Off My Chest

I'm sick of the ad hominem junk that comes up in this forum repeatedly. If you try to contribute to the discussion with what you have spent hours meditating and studying your motives are all of the sudden questionable. Then you see posts like the following that are arguments against what? Learning?

Quote: "Questions for those who don't like the word "if" in the text:

- What other errors are there in our English Bibles?
- Are our English Bibles to be trusted?
- Should we throw out our English Bibles and learn Greek and Hebrew?
- Is there a perfect Greek NT?
- Should we who do not know Greek rely on our English Bibles or not?!!
- If we do not have a perfect Bible, what is our final authority? Scholars? (Man?)
- Those of you who don't like "if" in the text, do you consider yourselves to be more learned than the translators?

Don't answer any of these questions, they do not speak to the OP. I just had to get this off my chest."

I'll answer all of them

What other errors are there in our English Bibles? Which Bibles, which versions. Are any of them infallible? How do we know? I pointed out two in a different thread in the KJV. I haven't seen an English version yet without error, and I'm sure if I tried to do one myself on just one chapter it would have some errors too.

Are our English Bibles to be trusted? Yes, as long as you don't think they are infallible. It is helpful to compare them, and versions that explain more of their translation philosophy are more helpful in this respect (like the NET Bible). It is also helpful to consult commentaries, sermons, etc. that help one understand them, especially regarding difficult passages.

Is there a Perfect Greek NT? I believe the autographs were inspired by God, but they are not extant. We use textual criticism to best determine what the originals really said. Thankfully, there really are not that many major problems between the texts and the stickier problems do not affect any doctrine (IMO).

Should we who do not know Greek rely on our English Bibles or not?!! Yes, please do. Just rely on them as faithful translations (some more than others) and not the autographs of Scripture. As such, they are subject to criticism just as any other translation. And as such they are God's special revelation to us. The Spirit certainly uses faithful translations (but I won't arbitrarily limit Him to only the faithful ones).

If we do not have a perfect Bible, what is our final authority? Scholars? (Man?) You know another thread in another forum explored one's absolute, final authority with mixed results? Personally, I'll affirm God's providence through the Church (especially in forming the canon and orthodoxy through the ecumenical creeds). I believe in orthodoxy and I believe that God has preserved His Scripture through enough sources that we can determine what the originals said. This is a work in progress and we are always subject to refining it a little bit. Did not scholars translate Scripture in the past and up to today? What are the intentions of scholars? Are they all bad?

Those of you who don't like "if" in the text, do you consider yourselves to be more learned than the translators? Which translators? I haven't met them so I don't know. Who cares? Can I or they make a case for their translation? What does it matter who is more "learned?" I made my case for my translation and others made theirs. I doubt it matters who's right according to who is more learned? Once again, are scholars good or not? This question implies that they are but the one above implies that they are not? Are scholars that just affirm what you already believe the good ones?

 

How do you know you have an infallible English version and which one it is if there is one? I do believe that God is part of the process and that process is ongoing today and didn't stop a few hundred years ago. God is still working today through the church (which believe it or not includes some scholars).

This type of thinking is analagous to people who argue that God's special physical healing is mutually exclusive to medicine. Pray an illness away before you consult a doctor. Perhaps, God works both through doctors and prayer (He could even answer prayer through the work of doctors); is that not providence too. Perhaps God still works through pastors and teachers and even the bedraggled scholar.

How do we have any translations without scholars? It seems to be a necessary condition for any good translation: past, present, or future. How do you lean on a version produced by scholars and then claim otherwise? Why not lean on God's work through the church and all faithful translations not just certain ones. In fact, let's extend it beyond translations and exegesis, exposition, application, and theology--the full counsel of God. Which understanding of Scripture believes that God is not part of the process here? Not mine, if that's what you are implying.

All scholars are equal but the KJV scholars are more equal than others? Edgyoumackkashion ain't what it used to be ya' know (just a joke )

 

Convince anyone otherwise on anything :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Fuhget about it.

I'll stick with the church (and its members great and small--even friendly, neighborhood scholars no matter how much they are derided on this board) in helping me out; methinks God still uses the church today. You know God used the church to establish the canon and orthodoxy. Perhaps, He's still using the church to help His children grow up to the full stature of Christ by learning from each other.

Quote: "Right now it is the word of God and the Holy Spirit." Great, then whence come your arguments against me? We agree on these things. Probably because you think I believe in a fallible Word of God and you substitute that phrase for a particular English version. Maybe that's why we disagree?