Unreported News, Commentary, Resources and Discussion of Bible Prophecy
|
Jay Ross wrote:In February 1891 Thayer published a lecture in which he expressed disagreement with the position of Biblical inerrancy
Ready1 wrote: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?
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)
Jay Ross wrote: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.
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).
Ready1 wrote: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.
Ready1 wrote: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!
Jay Ross wrote: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 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.
mark s wrote:Jay Ross wrote: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!
Jay Ross wrote: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.
Jay Ross wrote: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.
Jay Ross wrote: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?
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.
a storm in a teacup
Mr Baldy wrote:Jay Ross wrote: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!
mark s wrote: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.
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?”
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.
“‘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?
Sonbeam wrote: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?
Sonbeam wrote:First, what “absolute truth” must we believe in regards to the bible in order to be saved?
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.
Sonbeam wrote: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?
Jericho wrote: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?
Ready1 wrote:If God cannot be trusted to write His own book which is complete and without error, then we serve an imperfect God
Sonbeam wrote:Why not be open to a discussion on a particular passage someone might be questioning?
Sonbeam wrote:Why not be open to a discussion on a particular passage someone might be questioning? Did Thayer ever mention some?
"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."
Jericho wrote:Sonbeam wrote: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.
Jay Ross wrote: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
Mark F wrote: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.
Mr Baldy wrote:Hi Sonbeam….
I want to respond to a few of your questions.Sonbeam wrote: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.
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.
Jericho wrote:Sonbeam wrote: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.
Jericho wrote: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?
Ready1 wrote:If God cannot be trusted to write His own book which is complete and without error, then we serve an imperfect God
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.
keithareilly wrote: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.
shorttribber wrote:I apologize Mark F, I intended to answer yesterday...perhaps to day...yesterday just got too filled up for time.
Mark F wrote:Another thing I noted, the sermon Mr. Baldy posted isn't so much about biblical inerrancy, but wrong interpretation of Scripture.....IMO
Jericho wrote: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
shorttribber wrote:Ok...what's a podcast?
I'm still not real computer savy...and own a flip-phone also
shorttribber wrote:Ok...what's a podcast?
I'm still not real computer savy...and own a flip-phone also
Mark F wrote:shorttribber wrote: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?
Jay Ross wrote:shorttribber wrote: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.
Jericho wrote: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
Return to General Bible Study & Debate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
”