HCSB Right or Wrong here?

[manchester]

Craigs,

How about explaining why "tongues" is better than "languages"? How about a link to an explanation that you agree with? How about a citation to a reputable scholar explaining how "tongues" is better than "languages"?

The word "tongues" is only correct to the extent that it means "languages." If the use of the word "tongues" implies that there were literal tongues that appeared and started wagging around, it is false. Each and every possible meaning of "tongues" is incorrect except for "languages." The fact that the word has many definitions that do not apply, and the only sense in which the word is correct is the sense in which the word is no longer used, shows that "tongues" is a false translation, a legacy from earlier translations brought forward to appease the reactionaries.

 

[gb93433]

The idea of being "singled out" is common among SBC folks. For all those "singled out" who begin their seminary training only about 20-25 percent are still pastoring after five years after they graduate. Out of those who begin seminary only 50 percent graduate.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Phillip wrote in the OP,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> By the way, if this is translated into languages, the true meaning of the gift is much clearer in the context of the text.

I agree here with Phillip that if you translate these passages using the word "languages," the theological interpretations of the SBC translators in is much more clear . But of course that is the precise opposite of good translation ethics and practices.

</font>[/QUOTE]A lack of ethics has been my beef all along with the SBC. When I was a pastor in the SBC I saw many unethical, manipulative and unbiblical things. Why do you think they hang pictures on the wall and report who gives big gifts? Then compare that to what scripture says to do and who Jesus commended. Look at the comparisons in the state papers to see how much each church gives. It is politicizing Christianity.

If you know anything about what the SBC leaders want, it is easy to understand why they are promoting their translation. The SBC will not hire anyone to work for them as a denominational leader who has ever spoken in tongues. When I have questioned them about their interpretation their response has been, it keeps them from having trouble. In their opinion it is more practical than theolgical. When I have pressed a few on that position they will not declare what they believe. What kind of whimp is that who will not discuss his theology for fear of reprisal?

Recently NAMB declared it will reduce the benefits of its retirees. How sweet of the SBC to build a new library for the president of SWBTS to house his books and then cut the benefits of those who will retire. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Phillip wrote in the OP,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> By the way, if this is translated into languages, the true meaning of the gift is much clearer in the context of the text.

I agree here with Phillip that if you translate these passages using the word "languages," the theological interpretations of the SBC translators in is much more clear . But of course that is the precise opposite of good translation ethics and practices.

</font>[/QUOTE]A lack of ethics has been my beef all along with the SBC. When I was a pastor in the SBC I saw many unethical, manipulative and unbiblical things. Why do you think they hang pictures on the wall and report who gives big gifts? Then compare that to what scripture says to do and who Jesus commended. Look at the comparisons in the state papers to see how much each church gives. It is politicizing Christianity.

If you know anything about what the SBC leaders want, it is easy to understand why they are promoting their translation. The SBC will not hire anyone to work for them as a denominational leader who has ever spoken in tongues. When I have questioned them about their interpretation their response has been, it keeps them from having trouble. In their opinion it is more practical than theolgical. When I have pressed a few on that position they will not declare what they believe. What kind of whimp is that who will not discuss his theology for fear of reprisal?

Recently NAMB declared it will reduce the benefits of its retirees. How sweet of the SBC to build a new library for the president of SWBTS to house his books and then cut the benefits of those who will retire. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? </font>[/QUOTE]gb, why do you always have to turn a thread into an ANTI-SBC thread?

The thread was simply to discuss whether or not "languages" is an appropriate translation for "tongues". If your church had translated it that way it would have been great. Otherwise, since the SBC did it and you had some bad experiences with the SBC, then you can't stand the translation.

I don't even know WHAT you are talking about "hanging pictures on a wall". Our church doesn't. I also don't know what retirement pay has to do with the translation of "tongues" into "languages".

Could you please restrict your debate to the subect?

I am not saying this as "moderator", I am saying this as a person who likes you and debates with you often.