Theological Doublespeak

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by HankD:
in another statement Jesus applied it to the very jots and tittles of the original language.

It is my understanding that the "original language" of the Law - Hebrew - did not have "jots and tittles." The original Hebrew consisted merely of consonants and the points were added later to preserve the vowell sounds.

Which brings up an interesting thought - did Jesus declare infallibility for a post-original form of the written Law?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HankD:
in another statement Jesus applied it to the very jots and tittles of the original language.

It is my understanding that the "original language" of the Law - Hebrew - did not have "jots and tittles." The original Hebrew consisted merely of consonants and the points were added later to preserve the vowell sounds.

Which brings up an interesting thought - did Jesus declare infallibility for a post-original form of the written Law?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Does it really matter? He treated it as God's word not just an infallible document. Also there was more than one Greek translation around. (To this day there are some contries that do not have the book of Revelation in it). I am sure Jesus was not all that concerned with the jots and tittles but with life and where they were spending eternity. He was primarily concerned with the people following Him and not some other issue. About 100 percent of the time that is the major issue. God never confronts me about did I make sure I did a full text critical analysis but am I walking with Him. So often the issues I hear about would never be a real issue if the person really knew how changes lives and what their primary job is. Their primary job is to not make converts but disciples--those who follow Jesus.

 

[Gunther]

Perhaps you could explain how God can produce anything less than inerrant.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Does it really matter? He treated it as God's word not just an infallible document.

If it is God's word it certainly matters whether or not it is infallible. And it certainly matters whether or not we have a copy of the Scriptures which we can infallibly trust - you bet it does.

Also there was more than one Greek translation around. (To this day there are some contries that do not have the book of Revelation in it).

All that proves is that there are some countries that are under the anathema of the Lord, for He placed a curse on anyone who tampered with the book of Revelation in any way.

I am sure Jesus was not all that concerned with the jots and tittles but with life and where they were spending eternity.

But Jesus said He was concerned with the jots and tittles and that the way we handle the jots and tittles will determine our greatness or littleness in the kingdom of God. As a matter of fact, we find that the Lord on several occasions killed people merely for disregarding the jots and tittles of His law.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Scott,

God Almighty has commanded me to,

"Mark them which cause division and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them."

If denying the truthfulness of the Scriptures doesn't qualify as a doctrinal offence I don't know what would. Therefore, I judge anyone who denies the inerrancy of the Scriptures to be not a 32nd theological cousin of mine.

Mark Osgatharp [/QB]

Saying that inerrancy is a damnable quality is way outside the realm of the plain teaching of Scripture. Your misapplication of that verse is quite distressing, especially considering that you are a minister.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
It is my understanding that the "original language" of the Law - Hebrew - did not have "jots and tittles." The original Hebrew consisted merely of consonants and the points were added later to preserve the vowell sounds.

Just to clarify. Hebrew has always had "jots" and "tittles". Nothing to do with vowel pointing in the Masoretic Text of 900 AD

A "jot" is a small letter. Yodh with a "y" sound. Used tens of thousands of times in the OT. First letter in YHWH - the name of God.

A "tittle" is a small apendage that changes a letter by adding a tail or little line to the form of the letter. Changes a K into a B and makes a HUGE difference in words! (Imagine an "F" and having to add just a little tittle to make it an "E")

Neither a jot or tittle will be lost from God's Word. Of course, "God's Word" is the original language, not the English translation -- but that is reserved for discussion on the Versions forum.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HankD:
in another statement Jesus applied it to the very jots and tittles of the original language.

It is my understanding that the "original language" of the Law - Hebrew - did not have "jots and tittles." The original Hebrew consisted merely of consonants and the points were added later to preserve the vowell sounds.

Which brings up an interesting thought - did Jesus declare infallibility for a post-original form of the written Law?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Jots and tittles are the consonants. It has nothing to do with vowel points. The jot or yod is the smallest letter; the tittle is a stroke of a letter that distinguises between letters such as resh and dahleth. All Hebrew writing has jots and tittles; not all of it has vowels.

 

[HankD]

So Mark the question of jots (yods-Hebrew letter "y") and tittles (Original Hebrew particles pre-dating the Masoretic vowel pointing system) have been answered.

That we have not preserved these Jots and tittles perfectly in one archetypal manuscript is due to the failure of man not God.

It is there in the thousands of manuscripts and I believe it is discernable and an archetype could be produced with the Lord's help.

Some want it to be the KJV1611 (or KJV1769, it can't be both).

Actually the archetype would have to be in the original languages as the Lord indicated with the words "jots" and "tittles".

HankD

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Whether the "jots and tittles" refer to the vowel points or the "yods and strokes", the question still remains, how could God hold us responsible for every minor detail of His word if every minor detail of it is not available to us in a form we can understand?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Does it really matter? He treated it as God's word not just an infallible document.

If it is God's word it certainly matters whether or not it is infallible. And it certainly matters whether or not we have a copy of the Scriptures which we can infallibly trust - you bet it does.

You took what I wrote right out of its context and distorted it. I wrote that by just calling the scripture inerrant only is limiting what God calls it. An inerrant document may be an accurate document by has no power by itself. But scripture does have power. Just look at 2Timothy 3:16 and Heb. 4:12.

Also there was more than one Greek translation around. (To this day there are some contries that do not have the book of Revelation in it).

All that proves is that there are some countries that are under the anathema of the Lord, for He placed a curse on anyone who tampered with the book of Revelation in any way.

Could you name one country?

I am sure Jesus was not all that concerned with the jots and tittles but with life and where they were spending eternity.

But Jesus said He was concerned with the jots and tittles and that the way we handle the jots and tittles will determine our greatness or littleness in the kingdom of God. As a matter of fact, we find that the Lord on several occasions killed people merely for disregarding the jots and tittles of His law.


Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Whether the "jots and tittles" refer to the vowel points or the "yods and strokes", the question still remains, how could God hold us responsible for every minor detail of His word if every minor detail of it is not available to us in a form we can understand?

Mark Osgatharp

God hold us accountable for obedience to Him and not understanding everything. A child can be obedient and not understand much.

1 Cor 13:12, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known."

 

[Terry_Herrington]

This topic has aptly been titles "Theological Doublespeak."

I almost don't believe what I am reading. Some here say that inerrancy is not important or that the Scripture can be from God yet not be inerrant.


This is amazing! How can you trust God if He is unable to even give you a inerrant Bible to follow? Who is to decide which part of the Bible is trustworthy and which parts are not?


I know that the God I serve is not only able to give us a perfect Bible, but He has already done so. As I have stated in another forum I prefer to use the KJV. I know I can trust it, if for no other reason that the fact that God has used it for hundreds of years and it has not failed yet. I do not say this to condemn anyone who uses another Bible, that is between you and God. I have just decided to go back to what I know works.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
This topic has aptly been titles "Theological Doublespeak."

I almost don't believe what I am reading. Some here say that inerrancy is not important or that the Scripture can be from God yet not be inerrant.


This is amazing! How can you trust God if He is unable to even give you a inerrant Bible to follow? Who is to decide which part of the Bible is trustworthy and which parts are not?


I know that the God I serve is not only able to give us a perfect Bible, but He has already done so. As I have stated in another forum I prefer to use the KJV. I know I can trust it, if for no other reason that the fact that God has used it for hundreds of years and it has not failed yet. I do not say this to condemn anyone who uses another Bible, that is between you and God. I have just decided to go back to what I know works.

It depends on what you try to use it for as to whether it will fail you or not.

If you try to use it to learn the way of salvation and learn the difference between right and wrong it will not fail you.

If you are Martin Luthor and you try to use it to decide whether or not Copornicus is on the right track with his heliocentric view of the solar system it will fail you. This is the documented historical happening.

If you are a 21st centutry christian trying to decide the age of the earth it will fail you just as it failed Martin Luthor.

Other ways it will fail you would be if you try to use it to determine the value of PI or tell you how many legs are on an insect. 3 and 4 will be suggested by bible references and those are not accurate. Instead, learn the facts from outside the Bible and use your knowledge of the facts to help you interpret what those verses must realy mean.