-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
Hope you don't mind me answering this, lol.
If you mean the actual texts, no.
We can see in the fact that New Testament Writers quote the Septuagint that translations are not the evil some would have us to believe.
Secondly, a read of the Original Preface of the KJV would show that the thought that men should not have a translation which is understandable would be contrary to the very reason why the KJV came to be in the first place (and while motives can be questioned the Preface itself is a very clear statement). It is interesting that the Preface speaks about those who are "popish," lol, which of course is a reference to the Catholic Church and her stranglehold on the Word of God. That does not mean we have to call into question the sincerity of men like Jerome, and we might want to actually take a look at men like Desiderius Erasmus and the role he played in making the KJV a possibility before we either condemn or praise anyone. I think Erasmus and I would have gotten along famously, because I see in him a facetious streak I can relate to, lol.
What I will say about the KJV is that it is superior in many places to some of the more modern translations. One example can be seen in their insertion of the word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians. I think they understood the issue at hand, in that Paul was distinguishing between the Gift of Languages and what was in fact an unknown language, meaning...it was not a language at all.
So we give honor where honor is due, and keep in mind that if we want to advance from study in a translation to actually looking at the original languages, we are going to be leaving all translations behind. J. Vernon McGee, in his commentaries, actually offers up his own translation of certain texts. And in a sense, when we consider exposition contrasted with exegesis, no-one is really maintaining a strict adherence to any translation.
And that is the point of translations to begin with. And it ties directly to the premise of this thread, in that the point is to convey the intent of the Word of God to men. If we read ancient Greek to someone we would not be doing that unless they understood that language. So we would be failing to accomplish the very reason the Word of God was given in the first place.
God means for His Word to be conveyed, and He equips men to do that. I am amused by the KJVonlyist that dares mention the meaning of a word in Greek. They deny the most extreme position of the KJVonlyist, which is that the KJV replaces the textual evidence we have available to us. This would change, for example, the intent of 2 Thessalonians 2 in regards to the Restrainer. Today "letteth" or "lets" does not convey the same meaning as the original language does. The word "perfection" in Hebrews would demand a different conclusion. And while I think that the KJV in it's majority will bring people to the same conclusions as other translations, in regards to core doctrinal issues, we still have a responsibility to examine the original language to determine if the translation is good or poor. I see it as error to use the word "itself" in regards to the Holy Ghost, for example. But, when it comes to translations, the KJV is going to be the one I quote from, unless I am dealing with someone that might be confused by a particular passage.
And really have to go, so hope all have a great day.
God bless.
If you mean the actual texts, no.
We can see in the fact that New Testament Writers quote the Septuagint that translations are not the evil some would have us to believe.
Secondly, a read of the Original Preface of the KJV would show that the thought that men should not have a translation which is understandable would be contrary to the very reason why the KJV came to be in the first place (and while motives can be questioned the Preface itself is a very clear statement). It is interesting that the Preface speaks about those who are "popish," lol, which of course is a reference to the Catholic Church and her stranglehold on the Word of God. That does not mean we have to call into question the sincerity of men like Jerome, and we might want to actually take a look at men like Desiderius Erasmus and the role he played in making the KJV a possibility before we either condemn or praise anyone. I think Erasmus and I would have gotten along famously, because I see in him a facetious streak I can relate to, lol.
What I will say about the KJV is that it is superior in many places to some of the more modern translations. One example can be seen in their insertion of the word "unknown" in 1 Corinthians. I think they understood the issue at hand, in that Paul was distinguishing between the Gift of Languages and what was in fact an unknown language, meaning...it was not a language at all.
So we give honor where honor is due, and keep in mind that if we want to advance from study in a translation to actually looking at the original languages, we are going to be leaving all translations behind. J. Vernon McGee, in his commentaries, actually offers up his own translation of certain texts. And in a sense, when we consider exposition contrasted with exegesis, no-one is really maintaining a strict adherence to any translation.
And that is the point of translations to begin with. And it ties directly to the premise of this thread, in that the point is to convey the intent of the Word of God to men. If we read ancient Greek to someone we would not be doing that unless they understood that language. So we would be failing to accomplish the very reason the Word of God was given in the first place.
God means for His Word to be conveyed, and He equips men to do that. I am amused by the KJVonlyist that dares mention the meaning of a word in Greek. They deny the most extreme position of the KJVonlyist, which is that the KJV replaces the textual evidence we have available to us. This would change, for example, the intent of 2 Thessalonians 2 in regards to the Restrainer. Today "letteth" or "lets" does not convey the same meaning as the original language does. The word "perfection" in Hebrews would demand a different conclusion. And while I think that the KJV in it's majority will bring people to the same conclusions as other translations, in regards to core doctrinal issues, we still have a responsibility to examine the original language to determine if the translation is good or poor. I see it as error to use the word "itself" in regards to the Holy Ghost, for example. But, when it comes to translations, the KJV is going to be the one I quote from, unless I am dealing with someone that might be confused by a particular passage.
And really have to go, so hope all have a great day.
God bless.
P
well, are you looking for, or wanting to talk about, a formula for when God saves or gives the spirit?
my impression from the scriptures is that God doesn't always behave in ways that we can predict.
for example, are there loopholes that God knows about but you or I don't?
I believe you objected, and I then responded to those objections... I had assumed this thread was intended to continue that discussion... yes? no?
Even when God does something that is, from our perspective, unpredictable, we can usually place that into the overview of Scripture. One example might be Enoch and Elijah. It is thought that these two were carried into Heaven, which seems to conflict with what we see taught elsewhere in Scripture. Christ speaks of two men who die, and they are seen, not in Heaven, but The Bosom of Abraham. The Rich Man is told his brethren have Moses and the Prophets to hear (rather than Christ or the Spirit given at Pentecost), so we can place this teaching in the Age of Law.
Did God break with what seems to be a general standard for Pre-Pentecost Saints (the Just), or is the error in thinking Enoch and Elijah's destinations were Heaven? Enoch was taken by God that he should not "see" death. Is it not reasonable to consider that the "seeing" here is experiential, meaning Enoch did not have to suffer death, but was translated from the physical to the spiritual? Is it unreasonable to think that the "heaven" Elijah was carried away into was the same heaven God created in Creation, rather than Heaven?
Which perspective fits better?
How about female leadership? Deborah was a Judge, and this is an instance where female leadership in the Church (Body) is said to be supported. Can we say that it was God that Appointed her? Would it matter in light of the example of Levitical Service, or New Testament instruction concerning leadership?
I would suggest these are not gray areas where one view is okay, and the other view is okay, and we just have to decide which view best suits us.
The thread's premise seeks to try to examine these issues and see if there is a definitive intent of what has been revealed, and that which has not been revealed and can be place firmly in a category of speculation, well, becomes a secondary issue the Lord saw fit not to address.
I would say yes, it is to continue that discussion, but again it is more centered on what is revealed in Scripture, and perception about issues which are thought not to be revealed. In a recent thread one member made the dogmatic statement "God did not tell Adam and Eve to sacrifice a lamb to pay for their sins," and while we know no animal sacrifice for sins "paid" anything (but provided temporary covering only), and that we do not have a record of God specifically giving instruction in regards to remission through the shedding of blood (death), we can based on New Testament revelation place the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and Job in the larger context of the Bible and conclude that we see the same thing going on in those sacrifices as we see when God gives instruction in specificity in the Law.
We see, for example, Pre-Law offering for sin referred to here:
Exodus 10:24-26
King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said, Go ye, serve the Lord; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed: let your little ones also go with you.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve the Lord our God; and we know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come thither.
That thread deals with a "gray area" perceived by some which is whether Christians are to "keep the Sabbath," which is not a gray area at all, as we have specific and detailed teaching in regards to both the Law as well as holy days. Both conclusions, in my view, detract from the Larger Context of Scripture, and reveal a limited view of what Scripture teaches.
So for me, this thread brings with it an opportunity to look at the arguments of an opposing view, and every time I, or we engage in examining opposing views...we should always learn something new. This is one of the best ways for us to learn, in addressing perceived error on the part of others. Sometimes we find them in error, sometimes we find ourselves in error, or, we learn something else about Scripture which we had not previously examined in the discussion (in view).
So feel free to present any loop-hole or gray area, you are correct this is the basic premise, though again I point out we are dealing with what has been revealed, and speculation into what has not been revealed takes us away from the premise.
We can know all that God has revealed to us in Scripture, but we shouldn't think Scripture reveals all there is to know about God, but it does in fact indicate this isn't the case. We see through a glass darkly, but we shouldn't equate that to a view that we cannot understand what has been revealed. That is the primary objection I present in the OP.
God bless.
P
One can assert that the thing is not known.
So I don't get confused, I'm going to wait to hear from you before responding more... even if there's something I'm just "itching" to respond to...
God bless you, too!
That is the beauty of Doctrinal Discussion.
So please, post whatever you like.
God bless.
P
I would agree, however, the basic premise would be whether or not Scripture was given in such a way as to communicate what God intended to communicate, or whether He gave us Scripture with built in "gray areas" He never intended us to understand.
It is unlikely that the short life span we have is enough time to absorb and understand all issues that could be brought to the proverbial table, but, in view is whether the revelation given was intended to be understood. IT is just my view that it makes little sense for God to reveal something only to conceal it. And while we may not, as individuals, come to understand everything, lol, that is the beauty of the Body itself: so many members which study from different approaches. One member of the Body may specialize in a certain area, another in a different area, and so on. If we could get the collective understanding of the Body together and clarify certain issues which are thought to be gray areas, could we not bring better unity to the Body?
Thanks for the participation.
God bless.
It is unlikely that the short life span we have is enough time to absorb and understand all issues that could be brought to the proverbial table, but, in view is whether the revelation given was intended to be understood. IT is just my view that it makes little sense for God to reveal something only to conceal it. And while we may not, as individuals, come to understand everything, lol, that is the beauty of the Body itself: so many members which study from different approaches. One member of the Body may specialize in a certain area, another in a different area, and so on. If we could get the collective understanding of the Body together and clarify certain issues which are thought to be gray areas, could we not bring better unity to the Body?
Thanks for the participation.
God bless.
I did a study once on seeking God and seeking wisdom. It was fascinating. I believe that the Bible is difficult to understand because God wants to see who will seek and who won't. Jesus spoke in parables so that the wicked would hear but not understand, but when His disciples asked later to explain He obliged them. There are many apparent contradictions in the Bible. The interesting thing is that when you really research them there's usually a logical explanation. For those who don't believe they're just stumbling blocks. Jesus told the Pharisees that if they destroyed "this temple" He would raise it up in three days. I don't think His disciples realized what He meant until the Resurrection, but they still believed in Him. Those who didn't believe in Him just dismissed what He was as an absurdity. It's all a part of God's unsearchable wisdom. I believe we'll spend all of eternity learning about it.
R
You don't have to think you are correct in that they did not know about the resurrection, just dig a little deeper during your study and the Lord will give you the answer though it may take some time to get your answer.
The disciples DID NOT know about the death burial and resurrection of the Lord. Matthew 16:13-16, when the Lord Jesus asked the disciples who do men say that I the Son of man am, they responded John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias etc. Then he asked them whom say ye that I am? Peter answered Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. He did not mention anything about the death burial and resurrection. Also in John 11:23-27 Martha claimed I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, which should come into the world. She also knew nothing of His death, burial, and resurrection or she would have proclaimed it.
Luke 18:31-34 there is no disputing anymore, when the Lord Jesus took the 12 and said to them Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. Then he went into what will happen, then Luke 18:34 AND THEY UNDERSTOOD NONE OF THESE THINGS: and this saying was HID from them!
The gospel (1Corinthians 15:1-4) is what we are to believe today. The 12 along with Israel before where to believe who Jesus was the Son of the everlasting Father. We are to believe in his Death, Burial, and Resurrection. This was revealed to Paul after the ascension which was kept secret since the world began (Romans 16:25)
The disciples DID NOT know about the death burial and resurrection of the Lord. Matthew 16:13-16, when the Lord Jesus asked the disciples who do men say that I the Son of man am, they responded John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias etc. Then he asked them whom say ye that I am? Peter answered Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. He did not mention anything about the death burial and resurrection. Also in John 11:23-27 Martha claimed I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, which should come into the world. She also knew nothing of His death, burial, and resurrection or she would have proclaimed it.
Luke 18:31-34 there is no disputing anymore, when the Lord Jesus took the 12 and said to them Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. Then he went into what will happen, then Luke 18:34 AND THEY UNDERSTOOD NONE OF THESE THINGS: and this saying was HID from them!
The gospel (1Corinthians 15:1-4) is what we are to believe today. The 12 along with Israel before where to believe who Jesus was the Son of the everlasting Father. We are to believe in his Death, Burial, and Resurrection. This was revealed to Paul after the ascension which was kept secret since the world began (Romans 16:25)
Last edited by a moderator:
if it's not in line with what you wanted the thread to be about, that's perfectly ok... so... did you actually want to discuss it?
ok, now I'm confused... I'm hearing 'the Ten post doesn't relate to the OP' and 'the thread is intended to talk about the Ten post'
I don't get the 'but' and 'isn't' in the last phrase... how about breaking it down into three simple sentences?
ok, now I'm confused... I'm hearing 'the Ten post doesn't relate to the OP' and 'the thread is intended to talk about the Ten post'
I don't get the 'but' and 'isn't' in the last phrase... how about breaking it down into three simple sentences?