Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | Morant61 | 141306 | ||
Greetings Hank! Excellent post my friend! If I may add a point, it seems to me that it is the very same people who are incapable of understanding the rules of grammar, who then turn around and argue that the Bible can mean anything to anyone! Is it any wonder? ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | Hank | 141311 | ||
Tim, good observation! While it is true that almost anything in Scripture can be misunderstood by almost anyone, it is equally true that the Bible means what it means, no more and no less. The message of Scripture is always the same, invariable and objective, and stands independent of what its readers may think it means. The message of Scripture was not something different when I was a child from what it is now that I am a mature man. From being a child to becoming a man I changed a great deal, and my perception changed along the way. But John 3:16, for example, meant exactly the same thing when I was 14 as it did when I became 64. Perhaps my preception and appreciation of its meaning became keener and fuller and richer 50 years later, but the meaning was there all the time. I was then and am still, in a certain sense, a work in progress. But God's word is a work, eternal, complete and perfect, once and for all delivered to the saints. Like the Word Himself, it is the same yesterday, today, and forever. [cf. Hebrews 13:8]. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | Ray | 142353 | ||
Hi Hank, I received "Eats, shoots and leaves" for a gift as well. I heard the last part of her presentation at a book signing recently. My copy is with my daughter right now, but we should probably add her name to the quote you made from the book. I don't know if I fully agree with you in your saying that the word of God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If that is true, why are there new copyrights of versions and new choices of manuscripts used? From the heart, Ray |
||||||
4 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | Hank | 142364 | ||
Hi, Ray. I hope you enjoy your copy of the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" as much as I have mine. ..... While it's true that new versions of Scripture come out with every new moon it seems, and the debate about manuscripts is ongoing still, this does not mean that God wrote multiple versions of His word, or that He changed His mind over the years, or that He issues updates and revisions in order to remain relevant or be trendy. I have in my library two or three versions of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales." One is in the original Chaucer, while the others are attempts to modernize the now-dated language of Chaucer. Yet what Chaucer actually wrote -- what came from his pen -- has not changed and never will. In like manner, neither has Scripture. When I referred to the word of God in my post, I was not referring to the latest _version_ of it to hit the market. I assumed that my point was clear enough, but perhaps it wasn't. --Hank | ||||||
5 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | Ray | 142375 | ||
Hi Hank, In making a google search for the name of the writer of the book we are talking about, I ran into a critique from the "New Yorker". It is called "Bad Comma" by Louis Menand. Since Lynne Truss--the writer of the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves"--is a British writer, he feels that she should rewrite the book. Are we surprised to hear that? The book is a best seller in England and in America. The critique suggests that her copy editor needed a copy editor. From the heart, Ray |
||||||
6 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | Hank | 142389 | ||
This doesn't surprise me, Ray. The New Yorker has always been quirky about punctuation. James Thurber, who was at one time a major contributor to the magazine, had heated arguments with Ross on the subject. Punctuation should not be treated lightly, I believe, because it can have a profound effect on meaning. Nowhere is this more crucial than in Scripture. Was, for example, John the Baptist the voice of one crying in the wilderness, "Repent..." or was he the voice of one crying, "In the wilderness, repent..."? --Hank | ||||||
7 | Baby or baby (continued)? | Luke 2:16 | Ray | 142417 | ||
Hi Hank, Another possibility that I have considered and rejected is "a voice of One, crying in the wilderness, "Repent". I rejected it because of the comparison with Isaiah 40:3, "A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God." Will there be peace and truth in our days because we have spoken the word of the Lord? See Isaiah 39:8. I find it interesting that the writer of the critique of Lynne Truss' book went on and spoke of "voice". From the heart, Ray |
||||||