Agora Messageboard now functions as a quorum. Please click
to join as a member. We want to hear from you... A query that needs an answer,
a word to uplift the people, a statement of concern that needs prayer, a cry
for help...
God bless you...
Previous Messageboard have been archived.
In Reply 
What is "heresy"? 
Untitled (Bill Roth)
Negotiable?
Scriptures available to us is pure and not for private interpretations
|
LBS, I believe you missed my point. You stated: "Your implication is that because there are no original manuscripts, people therefore come up with different interpretations of the Bible?. That was not my point a all. I think that even if there were originals, that there would still be differences. There are many reasons. First I am not really comfortable with the word "negotiable." I used it to keep in the flow of the thread since it was used before . I am trying to think of a better word. Maybe "flexibility in interpretation" will do. Whatever. I hope you get the drift. Now, let me say that I believe that the scriptures, as were originally given, were God-breathed. These were laws, ideas, commandments. prayers, and historical records. These were written down on paper, in a languages that probably you, nor I, fully understand. These were the real scriptures. The originals. In the Greek scripture is the word "graphe" - writing. Today we loosly us the term "scripture" to refer to translations which may or may not be true to the original scripture. The originals scriptures were lost or destroyed. But there are copies. These copies have been pieced together and then translated into other languages. What I am saying is that the translations are not "scripture" themselves. Have you ever seen a Good News Bible or a Living Bible. These are no more "scripture" than a tabloid magazine . So when I look at my King James, I underatand that it is a translation from the Stephanus Receptus Greek text. There were Greek words with no English equivalent. The translators sometimes took some liberties. They made some errors. Punctuation and chapter divisions were added. Let's not confuse the the Word of God with a translation of extant texts scriptures. As I see it, the Word of God is the essence or main idea of what given in the original scriptures. A translation may not fully convey this. Hopefully, we get to the Word of God by honest and intelligent Hermeneutics. And with the help of the Holy Spirit and love. I personally believe in Sola Scriptura. But a good understanding of Biblical culture and figures of speech is also quite helpful. A cursory knowledge of Greek and the ability to use a concordance is also helpful. You also stated concerning my post: "It means God in His sovereignty didn’t make an effort to preserve the original manuscripts for us, therefore we are not to be blamed? This is a serious charge on God, you know?" Quite the contrary. I believe that God did in fact preserve the scriptures. But more than that he preserved His Word. For within the texts that we do have we can find the Word of God if we are honest and dilligent. You read me wrong my friend. I make no charge on God at all. I am not complaining about having no originals or that translations may not be true to the original text or that some texts themselves may be corrupt. I am simply pointing out these facts. Ignoring them can lead to error in understanding the Bible. My point here was this: A translation in and of itself should not be construed as "scripture". Neither is it the "Word of God." But within a Bible translation we can get to the Word of God. I will use a simple example with a verse I am sure you are familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) " All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: " This verse in the King James says that all scripture "is given by inspiration of God" . The words "is given by inspiration of God" are translated for one Greek word, "theopneustos". Theopnuestos is a combination of "Theos" (God) and "pnuema" (breath). Combined, they could be translated as "God-breathed." Now here is Young's translation of this same verse: "every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness," Now which of these conveys the idea more accurately? . I would say that "God breathed" is more accurate and better conveys the idea than "inspired." You may differ. "Inspired" seems a little weak. But this is a good example where we can be flexible. God-breathed and "given by inspiration of God" both tell us that God is the source of the scriptures/writings - "graphe." There is no need to argue here. That pretty much sums up what I was trying to say. So you see that I am not blaming God for not having the originals around, as you sugested. This was not my point at all. It is just a fact worth noting. And is pertinent to understanding where our Bibles came from. So instead of blaming God as you charge, I was leading up to showing why we may come up with some different understandings and *where* we may be flexible in allowing different understandings of scripture. I think we are probably closer to agreement than not. You said: " If people churn out several meanings where only one is intended, then something is seriously wrong. We can’t say that this is because God wanted diversity within the Body of Christ. Also we can’t blame it on God and say that He didn’t provide us with the original manuscripts. The only reason I can think of is that there is something seriously wrong with our handling of God’s Word." The deceitful handling of God's Word is a real problem. And in my previous post I adressed this as part of a possible definition of heresy. Many people will go to the Bible to prove what they already believe. Some may join a particular denomination or group and blindly accept all that the group teaches and then go the scriptures to prove themselve right. Others use scriptures out of context to oppress and control others for "filthy lucres sake." Many will compromise the Word to warm the pews. The list goes on. Still, I think there is some room for flexibility as in my example. But at the same time we should not water down the Word of God nor use it deceitfully. God Bless |
to:
Messages
Outline:
Thanks by LBS, 2001, Nov 01
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page