Originally posted by av1611jim:
Scott, they don't have to question the meaning of words. The passage in question makes it clear that "conversation" is NOT speech only. Otherwise what you end up with is speech being our ONLY works.
Jim, Apparently they do. This guy wasn't a babbling idiot nor was he lazy like you contend. He just saw a word that he
knew the definition of and interpretted the verse accordingly.
Once more,(I hate to do this) I refer you to just ONE word from the NIV. Without a dictionary can your kids define this; "fomenting" ? I'll guess that MOST high schoolers can't. You may find it at ISA. 59:13 in the NIV. OTOH the same verse in the KJV has "speaking". In this one place, which is easier to understand?
First, I don't use the NIV and only reluctantly defend it on principle.
The word "foment" has a meaning. If someone
knows that they don't know the meaning then they will be prompted to look it up. That's the difference.
As for the word itself, I agree. It was a bad choice.
I don't agree with you. Explaining the text does not take away from the message.
That's not what I said either. The message sometimes needs to be explained even when people understand every word.
Explaining things isn't the issue. The issue is that words that people think they know sometimes mean different things now than in 1769... and we haven't even gotten into some of the confusing grammar and punctuation.
Yes, there are some words that have SECONDARY meanings which have become PRIMARY in our everyday speech. But that does NOT happen as often as some would like us to believe.
It happens. That is all I have said. And, it only has to happen once for someone to develop a false belief or at least to become confused.
What is so WRONG with giving the meaning of a text?
Nothing except that when a Christian becomes that dependent on someone else for their biblical knowledge, we are starting back down the same road that left millions of sincere people hell bound during the days when the RCC forbad any version but the LV.
Ne 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
{You will remember that this was after many decades without the Book of God. To hear some (not necessarily you) on this board speak, the Jews should have been seeking a NEW translation!}
There is alot left open to interpretation with this passage. I won't argue over it other than to say your view isn't the only valid one.
Seems to me that this practice of EXPLAINING the text, which APPEARS to be comdemend by a particular crowd, is nevertheless APPROVED of by God.
Explaining the text is fine. Withholding the Bible from people because they can't understand the language of it for themselves is not.
The Bible should be made as understandable to the common man as possible without compromising faithfulness to the original language texts. A person should not have to struggle through language they don't understand well to get to the truth God has for them... which is already challenging enough to apply and interpret correctly.
