Chuck Swindoll - Interpreting Scripture

[Mr Baldy]

Good Day to you All -

Each morning I start my day by listening to Chuck Swindoll. Here is a GREAT sermon on interpreting Scripture - and a lesson for those who manipulate the Word of God:

https://insight.org/broadcasts/player/?bid=3492

Please listen to all 3 sermons.

[Jay Ross]

In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that 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.

Joseph Henry Thayer (1891). The change of attitude toward the Bible

Link: - https://archive.org/details/changeattit ... g/page/n73

It is worth the read.

PS: For those who are interested, the above is a quote from: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Henry_Thayer

[Mr Baldy]

In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy

Herein lies the problem.

When we as Believers begin to believe that there is NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH - and the Bible is not Inerrant I would venture to say that we must check our relationship with Christ.

Thank God for Pastors; Teachers; Preachers,& Real Christian Educators like Chuck Swindoll who expose men such as This!

[Ready1]

Jay, I think I would say it this way.

If God cannot be trusted to write His own book which is complete and without error, then we serve an imperfect God and we are "of all men most miserable!" I don't believe that. I believe that the word is inerrant and perfect.

The more man learns, the more he understands the perfection of the scriptures.

[shorttribber]

Looking up Joseph Henry Thayer ..........

In 1884, he began teaching New Testament criticism at Harvard. In 1870, Thayer was a member of the American Bible Revision Committee and recording secretary of the New Testament company (working on the Revised Version).

[An Accurate account i cut and pasted from Wikki]

Tells me all I need to know about this "Bible Scholar".

A Westcott and Hort Crony

I will bow out of any Bible translation discussion, or the accuracy of this or that version...all I can say is...I Trust the Word of God that I read.

It IS scripture Inspired "Breathed" by God.

Will listen to those sermons Mr. B.

[Jay Ross]

Please note that I did not comment on what I had posted. I did not say that I agreed completely with what Thayer had written. All I said was that it was worth reading. Neither did I comment on the three sermons of Chuck Swindoll on interpreting Scripture and the fact that I might even agree with the gist of what he is saying.

But the immediate response is what I have come to expect on this forum.

Perhaps this is the reason why this forum is dying. There is no ability to consider a differing point of view and discuss the pros and cons without making it personal.

ST did you take the time to read the pdf file of Thayer's lecture or did you make up your mind after reading what Wikki had to say about Thayer and framed your put down of Thayer out of your bias for the KJV.

Did you quote what I had quoted from Wikki that: - In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that 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.

What I am hearing is a defence of your positions and a hesitancy to consider any other position or view out of a fear of discovering an error in your "safe" understanding.

Shalom

[Jay Ross]

Jay, I think I would say it this way.

If God cannot be trusted to write His own book which is complete and without error, then we serve an imperfect God and we are "of all men most miserable!" I don't believe that. I believe that the word is inerrant and perfect.

The more man learns, the more he understands the perfection of the scriptures.

I agree with you that the source text that we have available to us from which the different language translations have been framed is without error. However, whether or not the translators were accurate in their translations of the original source reference texts is a very different matter altogether. In a nut shell, here in lies our difficulty, was the understanding of the biblical scholars who were given responsibility for the various translations that we have, in line with God's understanding of the source texts used?

Shalom

[Ready1]

I agree with you that the source text that we have available to us from which the different language translations have been framed is without error. However, whether or not the translators were accurate in their translations of the original source reference texts is a very different matter altogether. In a nut shell, here in lies our difficulty, was the understanding of the biblical scholars who were given responsibility for the various translations that we have, in line with God's understanding of the source texts used?

While I understand your concern, the following helps me out...

2Ti 3:16  All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living,
2Ti 3:17 so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.
(GNB)

It is my personal belief that God can protect his Word even from translators. That is part of the beauty of the electronic Word. We can view many versions of the Word at the same time for comparison and understanding.

"The best commentary of the Word is another version of the Word."

Blessings on your day, Jay Ross!

[mark s]

In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that 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.

Joseph Henry Thayer (1891). The change of attitude toward the Bible

Link: - https://archive.org/details/changeattit ... g/page/n73

It is worth the read.

From our statement of faith.

10. The full authority of the Holy Scripture in all matters of Faith and
practice. Generally, Verbal plenary confluent inspiration of the original
autographs (Original copies of Scripture).

There is no need to introduce doubt of the authority and inspiration of the Bible.

Much love!

[mark s]

Jay, I think I would say it this way.

If God cannot be trusted to write His own book which is complete and without error, then we serve an imperfect God and we are "of all men most miserable!" I don't believe that. I believe that the word is inerrant and perfect.

The more man learns, the more he understands the perfection of the scriptures.

Amen to that!

[Jay Ross]

It is my personal belief that God can protect his Word even from translators. That is part of the beauty of the electronic Word. We can view many versions of the Word at the same time for comparison and understanding.

"The best commentary of the Word is another version of the Word."

Blessings on your day, Jay Ross!

That argument was used to support a poster's believe that what he was reading in all of the translations available to him was basically the same, therefore there was no error in what he was claiming or the theory he was pushing except the original language text did not support his claims. His theory is that all of the Christians are going to be taken to the land of Canaan and be protected by God from harms way. A variation of the Rapture theory to my way of thinking.

His logic of comparison to verify the accuracy of the translations is just what you have also suggested.

It is usually the HS that prompts me to look a little deeper into the context of a particular verse with respect to the source texts used in our translations. The issue then becomes being able to keep the whole bible within its correct contextual original intent when we begin to write our posts. People who believe in the Biblical inerrancy of the translations will not accept that there may be errors in the translations that need to be considered to see if the translations are correct.

Generally a person's views are invalidated based on the opposing person's belief in the Biblical inerrancy of the translations.

Shalom

[mark s]

But the immediate response is what I have come to expect on this forum.

Perhaps this is the reason why this forum is dying. There is no ability to consider a differing point of view and discuss the pros and cons without making it personal.

What I am hearing is a defence of your positions and a hesitancy to consider any other position or view out of a fear of discovering an error in your "safe" understanding.

Perhaps the consideration that someone else may have an "honestly held" point of view?

Jay, with all respect, when you come to a group of people who all believe God inspired all the Bible, and we've all joined a site where it's written into the membership that this is what we believe, and you say, "No, not so, Oh! Just saying maybe not . . .", tell me, what is your expectation?

Perhaps this is the reason why this forum is dying. There is no ability to consider a differing point of view and discuss the pros and cons without making it personal.

Is that not a personal swipe against all?

Who has attacked you personally?

What I'm reading is like, "I think I'd say it this way . . .", "I looked up the author . . .", "blessings on your day . . .", where is the attack?

Just as you have your views, these have theirs. This site is in fact based on the inerrancy of the Bible.

Much love!

[Jay Ross]

In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that 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.

Joseph Henry Thayer (1891). The change of attitude toward the Bible

Link: - https://archive.org/details/changeattit ... g/page/n73

It is worth the read.

From our statement of faith.

10. The full authority of the Holy Scripture in all matters of Faith and
practice. Generally, Verbal plenary confluent inspiration of the original
autographs (Original copies of Scripture).

There is no need to introduce doubt of the authority and inspiration of the Bible.

Much love!

Mark s, if a person justifies a different understanding of the source texts i.e. the original autographs (original copies of the scriptures), from what the translators have paraphrased into our English Translations, then is that really introducing doubt of the authority and inspiration of the bible's source texts. Are you suggesting that all of the translators over time have been infallible?

What did Thayer state in his paper: - "That the differences and errors did not materially detract from his belief in the overall soundness of Christianity."

If one member can recommend a preacher, without raising eyebrows so to speak, to listen to, then why should a storm in a teacup occur when another member recommends an old paper by a renowned scholar who died in 1905 from memory to read, when the member gave no commentary or comment as to the validity of that paper.

Mark, did you listen to the three recommended sermons or read the PDF of Thayer's presented paper, before you put pen to paper, above.

Shalom.

[Jericho]

In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that 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.

I'm not sure how that is possible. I was listening to a Rabbi who didn't believe the Exodus account happened the way the Bible said it happened because there was no archaeological evidence to support it. In the end he said it didn't matter. Really? The Exodus account is central to the Jewish faith and he is so nonchalance about it not happening the way the bible says it did?

If you doubt one thing it will have a domino effect on everything else you believe. So then what becomes the point of believing any of it? Would such a person be willing to die for their faith? Doubtful. They may still have a remnant of faith but it's a very weak faith. They are as Timothy says "having a form of godliness but denying its power." And that we should "Have nothing to do with such people."

Perhaps this is the reason why this forum is dying. There is no ability to consider a differing point of view and discuss the pros and cons without making it personal.

I would be more than willing to discuss it. I haven't read what he wrote, but I'm curious to know his finer points on what he disagrees with. Science and archaeology have come a long way since 1891. I even believe our understanding of scripture has come a long way. But if one begins on the premise that they don't even believe in the supernatural, as higher critics do, then it is already flawed. In the end it comes down to who are you going to believe.

[mark s]

Mark s, if a person justifies a different understanding of the source texts i.e. the original autographs (original copies of the scriptures), from what the translators have paraphrased into our English Translations, then is that really introducing doubt of the authority and inspiration of the bible's source texts. Are you suggesting that all of the translators over time have been infallible?

Jay, I responded to your statement:

In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy, asserting that 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.

If this is not what you meant, then why write it?

a storm in a teacup

Glad to see you think so highly of asserting the inerrancy of Scripture.

If you are talking about translational differences, but you frame it as Biblical inerrancy, seems to me that you are one stirring the pot.

[mark s]

In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy

Herein lies the problem.

When we as Believers begin to believe that there is NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH - and the Bible is not Inerrant I would venture to say that we must check our relationship with Christ.

Thank God for Pastors; Teachers; Preachers,& Real Christian Educators like Chuck Swindoll who expose men such as This!

Hi Mr Baldy,

I think another issue is when we start saying, This part makes no sense to me, therefore it must not really belong, or really mean that, then we start customizing the Bible to ourselves. But then we aren't cooperating with God as He uses the Bible to customize us to Him.

Much love!

[Mr Baldy]

I think another issue is when we start saying, This part makes no sense to me, therefore it must not really belong, or really mean that, then we start customizing the Bible to ourselves. But then we aren't cooperating with God as He uses the Bible to customize us to Him.

We have to be strong students of Scripture. In today's society, there appears to be a climate in which people are leaning upon theIr own understanding . It seems that people don't believe in an "absolute truth" - and the lack of understanding of what "Truth" is, leaves one to question truth as Pontus Pilate did when he questioned Jesus
(John 18:37-38)

John 18:37-38 - New American Standard Bible (NASB)

37) Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” 38) Pilate *said to Him, “What is truth?”

The climate that we are seeing today is "Cultural Relativism" - and it is extremely dangerous as it leads to DECEPTION.

[Sonbeam]

Hi all,

Let me jump in here, “in fear and trembling, ” from a slightly different perspective.

Do I believe in the “inerrancy of the bible.” Yes, in one very real sense. But more on that later.

First, what “absolute truth” must we believe in regards to the bible in order to be saved?

Every single word? What happens if we don’t? What happens if we question
certain passages?

After all, it is recorded in Job 42:7 that God said:

7. After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me , as my servant Job has.

Has anybody here done a study on the commentaries by Job's three friends to see what is true and what isn't?
I haven't.

And what about Jeremiah 8:8 where the Lord says:

“‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

Is it possible then that some modern day translators /scribes might have brought their own biases/beliefs and written those into some or all of our translations?

Why is it necessary for us as believers to feel so threatened when someone, believer or nonbeliever, raises a question on the inerrancy of the bible?

Why not be open to a discussion on a particular passage someone might be questioning? Did Thayer ever mention some?

Blessings,

sonbeam

[shorttribber]

Is it possible then that some modern day translators /scribes might have brought their own biases/beliefs and written those into some or all of our translations?

I believe so, The "Message Bible" for one.

[Mr Baldy]

Hi Sonbeam….

I want to respond to a few of your questions.

First, what “absolute truth” must we believe in regards to the bible in order to be saved?

Here is what Scripture has to say about your question:

Romans 10:8-10 -New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The aforementioned passage of Scripture is an "Absolute Truth" as it relates to Salvation - as it is the inerrant Word of God.

Why is it necessary for us as believers to feel so threatened when someone, believer or nonbeliever, raises a question on the inerrancy of the bible?

I can't speak for others, but I have never felt "threatened" when someone raises a question on the inerrancy of the Bible. I do however, question how a Believer could ever question the inerrancy of Scripture. They may question passages of Scripture as to gain understanding - however, I don't think that it is possible to actually be a Believer, and not trust in what you believe as it relates to God.

Here are some good analogies to the aforementioned question:

If you doubt one thing it will have a domino effect on everything else you believe. So then what becomes the point of believing any of it?

If God cannot be trusted to write His own book which is complete and without error, then we serve an imperfect God

You also ask this:

Why not be open to a discussion on a particular passage someone might be questioning?

There is a difference in questioning passages of Scripture that you don't understand - verses denying it's inerrancy.

[keithareilly]

I read multiple versions because of errors/bias/perspective/etc of individual versions.

Many I do not like. Especially the paraphrase versions. They offer opinion not literacy.

Each word in scripture is important and has deep meaning, deeper than the surface meaning.

Matthew 22:32
'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB '? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

How is this statement evidence Abraham is alive? Because each word is strict in its definition and therefore indicates things we do not normally see.

This verse taught me, when I was young, how important each word is individually. Thus, paraphrasing hides truths.
Accurate translations are important; therefore, I read many translations to help identify deeper meanings.

Here is another example:
John 12:40
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.”

Romans 5:16
NASB
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression [b]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions [c]resulting in justification.

KJV
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

These two verses show us that Salvation is of the Jews. God blinded the Jews so they would crucify Christ so the world would be saved. Thus, through the offenses of each of those many Jews who shouted for him to be crucified are we saved.

It is hard to hide God's truth's. We just don't see them even when they are in front of our eyes.

Keith

[Jericho]

Why not be open to a discussion on a particular passage someone might be questioning? Did Thayer ever mention some?

I found this publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example."

I've read someone say his doctrine was similar to the Jehovah Witness.

[Spreading Salt]

I love that we can all come together to discuss these important queries. This forum is hardly dying. Christ is alive and well through the members contributing here. He reigns!

Jericho, thank you for your last response. That should help others realize the depravity hidden in the sheep pen.

[shorttribber]

Why not be open to a discussion on a particular passage someone might be questioning? Did Thayer ever mention some?

I found this publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example."

I've read someone say his doctrine was similar to the Jehovah Witness.

Examples like this are why Mr Baldy and Myself are Bald

Mr Baldy.........................................................................Shorttribber

So good when brethren dwell together in unity...even if it's to pull your hair out together!

[Jay Ross]

Hello,

I wonder how we will be labelled by others in 100 years time and whether or not those people will be finding fault with us for our beliefs and our treatment of others.

I have now been allowed to listen to Charles Swindow and what his message was in the three part sermon he first gave in 2014.

What did I get out of his sermons: - Others twist the truth of the word but I do not, so please send me your money to support my ministry.

Charles is now 85 years old and there are some who would find fault with him here on this board. In 1994 he became the President of the Dallas theological College.

Now, I did not find fault, with what Charles was suggesting that we do, in validating the Word of God to see if the word of God in the translations have been twisted by the translators, and the only way you can do that is to believe in the inerrancy of the Source Texts used as the basis from which the translations have been generated and to carefully study the message content of the source texts and then validate how the translators have expressed this same message in their respective translations.

Now if that means that our paraphrasing of the message in English is different from how the scholarly translators have generated their paraphrase of the same source texts, then we have a position from which we can debate the differences from. But if we say that the translations are inerrant then any discussion will fail as people attempt to protect "their sacred inerrant translations."

I agree with what has been said previously, one small error at the very beginning of the Bible will multiply and create many other errors throughout the translations. If we cannot see the first error introduced, then the other errors will remain hidden as well. It all depends on the bias of the translators and what they themselves believe. ST said that the "Message" is not a good "translation" because of the bias understanding of the author. I too would agree with his assessment of the "Message," and would not recommend the "Message" to anyone else because his overall message does not line up with the original source texts that have been the source of the various available translations. The "Message" expresses the author's theological understanding and as such he has not held the straight pathway of the source texts.

I am as passionate as others on holding to the truth of the source inerrant texts available to us, which is in line with the statement that Mark s has posted, however, other on this forum, have a different method of considering what the truth might be. The issue becomes, who is twisting the truth to their advantage.

With respect to the publisher's warning, as noted by Jericho, given in the forward of their published book of Thayer's Lexicon, I am sure that you will find similar warnings against authors of other Lexicon as well.

Now with respect to Thayer's published lecture, which I had linked to above, are their things hat we can learn from what he has said, and are their things that we should discard from his lecture.

The same is also true for Charles Swindow's three sermon presentations.

In both cases, the reader/hearer should be aware of the respective presentation sources' limitations.

Shalom

[shorttribber]

Hello,

I wonder how we will be labelled by others in 100 years time and whether or not those people will be finding fault with us for our beliefs and our treatment of others.

I have now been allowed to listen to Charles Swindow and what his message was in the three part sermon he first gave in 2014.

What did I get out of his sermons: - Others twist the truth of the word but I do not, so please send me your money to support my ministry.

Charles is now 85 years old and there are some who would find fault with him here on this board. In 1994 he became the President of the Dallas theological College.

Now, I did not find fault, with what Charles was suggesting that we do, in validating the Word of God to see if the word of God in the translations have been twisted by the translators, and the only way you can do that is to believe in the inerrancy of the Source Texts used as the basis from which the translations have been generated and to carefully study the message content of the source texts and then validate how the translators have expressed this same message in their respective translations.

Now if that means that our paraphrasing of the message in English is different from how the scholarly translators have generated their paraphrase of the same source texts, then we have a position from which we can debate the differences from. But if we say that the translations are inerrant then any discussion will fail as people attempt to protect "their sacred inerrant translations."

I agree with what has been said previously, one small error at the very beginning of the Bible will multiply and create many other errors throughout the translations. If we cannot see the first error introduced, then the other errors will remain hidden as well. It all depends on the bias of the translators and what they themselves believe. ST said that the "Message" is not a good "translation" because of the bias understanding of the author. I too would agree with his assessment of the "Message," and would not recommend the "Message" to anyone else because his overall message does not line up with the original source texts that have been the source of the various available translations. The "Message" expresses the author's theological understanding and as such he has not held the straight pathway of the source texts.

I am as passionate as others on holding to the truth of the source inerrant texts available to us, which is in line with the statement that Mark s has posted, however, other on this forum, have a different method of considering what the truth might be. The issue becomes, who is twisting the truth to their advantage.

With respect to the publisher's warning, as noted by Jericho, given in the forward of their published book of Thayer's Lexicon, I am sure that you will find similar warnings against authors of other Lexicon as well.

Now with respect to Thayer's published lecture, which I had linked to above, are their things hat we can learn from what he has said, and are their things that we should discard from his lecture.

The same is also true for Charles Swindow's three sermon presentations.

In both cases, the reader/hearer should be aware of the respective presentation sources' limitations.

Shalom

I can't think of any part of your post I disagree with Jay...
The Brightest Light, being Absolutely Holy and Inerrant from a Textual Standpoint is the Closest to what the source texts are saying. How, or in What Manner the Actual source texts have there best representation is where I think we all have various opinions.

[Mark F]

ST,

You mention Westcott and Hort in a less that favorable light. I find myself questioning their ability to
translate in an unbiased way given the things that have been reported about them.

I also have watched Dr. Daniel Wallace presentation on Textual Criticism from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. He speaks quite highly of Westcott and Hort.

My question to you and to others that are well studied here, how do you approach this type of information? For me I only have the internet for information on W & H. I have listened to various Bible scholars who are critical of them concerning their core beliefs. I have read enough to say I don't trust their translations so I want to compare to other translators work. If I take Dr Wallace 's opinion they are a couple of great Christian men. You know how I think them......

So now, as I believe W&H are not credible, how does that reflect on Dr Wallace and the things he says?

Just curious how you and all the other here on FPs would approach this as I have stewed on it a while now and I tend to believe that the evidence given about W&H I have to take seriously. It seems to apply here with the topic at hand. Let me know if you can.

[shorttribber]

ST,

You mention Westcott and Hort in a less that favorable light. I find myself questioning their ability to
translate in an unbiased way given the things that have been reported about them.

I also have watched Dr. Daniel Wallace presentation on Textual Criticism from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. He speaks quite highly of Westcott and Hort.

My question to you and to others that are well studied here, how do you approach this type of information? For me I only have the internet for information on W & H. I have listened to various Bible scholars who are critical of them concerning their core beliefs. I have read enough to say I don't trust their translations so I want to compare to other translators work. If I take Dr Wallace 's opinion they are a couple of great Christian men. You know how I think them......

So now, as I believe W&H are not credible, how does that reflect on Dr Wallace and the things he says?

Just curious how you and all the other here on FPs would approach this as I have stewed on it a while now and I tend to believe that the evidence given about W&H I have to take seriously. It seems to apply here with the topic at hand. Let me know if you can.

I am sooooooooooooooooo glad you asked these questions....I will answer as the day progresses.

[Sonbeam]

Hi Sonbeam….

I want to respond to a few of your questions.

First, what “absolute truth” must we believe in regards to the bible in order to be saved?

Here is what Scripture has to say about your question:

Romans 10:8-10 -New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

The aforementioned passage of Scripture is an "Absolute Truth" as it relates to Salvation - as it is the inerrant Word of God.

Thank you for answering some of my questions Mr. Baldy.

In regards to the above passage, while it is an absolute truth that Jesus is Lord and He was raised from the dead,
I believe we really need to find this passage's correlation with all other passages so that we proclaim the primary absolute truth of the gospel.

And by "primary" I mean this. What was the result or the benefits that were gained/bestowed by God on all mankind (this is the Good News we proclaim) following Christ's finished work/suffering on the Cross.

And I say this because we especially need to look at how our Lord presented His Good News when He walked this earth.

As it pertains to the above passage you quoted, according to Paul in:

1 Corinthians 12:2-4 (NRSV)

2 You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak. 3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and
no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

As I see it, for a person to declare that Jesus is Lord as in Rom 10:8-10, the person has to have been born of
the Spirit first. Therefore, he has to have heard the Gospel first and be sealed by the Spirit unto salvation.

Mr Baldy please know that I don't intend to start a discussion now as to what constitutes the Gospel of Christ.
I do believe however, that it would be a good and fruitful discussion to do that in the future.

As far as inerrancy is concerned, the inerrancy we must be ready to stand for and defend is the inerrancy of the Gospel.

Blessings,

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

Why not be open to a discussion on a particular passage someone might be questioning? Did Thayer ever mention some?

I found this publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example."

I've read someone say his doctrine was similar to the Jehovah Witness.

Thank you Jericho. I appreciate your research. I did not intend to become familiar with Mr. Thayer's commentaries.
And I am not specifically excluding him. I do not make it a practice to read many commentaries.

I can see how Mr. Thayer had some problems with believing some of the truths that are evident in the bible.

Blessings,

sonbeam

[Sonbeam]

Regarding your following comment Jericho:

If you doubt one thing it will have a domino effect on everything else you believe. So then what becomes the point of believing any of it?

Well, I realize this is the fear that most believers have if we question inerrancy. But my question to this is:

Do we have to believe that every single word in the bible is true in order to be saved?

Jesus didn't say that. And I don't find anything in the bible that says that.

And here again, I refer everyone to the Job passage I quoted before.


Hi Ready1,

If God cannot be trusted to write His own book which is complete and without error, then we serve an imperfect God

Of course the answer to your comment is: No, God is perfect. We definitely do not serve an imperfect God.

But think on this, absolutely everything has been created by God.

Colossians 1:16

for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.

Blessings,

sonbeam

[keithareilly]

2 Tim 4:1-5
1I charge you [a]therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead [b]at His appearing and His kingdom: 2Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Matthew 13:15-17
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.


Blessed are those who Hear and those who see.

We each interpret scriptures differently. We each have faith and our faith is not identical but different according to what God gives us. This results in different beliefs. Why would God do this? If you cannot love your brother because he believes differently, then you certainly cannot love your enemy. How many debates and disagreements do we have on this forum? Does that mean some are right and some are wrong? Maybe, Nevertheless we do not love people because of who they are. We love because of who we are.

A sentence. "I throw ball"
Does the ball have any choice about being thrown? Does the verb throw have the option of substituting another action such as deflate? Who controls the actions and what objects experience the action? Does it surprise you that the term object is a literal term meaning that which experiences the actions of the subject and verb of the sentence?

"I" decide what Action is executed; "I" decide which objects is subject to my action.

Another sentence. "I Love You."

The object "You" does not receive the subjects action, "Love", because of the nature of the object.
We love because of who we are; not because of who the people we love are. The objects, the people we love, are the recipients of our action, Love, which we each initiate; they do not instantiate our love. Do you love your spouse? Guess what? You do not love you spouse because of who your spouse is. You love your spouse because of who you are. You decide if you love; you decide who you love. Both the object and the verb of every sentence is subjugated to the subject of the sentence. The subject determines the action (verb), and the subject determines the recipient (object).
The construction of the sentences (words) reveal to us that the people we love have no say so whether we love, or whether we love them; just as the ball has no say in whether we throw, deflate, or which ball experiences our action.

Creation reveals God is real. The engineering of the world reveals the reality of its Engineer.
The same is true for the engineering of wording, the Word.
The Words engineering, that is, the construction of the Word, is what reveals truth.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

We each interpret scriptures differently. We each have faith and our faith is not identical but different according to what God gives us. This results in different beliefs. Why would God do this? If you cannot love your brother because he believes differently, then you certainly cannot love your enemy. How many debates and disagreements do we have on this forum? Does that mean some are right and some are wrong? Maybe, Nevertheless we do not love people because of who they are. We love because of who we are.

I've been hesitant to join this discussion but Keith's words above mirror my thoughts perfectly. Paul speaks of the differences between "milk" and "solid food" of the Word. Depending on one's spiritual maturity, the message/passage will grow in their understanding with time. And the understanding of all 66 books will necessitate a different time frame for each individual depending on a variety of circumstances.

And another factor in addition to maturity and time frame is the fact that there are over 1970 versions of the Bible in 1350 languages. That might contribute to a slightly different understanding by some as opposed to others.

I've been short of time, so if I've misunderstood or overlooked the focus of the thread, please forgive me.

[shorttribber]

I apologize Mark F, I intended to answer yesterday...perhaps to day...yesterday just got too filled up for time.

[Mark F]

I apologize Mark F, I intended to answer yesterday...perhaps to day...yesterday just got too filled up for time.

Being busy is usually a good thing, no need to apologize, I am curious of yours and others point of view on this. (the Westcott and Hort thing along with others of the ilk)….

[shorttribber]

Hi Mark F
Just couldn't be avoided I guess...the Bible translation issue....just posted in blue, TWO, of the commonly said things about WHY we should all look to Other translations instead of the King James (Again, I'm Not a King James Only Person)

................................................................................................................................................
scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS."
................................................................................................................................................

Then i answered that kind of thinking in another thread that i'm reposting here



Oh...say it ain't so! What a Joke.....they just are not found in those TWO RAGS, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus! What a shock...I'm speachles!
.............................................................................................................................................
"KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them!
..................................................................................................................................................

Then i answered that kind of thinking in another thread that i'm reposting here



You catch that LIE? Here it is again "The sole basis they have for this charge "..... The FACT that the ROOT of the ARIAN CONTOVERSY Came out of Alexandria has nothing to do with our opinion Right?



Now Mark,

I will add this link in the Honor of One Man who Did Study Himself to Learn if in FACT his "Teachers" Were False or True.

Here's that link...
Postby shorttribber on Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:09 pm

A Faithful Witness...Honored.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=71832&p=593309&hilit=+pierpont#p593309
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v08/Pierpont2003obit.html

Here are some portions of the link provided above...........

7. William Pierpont began his Greek New Testament study in 1933 while a freshman at Friends University. He was taught from the Westcott-Hort text by Professor J. H. Langenwalter, and at that time he fully accepted the general theory and underlying principles of that edition. From that point, he became an ardent student of New Testament Greek for the remainder of his life, and his curiosity and interest regarding the theory, principles, and methodology of New Testament textual criticism began to develop. He devoted thousands of hours of reading and study to this particular field, even while favoring the Westcott-Hort type of critical text and gravitating toward a reasoned eclectic methodology of text-critical praxis.

8.In the mid-1960s his views regarding textual criticism begin to change
. After exploring many issues regarding the underlying theory and praxis of modern eclectic methodology and its resultant critical text, he began to examine the entire matter more deeply. As a result of this intense inquiry, he began to abandon certain aspects of the theory and operative principles under which he had functioned during the previous thirty years. His shift in text-critical opinion derived primarily from this independent questioning and detailed analysis of individual variant units. Only later did he become acquainted with those 19th and 20th century writers who had questioned various aspects of the Westcott-Hort theory or the current eclectic critical text

17. With the advent of office computer technology in the 1980s, the original notes were converted into a complete electronic Greek New Testament text. By 1986, this running Byzantine text had become available as a module in the Online Bible computer program. In 1991, the printed edition of The Greek New Testament according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform was published (copies of that edition are no longer obtainable). The electronic form of the Robinson-Pierpont Greek New Testament is openly available in many software packages, including programs such as the Online Bible, BibleWorks, Sword, OliveTree, and Logos; its electronic text remains freely downloadable in ASCII form at numerous internet sites worldwide. A revised edition of the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Greek New Testament is currently in preparation and should become available in printed and electronic form sometime during 2003. Even during his last months, William Pierpont continued to work with interest on this forthcoming new edition; his last written communication with Robinson occurred about a month before his death.

19. The 2003 edition of the Byzantine Greek New Testament will be a fitting memorial to the spiritual life and work of William G. Pierpont. In all aspects of this text and edition, William Pierpont's contribution remains primary--the order of the editors' names (Robinson-Pierpont) was that chosen by Pierpont, arranged more for euphony than for any other factor. Over 95% of the Byzantine Textform edition remains that which Pierpont had initially prepared in note form, long before Robinson's association with him. The Byzantine Textform Greek New Testament abides as William Pierpont's tangible legacy, prepared by a committed, loving, and sincere Christian gentleman, to whom all owe a debt of thanks.

................................................................................................................................................

I've posted the Above on William Peirpont to Honor the Work of the Very Few that still Beleive that God has Faithfully Preserved His Glorious Word for us Today.

Every since the Predominant Opinions that the Earlier Alexandrian Textype should be allowed Greater Authority and Acceptance than the Majority/Byzantine, OPINIONS OF MEN have Dishonored and Cast Doubt on the Purity of God's Holy Word.

[Mark F]

Seeing as I can't read Greek, I found a translation from the GR NT that Pierpont worked on. It's from David Robert Palmer. going to do some looking to see that he's credible, the NT isn't 100% done, but I want to compare the English as that is my only language ;)

I am not KJV only either, and to be honest I read the critiques of the Texus Receptus as credible, there is SO much to consider with this subject.

Another thing I noted, the sermon Mr. Baldy posted isn't so much about biblical inerrancy, but wrong interpretation of Scripture.....IMO

I try to keep in mind a general guide from M. R. DeHaan,

1) All Scripture has one Primary interpretation.
2) All Scripture has several practical applications.
3) Most Scripture has a prophetic revelation.

Following these guidelines will keep us on the right track, but if we study a good translation from a bad manuscript we still get it wrong.

[Mr Baldy]

Another thing I noted, the sermon Mr. Baldy posted isn't so much about biblical inerrancy, but wrong interpretation of Scripture.....IMO

Glad you listened to the sermons Mark F - if you'll notice I titled the Subject "Interpreting Scripture"

[Jericho]

I was listening to a podcast the covered some of the things that were discussed in this thread. If anyone is interested you can hear it here https://www.vftb.net/?p=7990

[Mr Baldy]

I was listening to a podcast the covered some of the things that were discussed in this thread. If anyone is interested you can hear it here https://www.vftb.net/?p=7990

Hi Jericho,

Thanks for the link!

I really enjoyed this podcast. I'm normally extremely skeptical about those who try to sell books - but I listened to this entire message. Very interesting indeed.... I really enjoyed the way Doug Woodward explained some of the topics mentioned in his book "A Biography of the Christian Bible."

Appeared to be factual, covering topics ranging from the "King James Only" believers to the Septuagint. Even touched on the "Young Earth" believers (such as me.) Now I will have to seriously consider purchasing his book. Perhaps even the other book: "Rebooting the Bible."

*Note: I know that there are skeptics in many areas of Truth - and I am not being dogmatic on what he spoke about,
it's just worth looking into and doing one's own research.

Definitely book marked this podcast.

[shorttribber]

Ok...what's a podcast?

I'm still not real computer savy...and own a flip-phone also

[Jay Ross]

Ok...what's a podcast?

I'm still not real computer savy...and own a flip-phone also

You have a pod of whales and they cast a big shadow on the bottom in shallow water.

Or "POD" stands for, in financial terms as, "Payable on Death" when the government casts out their net to reel in more cash.

[Mark F]

Ok...what's a podcast?

I'm still not real computer savy...and own a flip-phone also

Really?

I wish I would have stuck with my Moto Razr in hindsight...but I have to admit the ability to stream audio, use the navigation that's available on smartphones is quite impressive.

I'll stick my neck out and tell you a "Podcast" is an audio file. Apple called them Podcasts as they played on "iPods"...but you knew that right?

[shorttribber]

Ok...what's a podcast?

I'm still not real computer savy...and own a flip-phone also

Really?

I wish I would have stuck with my Moto Razr in hindsight...but I have to admit the ability to stream audio, use the navigation that's available on smartphones is quite impressive.

I'll stick my neck out and tell you a "Podcast" is an audio file. Apple called them Podcasts as they played on "iPods"...but you knew that right?

I know now, or I do remember that, yes....so you don't you tapes and discs anymore...i forgot about those

[shorttribber]

Ok...what's a podcast?

I'm still not real computer savy...and own a flip-phone also

You have a pod of whales and they cast a big shadow on the bottom in shallow water.

Or "POD" stands for, in financial terms as, "Payable on Death" when the government casts out their net to reel in more cash.

Or something like that, yes, probably.

[Mark F]

I was listening to a podcast the covered some of the things that were discussed in this thread. If anyone is interested you can hear it here https://www.vftb.net/?p=7990

That's and interesting podcast, I listened to a few of them.