Then that means, one of us is holding to a false interpretation. We have opposing views, while reading the same Bible.
I'm not sure if we will agree on anything if you're not willing to put down that weapon, called (denominational lens or prism). If you only allowed the Bible interpret the Bible, then we would agree.
You can make any one verse of the Bible say whatever you want, but getting ten verses to do that is significantly harder and so Peter tells us no verse is of its own interpretation. God knew that the enemy would attempt to corrupt the word, dilute the word, and twist the word. He designed the Bible as a communication device that cannot be corrupted because it is "here a little and there a little". Corrupting one word won't work because it will become clear it does not fit with the rest of the message.The problem is not with any particular version of the Bible, it's with one's interpretation of what Gods Word is saying in the Bible.
The things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing. There are so many opposing views and different ways individuals and denominations understand and apply bible doctrines.
God has not given the gift of discernment to everyone, that's why His Word can't be understood by those who have not received His gift. They will go to the grave, never knowing the truth or understanding the gospel.
Ask yourself, why so many interpretations? KJV was the first, it was because many could not read the Bible in the other languages. Then we have Young's literal translation, in this one he chose one unique english word for each Hebrew or Greek word. It is a strange translation, but it really helps us see that the underlying words in verses that are familiar to us in English may not mean what we thought they did. The Amplified version addresses the same issue, only this time it puts all the various shades of meaning in. This is difficult to read, but if you are studying individual verses it is quite useful. The 1901 American Standard was an update on KJV because the language of English had changed enough to warrant it. Likewise the Greek and Hebrew interlinears do the same thing once we had word studies and lexicons of all these words.Then that means, one of us is holding to a false interpretation. We have opposing views, while reading the same Bible.
I'm not sure if we will agree on anything if you're not willing to put down that weapon, called (denominational lens or prism). If you only allowed the Bible interpret the Bible, then we would agree.
I'm not sure if we will agree on anything if you're not willing to put down that weapon, called (denominational lens or prism). If you only allowed the Bible interpret the Bible, then we would agree.
I personally don't agree with that pragmatic approach. I know the progressive new age Church embraces "diverse" views, and everyone's truth has equal value. I believe this inclusiveness, is causing the Church to lose it's relevance.Im as straight forward as they come. I believe what the Word says, I think it's just that simple. We can even agree to disagree. I have actual friends from all denominations.
I believe the gospel message and core foundational doctrines can be found in every version and translation of the bible.Ask yourself, why so many interpretations? KJV was the first, it was because many could not read the Bible in the other languages. Then we have Young's literal translation, in this one he chose one unique english word for each Hebrew or Greek word. It is a strange translation, but it really helps us see that the underlying words in verses that are familiar to us in English may not mean what we thought they did. The Amplified version addresses the same issue, only this time it puts all the various shades of meaning in. This is difficult to read, but if you are studying individual verses it is quite useful. The 1901 American Standard was an update on KJV because the language of English had changed enough to warrant it. Likewise the Greek and Hebrew interlinears do the same thing once we had word studies and lexicons of all these words.
But then we have many other translations which were made solely to push one doctrine or another.
Examples of Translations with Specific Interpretative Focus:
This is why we are charged with "cutting straight the word of God".
- New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT): Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, this version is specifically designed to support their theology, particularly by rendering John 1:1 as "...the Word was a god" and inserting "Jehovah" over 200 times in the New Testament to support their view of Jesus as a created being.
- The Passion Translation (TPT): This translation, according to the Olive Tree Blog, aims to express "God's fiery heart of love" and uses modern, emotional language to "trigger inside every reader an overwhelming response," often leading to highly interpretive wording.
- The Inclusive Bible: As mentioned in its Amazon description, this is a distinctly egalitarian translation created to reflect inclusive language and interpretations regarding gender and community.
- Sacred Name Bibles (e.g., Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition): These translations specifically remove the title "Lord" and use Hebrew forms like Yahweh or Elohim to ensure that the sacred name of God is used throughout the Old and New Testaments.
- The Living Bible: Created by Kenneth Taylor, this is a paraphrased edition designed specifically for family devotions, focusing on being easy for children to understand, often leading to a more subjective interpretation, according to Olive Tree Blog.
pharisaical lens
Repla.cement theology led straight to the Holocaust. Focus your lens on that.
I love your honesty, even when it is brutal. I'd rather hear the awful truth about myself, then have someone's blessings when I embrace an unbiblical doctrine.It's called the dispensational, or pharisaical lens. It's a lens of unbelief that distorts clearly written truth
Although Zionists have been whining that "replacement theology lead to the Holocaust" for the past several decades, there's another worse, more recent holocaust which has been carried out in Gaza. The irony is that this holocaust was indeed caused by a dispensationalist replacement theology, which substitutes Pharisees in place of Christians as God's Chosen People. In an ironic way, the Zionist lie has finally come true - Zionists are the new Nazis.Romans 2:29
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Revelation 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Mystery Babylon, they killed the prophets and crucified the Lord Jesus.Although Zionists have been whining that "replacement theology lead to the Holocaust" for the past several decades, there's another worse, more recent holocaust which has been carried out in Gaza. The irony is that this holocaust was indeed caused by a dispensationalist replacement theology, which substitutes Pharisees in place of Christians as God's Chosen People. In an ironic way, the Zionist lie has finally come true - Zionists are the new Nazis.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. If you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. If you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."
Perhaps, or perhaps you are missing a big piece of the gospel message:I believe the gospel message and core foundational doctrines can be found in every version and translation of the bible.
A faithful Minister can preach a better sermon, using a bad translation than a unfaithful minister can using a proper authorized version.
Repla.cement theology led straight to the Holocaust. Focus your lens on that.
Yes. Although to be blunt, I think Zionism was never very different from Nazism, even if some of the more naive adherents slowly became more like monsters in their thinking over a longer time.Powerful, it helps explain to some degree, why some people defend/deny/deflect the truth regarding documented atrocities.
Yes. Although to be blunt, I think Zionism was never very different from Nazism, even if some of the more naive adherents slowly became more like monsters in their thinking over a longer time.