bmerr said:
Darron Steele said:
1) They typically do NOT want to discuss the Greek of their favorite passages -- at least, not honestly. They assume the accuracy of the English translations there and do not want anyone to consider the text of the New Testament church.
Darron,
bmerr here. At some point, we are all trusting the accuracy of another person. I don't read Greek, so I must trust the accuracy of those who do to determine if a reliable translation in English is available. If one has the knowledge of the Greek, and can work with it, they are relying on the accuracy of those who taught them to read Greek, as well as those who taught their teachers, etc, etc.
If a reliable translation in English is available, then I am limited to what it says. English is the only language I speak or read. Does this mean that I cannot know what God requires of me in order to enjoy eternity with Him? Are the complexities of Greek so vast that a message written in Greek cannot be reliably translated into English? I'm hopeless, if this is the case.
Not at all. I regularly read the Bible in English, and often in Spanish, and Portuguese. There are usually no earth-shattering differences. I would assume that these translations usually reflect the Greek quite well.
However, sometimes it is necessary to consult the New Testament church's text, especially on matters of fine detail. Unwillingness to do so is a departure from New Testament church practice.
bmerr said:
Or perhaps it is the case that the translators of the KJV were not very well acquainted with Greek. Or maybe they were trying to trick the world in choosing the English words they used to translate the Greek.
Some (not neccessarliy you, Darron) seem to think that the present generation is the first to have competent Greek scholars.
Not at all. There were also competent translators of Greek translating into Spanish and Portuguese centuries ago -- and I consider their work also.
At Acts 2:38, their work has some things to say to us. The use of different verb tenses to reflect the Greek underlying KJV "Repent" and "be baptized" suggest something different from baptismal regeneration. I gave this information on the thread: "Is Baptism Required For Salvation" -- on which you have been active.
bmerr said:
Actually, accuracy of translation is considered by most elderships. Though it is not always the case, most modern (per)versions are not allowed to be used in teaching or preaching, due to the various false doctrines presented in them.
This reinforces my point: if the translation does not have a pattern of matching the 1769 edition of the KJV at favorite passages, Church of Christ leaderships reject them. It does not matter if they are accurate to the underlying Greek.
bmerr said:
Darron Steele said:
2) They do NOT want to consider the allusions to culture and ancient life these passages often make. They do not want to consider that when an author referred to a certain ancient activity, that it might not mean an American thing at all. The Churches of Christ typically do not want to consider what the ancient New Testament church would have understood from a given passage.
This is a false charge. What examples might be considered?
I have alluded to the first on the thread: "Is Baptism Required For Salvation." You have been active on this thread.
Two examples: at John 3:3-6 Jesus refers to two births described:
"of water" and "of the Spirit" reworded
"of flesh" and "of the Spirit" in the next verse.
Ancient Hebrew terminology linked natural birth to terms such as "water" and "drop" (Hayford,
Spirit-Filled Life Bible. Page 1577.) Churches of Christ, disregarding this, insist on seeing "of baptism" where Scripture has "of water." Further, anyone who considers what this passage would have been understood to mean by its readers is shunned as `explaining away.'
At Galatians 3:27, "put on Christ" is understood as making someone dressed in Christ. However, in Galatians 3:24, the Mosaic Law is pictured as a children's tutor. In Galatians 3:27, Paul is alluding to a cultural event in Roman society where a child put on adult clothes to become an adult (
Life Application Bible, study annotation). Hence, being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is the equivalent of moving on to spiritual maturity in Christ. Anyone who dares to consider how this passage would have been understood to its readers when written is shunned as `explaining away.'
bmerr said:
Darron Steele said:
3) They list verses that seem to contradict the verses fueling the beliefs of other evangelicals. Church of Christ members typically make no effort to reconcile these apparent variations: the verses cited are supposed to trump the other verses. What must be done instead of making some parts of the Bible more important than others is the following: an attempt to create a comprehensive picture of what the whole of the New Testament teaches trying to treat all the passages equally and see how they work WITH each other.
This is another false charge. The verses Christians often cite tend to be those avoided by denominationalists, since they refute the false doctrines they teach. Not to mention, when a topic is being discussed, it only makes sense to cite the passages that actually speak of that topic, doesn't it?
Fro example, if baptism is being discussed, what sense does it make to cite Eph 2:8-9, since those verses do not speak of baptism? When they are presented, it is more often than not to speak against Bible verses that
do speak about baptism. If any passage of Scripture is misused as a "trump verse", it is Eph 2:8-9.
Yes, Ephesians 2:8-10 indicates that salvation is by our faith and is not based upon something that we do -- works follow from that salvation.
Romans 4:5 is even more clear.
In Scripture, we are shown baptizing and being baptized. To most of us, baptism is seen as a work. When contradictory passages, such as the KJV of Acts 2:38, are thrown at us, there seems to be only a contradiction. Typically, no attempt is made to explain how they work WITH, not against each other.
Again: your words
bmerr said:
The verses Christians often cite tend to be those avoided by denominationalists, since they refute the false doctrines they teach
As you indicated, typically Church of Christ people point out how the verses used by some Church of Christ people work AGAINST the passages that most Christians use to teach their doctrines. What I am suggesting is that Christians should be after how the passages work WITH each other to get a comprehensive understanding.
When this is done, as I said
Darron Steele said:
...the Churches of Christ have valuable contributions to a good understanding of salvation from the Bible, but the picture is predominantly what other evangelicals have been teaching for centuries.
