sin, right?
In the whole, I’m not convinced that the NIV and NASB were mistranslated so much as that we are trying to squeeze meaning out of every translated word. As I pointed out in my translation problem post, determining the meaning of very word in translated text would require careful examination of the author’s original writings and probably a study of the culture, author’s intent, and other factors. I personally would hate to have my writings translated and then have people search every translated word for meaning. I could only imagine the misconception and errors, despite the accuracy of the translation.
Another example recently came to me and I think it applies. Dr. Morey has said in past sermons/teachings that he thinks that the word “carpenter” (referring to Joseph) was mistranslated and should have been more closely “construction worker” because people have some modern notion of carpenters sitting around the workshop carving intricate patterns in wood. I believe that Dr. Morey is in fact, correct…but not because Bible translators misapplied the word “carpenter.” I’d offer that carpenter isn’t a mistranslation but an error by the reader. I’ve known many carpenters and their job is more like the job Dr. Morey describes as that of a construction worker. A carpenter is a tough, tough job that involves being at worksites of buildings, not the pansy job most people think of. The problem isn’t the translation of “carpenter” but our current modern thinking about the word (and our ignorance about the true nature of the job.) But because people have this erroneous view and thoughts about “carpenter”, I would agree that a modern definition is “construction worker.”
Does that make any sense in relationship to my last post?
NASB?
I just got all my kids the ESV bible.
Is there anything wrong with this translation?
I hope not. But I’d like opinions from here.
Josh, first of all, good to hear from you again! I use the ESV as my carry around English translation. It is pretty well marked-up with notes from Dr. bob’s sermons and lectures, as should all English translations. Nothing is “wrong” with the ESV, but like with all English translations, is not definitive. I also love the esv online, as you can probably tell from my blogs. I have the thinline imitation calf-skin edition with the Eastern Orthodox-looking cross stamped on the cover! I gave my wife and 13 year-old daughter the ESV and the KNIV to my 9 year-old daughter. You said you got ALL your kids the ESV; where did you find a bookstore with such a large inventory?
Agogley,
Let this be a good lesson to you about assuming something to be true without checking things out first. My translation of Isa. 1:18 was based on the Hebrew text. Since I translated most of the Psalms for the ISV, my knowledge of Hebrew and Greek cannot be doubted. But for your sake, I checked out English transaltions and found that other scholars translated it the way I did!
HCSB: “Come, let us discuss this,” says the Lord.
New RSV: “Come now, let us argue it out,” says the Lord:
NJB: “Come, let us talk this over,” says Yahweh.
NLT: “Come now, let us argue this out,” says the LORD.
This is what I found in about five minutes of looking. There are problably more examples if I wanted to take the time.
Here is your assignment:
Check as many translations as possible and then check commentaries such as E. J. Young’s classic work. Then report back to me.
I love Young’s three-colume commentary on Isaiah. I bought the three volumes for $14.99 a couple of years ago from CBD.
Dr. Morey:
There must be some misunderstanding. I am totally and completely befuddled by your post.
The reason I am confused is because I said that I agree with your translation and don’t doubt it. Furthermore, I said that I was not in any position to doubt your work since you are the expert and not me. Your response to me after I said that was that your knowledge of Greek and Hebrew cannot be doubted? Isn’t that just what I said?
The only issue I was discussing was why the NASB and NIV was translated differently, using reason rather than your translation. Was it some error on their part or has societies definition of “reason” changed throughout the years. There must be some reason they translators chose that word. I don’t dispute your translation. Let me be clear again: I agree with your translation. I never doubted it.
The question that I was discussing was whether the NIV and NASB actually mistranslated the verb or whether our understanding of the meaning of the verb “reason” has changed since the date of those translations. I understand that people today use the definition of the noun “reason” whenever they see the word “reason” but that doesn’t change the fact that one of the dictionary definitions of “reason” is to discuss or to argue. Since one of the English dictionary definitions of the English verb “reason” is the same as the translation you provide directly from the Hebrew text, is it possible that the translators, when they used the verb “reason”, actually meant the same thing you said?
BTW, I looked at the commentaries (Although I don’t own Young’s commentary on Isaiah) and used my trusty E-Sword. I see that the definition you provide is within the definitions provided by various others. So I guess I was ok in assuming you were right (as I said three or four times already…). I usually assume you are right, but I must confess that this is the first time I’ve been chastised by you for doing so.
Does anybody else understand my post or am I being totally obtuse?
I understand you. I am trying to get you to do some research. It appeared to me that you were not aware that other translators took the approach I did. I don’t have the time to do the research on versioins and commentators but if you could do it, it would help me.
Dr. Morey,
We both obviously need more sleep!! Look at the time on our posts!! I confess that I didn’t sleep at all because I was worried all night that you had misread my post. Obviously my veneration for you is great!
I will look at every version I can get a hold of and post my results here tonight. I doubt I can get E.J Young’s commentary by then so somebody else may have to help with that one.
Dr. Morey:
I did the most of the requested work. I still haven’t gotten my hands on E.J. Young’s commentary and I don’t think I will before the end of the week.
However, I did review 39 different versions of the Bible, four different greek/hebrew dictionaries, and about seven commentaries! Here is what I found.
The following versions that use the word “reason”:
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord…
(ASV) Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah…
(Darby) Come now, let us reason together, saith Jehovah…
(ESV)”Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD…
(Geneva) Come nowe, and let vs reason together, sayth the Lord…
(JPS)Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…
(KJVR)Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…
(KJ21)”Come now, and let us reason together,” saith the LORD.
(LITV)Come now and let us reason together, says Jehovah…
(MKJV)Come now, and let us reason together, says Jehovah…
(NAS77)”Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD…
(NASB)”Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD…
(NIV)”Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD.
(NIVUK)Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD.
(NKJV) “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD…
(RV) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…
(RSV) “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD…
(TNIV) “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD.
(Webster) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
(WEB) “Come now, and let us reason together,” says Yahweh:
(YLT) Come, I pray you, and we reason, saith Jehovah,
The following versions use another word:
(BBE) Come now, and let us have an argument together, says the Lord…
(CEV) I, the LORD, invite you to come and talk it over.
(CJB) “Come now,” says Adonai, “let’s talk this over together…
(DRB) And then come, and accuse me, saith the Lord…
(HCSB) “Come, let us discuss this,” says the LORD.
(MSG)”Come. Sit down. Let’s argue this out.”
(NCV)The Lord says, “Come, let us talk about these things.
(NJB) “Come, let us talk this over,” says Yahweh.
(NIrV)”Come. Let us talk some more about this matter,” says the LORD.
(NLT)“Come now, let’s settle this,”says the Lord.
(NRSV) Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord…
Here is the definitions I found:
BDB:
ya?kach
1) to prove, decide, judge, rebuke, reprove, correct, be right
1a) (Hiphil)
1a1) to decide, judge
1a2) to adjudge, appoint
1a3) to show to be right, prove
1a4) to convince, convict
1a5) to reprove, chide
1a6) to correct, rebuke
1b) (Hophal) to be chastened
1c) (Niphal) to reason, reason together
1d) (Hithpael) to argue
Part of Speech: verb
NASEC:
yakach (406d); a prim. root; to decide, adjudge, prove: – adjudicates (1), appointed (2), argue (3), argument prove (1), chastened (1), cleared (1), complained (1), correct (2), decide (3), dispute (1), make a decision (1), offer reproof (1), plead (1), prove (1), reason (2), rebuke (6), rebukes (2), refuted (1), render decisions (2), rendered judgment (1), reprove (9), reproved (2), reprover (1), reproves (7), surely reprove (2), umpire (1).
Strong’s:
ya?kach
yaw-kakh’
A primitive root; to be right (that is, correct); reciprocally to argue; causatively to decide, justify or convict: – appoint, argue, chasten, convince, correct (-ion), daysman, dispute, judge, maintain, plead, reason (together), rebuke, reprove (-r), surely, in any wise.
Finally I looked at some commentaries. Most of the ones I reviewed did not address the definition or meaning of the word “reason” but provided an overview of either the entire chapter or a topical analysis of the section. But I did find the following notes:
Matthew Henry indicates that it means come now, and let us talk the matter over.
Barnes Commentary states that the verb used is “to argue or discuss” and refers to the kind of argumentation used in court used by the parties to state their cause.
Gill’s commentary offers a more lengthy explanation.
Keil and Delitzch’s commentary states that God is is challenging to a formal trial very similar to Barne’s commentary.
Whew!!! That took a lot of work.
I hate that you can’t edit your work. FYI, I listed both the version that listed reason and did not use reason as the translation. You have to look about half-way down my post to see the seperation.
I’ll shoot some Young out later tonight as well! Agogley, perhaps you can compile your work and email it to me. I can post it in the BT Exclusives section. email to: stephen (at) biblicalthought.com (need to type it in correctly, abc@abc.com)
I’ll put it into a Word document and send it to you tomorrow. I also made a spreadsheet which lists the Bible translations with their corresponding acronyms.
Awesome, hard work pays off; not in a soteriological sense though
I typed up Young’s commentary on Isa. 1:18a, here it is…
18. Come now – The imperative is used, for it is God who speaks. The verb generally serves to introduce a proposition which is intended to benefit the ones addressed, and sometimes for the benefit of both parties, for it may also be used of equals. (For other examples, cf. Gen. 19:32; Judg. 19:11 and 1 Sam. 9:10.) This general usage of the verb supports the view that the proposal about to be made is one that is of benefit to those addressed. This is a command which cannot be evaded; it must be obeyed. God alone can lay down the conditions which must be followed. It is not a meeting of equals, but of God with His sinful people. The command, however, is softened by the precatory particle na’, “now,” and so takes the form of a gracious and loving invitation, and reveals the tender manner in which God always invites the sinner (cf. Matt. 11:28).
…and let us reason together – The verb contains the idea of reciprocity. At the same time, it is cohortative, and so constitutes an invitation to discuss together the accusation which the LORD has made against Israel. In the light of the preceding imperative, this amounts to a command to appear in a discussion in which it will be shown that Israel is precisely that sinful nation which God has accused her of being, and also that He is a God willing to forgive. “This verse contains an invitation to discuss the question whether God was willing or unwilling to show mercy, implying that reason as well as justice was on His side, and asserting His power and His willingness to pardon the most aggravated sins” (Alexander). Inasmuch as God is thus willing to reason with the nation, the blame for its destruction falls back on itself.
Reason is not here conceived as a certain tertium quid to which both God and the nation must submit in order that God’s claim may be seen to be reasonable. “To reason together” is to submit absolutely to the dictates which God Himself lays down. That which is reasonable is reasonable only because God Himself has declared it to be so. Reason is derived from God; it is not a standard independent of Him to which He like man must submit, and man can be reasonable only when he thinks and acts in accord with the revealed will of God. Man must think God’s thoughts after Him. In the present instance, therefore, to be reasonable is to obey the commands which God has given and to believe the revealed fact that, although one’s sins were heinous, they would nevertheless become white as snow. While the terminology employed is probably legal, nevertheless it is not a legal trial which is here described. It is rather a command to be judged in the light of God’s law (i.e. to reason together) and to repent. As Drechsler points out, throughout the chapter God has been reasoning with the nation. The first step in a genuine repentance would be to realize that one’s actions have not been in accord with reason (God’s commands). All sin, whether thought, word, or deed, is unreasonable.
The Book of Isaiah – A Commentary by Edward J. Young, Vol. 1, pgs. 75, 76
Note: “tertium quid” is Latin for “third thing.” (not included in Young)
>> I checked out English transaltions and found that other scholars translated it the way I did!
>>
>> HCSB: “Come, let us discuss this,” says the Lord.
Six of one, and half a dozen of the other.
Discussion involves reasoning, and, since “reason”, the noun, as used today, refers to a set (of any count) of ideas which conform to reality, this is a moot point.
We noun [verb] sets of verbs all the time. A “procedure” is a set of actions. The set [of actions] is a noun.
So it is with “reason” the noun.
>> Reason is not here conceived as a certain tertium quid to which both God and the nation must submit in order that God’s claim may be seen to be reasonable.
Depending on how you’re using the term, this is exactly how the author uses the word “reason”.
If you’re employing something, it is separate from you.
Now, I can’t tell by the snippet what the author’s view is, but I’d be willing to bet that the author understood “reason” to be not only separate, as the use implies, but also something to which god must necessarily conform.
The author isn’t the issue, but it seemed to be a useful context for my purpose.
>> “To reason together” is to submit absolutely to the dictates which God Himself lays down.
I’m sure you mean to say that the point of god inviting/commanding Israel to discuss her sins is to elicit conformity to god on Israel’s part.
But that “reason”, the noun (think “set of verbs”), is the standard by which god is making his appeal, is obvious; In fact, one might say it’s obvious by definition, since, again, discussion involves reason.
>> That which is reasonable is reasonable only because God Himself has declared it to be so. Reason is derived from God; it is not a standard independent of Him to which He like man must submit, and man can be reasonable only when he thinks and acts in accord with the revealed will of God.
On one level of nuance, I’ll definitely agree that man can be reasonable only when he submits to god – but the assumption on my part would be that the intended goal is conformity to god’s will.
[Aside: To be sure, for his own sake, every man should have this goal.]
On a different level of nuance – in the abstract sense – man can be reasonable without conforming to god’s will, if the intent is to disobey god.
The intentional achievement of our goals is accomplished by applying reason.
But as to whether reason is derived from god, here is a simple test:
Can god create a universe in which he does not exist?
Now, the moment you say god can’t do something, you make that restriction out to be something to which god must conform.
Like was said before by another poster, there are lots of things god cannot do, such as lie and sin; I’m saying the exact same thing, but in a different way.
This is all that is meant by “reason” the noun, as it is used today; So, try not to make such a big deal out of it.
Agogley,
Good research. It reveals how Natural Theologians twist Scripture. The humanistic concept of “Reason” cannot be found in Isaiah or anywhere else in the Bible.
Sorry about your late night. I did not mean you to stay up all night!
Steve, You got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dr. Morey,
It’s ok. I don’t think staying up all night studying Scripture is all bad!
{ 1 trackback }