Right Divider
Body part
So since we don't have those, what do we do? :surf:
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Nang
TOL Subscriber
We believe the translations that are based upon the original languages have been kept by God to convey the absolute truth of God.
The King James Version proves to be quite accurate, but it is not the only translation that proves to accord with the gospel message of grace, provided by God through Jesus Christ.
IMO there is no reason to limit God's revelation of His Truth to just one (mostly faithful) presentation of the Word.
There are others, which survive the scrutiny of the original languages, upon which they have also been provided to mankind by the Holy Spirit.
The original autographs have a level of inspiration not found in subsequent manuscripts and translations.
Given the wealth of MSS evidence and scholarship, we have the originals reflected collectively. We are in the same boat. There is no inspired, perfect English translation, but there are very good translations that faithfully reflect the originals with no textual variant being an issue overall to belief and practice.
:readthis:
Which one? How do you account for the imperfections of the KJV?
Your view is naive, simplistic, illogical, contrary to evidence.
Which one? How do you account for the imperfections of the KJV?
Your view is naive, simplistic, illogical, contrary to evidence.
We do what God wants us to do....blood, sweat, and tears...textual criticism, translation theory, continued research and refinement, etc., exactly what the KJV translators they did in their place of history with the Word of God.
Even if the KJV was the best and only Bible (it is not the most accurate, readable extant version), it is still subject to interpretation. KJVO types have no end of differences in belief and practice (Westboro Baptists are KJVO and Mormons also use it exclusively).
Right Divider
Body part
So you're saying that faith is extremely complex and a person needs a PhD to understand the Bible?
Get your facts straight, the Mormons do NOT use the KJV exclusively. They have their OWN book that they believe is above the Bible.
No, the perspicuity of Scripture means it is understandable at face value. One would not come up with MAD or KJVO or Calvinism apart from hearing it from a zealous proponent. Sound exegesis does not lead to such wrong theological views.
Mormons have standard works that include KJV (but they consider it imperfect, not KJVO....I know what I am talking about and was talking about their official Bible that is quoted in Book of Mormon, not their other works that I have read in total....studied Mormonism for 35 years, thx), Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price.
Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, etc. etc. also are important.
My point is that having an exclusive KJV Bible does not remove the problems of interpretation/hermeneutics. Christians and cultists who use KJV are all over the place with interpretations. It is false assurance to think there is an infallible English version. The facts clearly contradict this error and the KJV translators who are in the position to know best reject that concept based on their preface.
Not to mention WBC ignores Scripture, regardless of the version they carry. Well, so do the Mormons. And so does godrulz.
I do not ignore Scriptures. I affirm a biblical, historical, orthodox statement of faith little different from you and hundreds of millions of Christians. I disagree with fringe MAD and KJVO (which cannot be shown from Scripture), but we agree on the essential, biblical truths most Christians agree on (dispensational views, especially your minority view, is not a test of orthodoxy).
WBC does not ignore Scripture, but they twist it as do Mormons. You and I are not in the same boat as either of them, so you are trying a lame straw man attack to discredit me (instead of dealing with my content).
I engage every verse of Scripture. Disagreeing with some of your wrong interpretations is not tantamount to disagreeing with God, right interpretations of Scripture. Ignoring it is a stupid comment from the peanut gallery.
heir
TOL Subscriber
You're backtracking.
"God gave us His Word"....
" I fully affirm the inspiration of Scripture without error"
"we have the infallible Word of God"
"God inspired and preserved His Word"
Where is this "His Word" that you say God gave?
Identify this inspired "Scripture without error".
Where can we find it?
ASV1901
Right Divider
Body part
I'm not a KJVO person, but I do think that you talk out of both sides of your mouth concerning this issue.
In a previous post, you said this:
So which is it? It is easy or hard?
How would a normal human being that is not well versed in "translation theory" understand the Bible?
<cut></cut>
You take a class on hermeneutics.
Why would anyone remain ignorant of translation theory? In today's culture this information can be downloaded into one's pocket and observed in order to get aclimated to knowledge.
The problem is people have a predetermined philosophical prejudice
Right Divider
Body part
I guess that you missed the whole point. On the one hand GR is saying that it's understandable "at face value" and on the other hand he says you need all kind of fancy learnin' to understand it.
I don't think that everyone needs a PhD in Bible translation theory to be able to understand what it says.
I disagree
If one never learns how to study the bible there is only so far one can go. That person will never move from milk to meat.
On the other hand one who has taken the time to equip oneself with a Greek and Hebrew lexicon that one should not look down on the commoners.
Hehe
Right Divider
Body part
I'm not arguing that there is no value in detailed study. But the plan of salvation is simple and anyone can understand it.
2Co 11:2-3 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
There are MANY here on TOL that are beguiling.
I have been clear, but you cannot see beyond KJV alone=Word of God alone. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Those of us who read Bibles do not have to do the hard work of textual criticism and translation theory (though it is helpful to understand the gist of them to avoid the KJVO heresy).
Our issue is more hermeneutical. There are no end to false teachings and practices in the church. There is no excuse to be shoddy in translation, interpretation, application.
Why do so many believers disagree on so many things despite using the same versions?
Anti-intellectualism gives skeptics a field day and we are without excuse for not giving them reasons to trust God and His Word.
Oh brother. Disagreeing with MAD and KJVO is being a good Bible student. We are not talking about the simplicity of the gospel, but doctrinal disputes and specific issues relating to textual variants, etc. (that are not of major consequence).