A restatement of a question

I guess my issue would be understanding "clear teaching."

Follow this...

The Deity of Christ is a clear teaching...it is a fundamental tenet of our faith. I could argue your points (especially, if not primarily #3) if someone disagreed with this.

But there are those among us who view each and every facet of their theology as ironclad, biblically informed, 100% pure and free of error. They will argue obscure points with the same fervor as fundamentals. I've seen a fight about "rock badgers," for cryin' out loud!

Not every teaching is as clear...and there's wiggle room as we wrestle with some issues...case in point: Few people on the BB argue about Christ's divinity (clear, and fundamental), but eschatology views (not as easily grasped, and though important, not as fundamental) will get a good fracas started here.

Was that "clear?" (tee hee)

 

I would add a 4th category...

4. They have no Bible in English
What is obvious in English is not obvious in the original Greek

 

Isn't that a bit much?

 

Funny, I would have said, 4. They only know the English. There are many things that are clear in the Greek that are obscured by the English translation.

 

I guess that leaves God out of the translation, doesn't it.

I have wondered the same thing though, when the following is so obvious that man must believe before he can be saved.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Last but not least:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Not at all. I've had discussions on topics that seem to me to be quite obvious. Things like...

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" - 1 Corinthians 11:14 ​

Now, I suspect that is one of the most obvious of obvious verses, but get an "Original Greeker hippie, new evangelical type" to come along and he'll tell you all the ways that doesn't say what it says.

Another example would be the majority of conversations on this board with Tragic_Pizza (hope you don't mind Tragic, I'm not trying to be mean here). The only way he can hold to the positions he holds is the English Bible doesn't mean what it says but he'll tell you what it says in Greek.

Brother Bob's example is effective as well. The many Calvinists I've had these discussions with, will often tell you that "world" doesn't mean world and it means something else in the original Greek.

So anyway, I don't want to start a Bible version debate here, but this is an issue of why things are seemingly obvious to some folks which are not obvious to others.

 

No, but most creeds will state that scripture is innerant only in its autographs.

I don't see how you can deny that English is often inadequate to express the concepts in Greek. Just look at the following as a classic example:

The above makes absolutely no sense in English. Why would Peter be grieved because Jesus said the third time, "do you love me?" That's the same thing Jesus said the first two times, right? Wrong. The word for "love" in Greek is different the third time. In English, it is the same.

 

That's cool, the point is the same from the other perspective. Regardless of who is right, this is a key reason for why things that seem obvious to one party, do not seem obvious to another.

 

It's not really the same. The Greek is a direct copy of the original. English is a translation of a copy of the Greek. The Greek is more reliable because it is closer to the original autographs in both time and language. In addition, Greek is a much more precise language than English, so the words pack more meaning than the English translations. See the above example where "love" is ambiguous in English but precise in Greek.

 

You are making a "why Greek is more reliable than English" argument and not a "why clear teachings in the Bible are not obvious" argument.

To reiterate, and regardless of who is correct on the Greek versus English thing. This is one of the reasons why clear teachings are not clear to all parties. Our protestant/baptist English translation of the Holy Bible often differs to those that take on the role of translator and refer to the original Greek as their authority.

 

Rufus 1611,

What about people that "argue" different doctrine perspectives from the KJV? For example the Free Willers and the Doctrines of Gracer's - they both "argue" from the KJV. Premil Dispies argue from the KJV, so do Charasmatics as do Covenant Theologists. The point is there are some doctrines that people "argue" from the KJV and not other "perversions"

[Personal attacked removed.]

 

There are many reasons why folks don't see clear teachings as obvious as others. Dale-C listed three very good ones and I added a fourth and am not suggesting that the one I added is all inclusive relative to this issue.

[Response to personal attack removed]

 

Another reason is that maybe they have been deceived. False teachers abound.

 

That's true, but if one approaches the Bible properly, wouldn't it expose the false teaching as false teaching?

 

They're related. Some otherwise clear teachings in the Bible may not be obvious because English is sometimes inadequate to express the meaning of the Greek.

 

How does one approach the Bible properly? There are many approaches that lead to many false teachings.

 

That topic would best be explored in a separate thread.

 

Then why did you bring it up?