Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Authoritative answers? | Prov 3:5 | Aixen7z4 | 107644 | ||
It is such a good idea, though. One would think that the originators would be willing to make some slight adjustments in order to accomplish the goal. The idea, as I understand it, is that someone should be able to go to any verse in the Bible and see what questions and comments have been made on it. Even here one would hope that a slight change can be made, to allow people to reference a passage (a range of verses) rather than a single verse. The idea of having monitors has been suggested, and it is one that might be considered by the owners. Obviously there are some who would oppose the idea and even try to prevent it from getting to the decision makers for consideration. They want everyone to be free to say almost anything and unless it crosses some line (of vulgarity or obscenity, I guess) it is allowed to stand. There are some who come down on certain types of posts, yes, but it seems to be almost another law of the jungle, where the strong hound the weak and run them off. Meanwhile, all the posts remain. We do not even know if the original intent was mischief or if their problem was timidity. Yet, the owners want a growing commentary on the Bible. I am sure they also wanted an accurate translation of the Bible. Why not have a commentary which is useful and reliable? At least, let it not be confusing. In reading the threads even a neophyte is forced to either agree with one side or to throw his hands up in frustration and maybe, as in this case, depart in confusion. Of course, there are those who like it the way it is, and are glad to make up their own mind or agree with the kings of the jungle. But how can the owners of this forum be confident that they have given folks the truth? It may be good to let the experts work together and give us one set of renderings. But someone does not have to proffer credentials in order to be allowed to pontificate here. Nor is anyone disqualified for asking silly or useless questions. Criticisms are given, but they go both ways. Error stands with truth. The purpose of this forum is a noble one. I wonder if there is anyone who thinks it is being realized. But not really, I am sure there are those who think so. But in my heart there is an ache for people such as inmyheart who come by looking for answers and then move on. Or maybe they do not move on. I see that that person went on to decide who were giving the right answers and who were wrong. It has been pointed out that they were espousing a particular doctrine and that they had gotten into a huff when they were confronted. At one point they are listed among those are “very knowledgeable of the Word and very spirit filled”. What’s all of that about? The person who came on as a learner had decided that he was an expert after all, and others were recognizing his as such. Again the law of the jungle. One can work one’s way up the food chain. I am aware that there are those who wish that Aixen would move on. But he comes back to plead again with his brethren, moved by some spirit that leads him to notes like the one that began this chain. As he said, there is an apparent need for authoritative answers somewhere. Why not here? At a Bible publisher’s, why not here? He has suggested that there is a need for agreement among those giving answers. Not that they have to give one answer. Not that their answers will represent one denominational viewpoint. Everyone must be aware that there is a group here whose members support each other. And they give good, Biblical answers. This in spite of having come from different backgrounds. I think it is the same for Bible translators. I suggest that this program be set up so that only those people (those judged to be sound in doctrine, apt to teach, etc.) can provide answers. Everyone else should be limited to asking questions. As always, anyone can preface his question with statements or opinions. But in the end, unless he belongs to that select group, he should have to fill out the question box. That way, visitors will know that his statements are not authoritative, but the group will answer his/her question. In the end, it seems that we need to not only talk about the Bible but also to practice the Bible. And where in the Bible is there this kind of free-for-all exchange of ideas? There have been prophets, and apostles, and elders. There were also false prophets and false apostles, but they were not allowed to write and publish their writings as scripture. They were also not allowed to add notes to the scriptures. Why shouldn’t Bible publishes take the same care today? OK. I know there is an answer. There is a counterpoint to everything that has been said here. But there are also inmyhearts coming on. They could have searched the Bible for themselves, but they are coming here. I think they are looking for clear answers. |
||||||
2 | Authoritative answers? | Prov 3:5 | EdB | 107652 | ||
Aixen7z4 Myself and many others have made impassioned pleads to Lockman to incorporate many of the ideas you touched upon. In defense of Lockman the cost or expense to incorporate them makes them not feasible or they are technically impossible to do within the present framework of the forum. Also the cost of converting the forum to a more receptive format is again is prohibitive. As far as picking a handful of “Experts” while it seems to be a good idea, because we all come from different backgrounds and different denominations it quickly becomes evident that if you have 10 experts you will have at least 11 different opinions of any particular scripture. Alas the forum far short of what many of us had dreamed of when Lockman announced their plan nearly three years ago. I like you envisioned a running commentary that one day could be used as dependable reference on nearly any verse or passage of the Bible. Instead it is a collection of good, bad and in some cases really stupid commentary. It contains opinions, prejudices, false teaching, correct teaching, malicious teaching, healing teaching and teaching straight from the pit of hell. Since there is never a conclusion or a summary the only way one can come to any conclusion of the discussion good or bad is to read all that has been written and form some opinion based on what was said. Unfortunately many times the worst or lousiest teaching sounds the most convincing and I fear many have left the forum with terrible theology. Education or experience does not define or guarantee the correct understanding of the Bible, nor does the warm fuzzies that many feel are sure sign they are on the right track. The true meaning of each verse of the Bible must stand upon every other verse of the Bible. As long as people freely say, this writer didn’t mean thus and such or this is only talking about people in that society, or that was custom of that society and doesn’t pertain to us today or this was only the writer’s opinion not God’s teaching or this word doesn’t mean that it really means this. You will always have these differences. Only one time in church history did nearly everyone hold to the same doctrine and that was destroyed by the reformation. EdB |
||||||
3 | Authoritative answers? | Prov 3:5 | kalos | 107658 | ||
Ed: "Only one time in church history did nearly everyone hold to the same doctrine and that was destroyed by the reformation." And I thank God that it was destroyed, considering the doctrines that everyone in the Roman Catholic church held to at that time. --kalos |
||||||
4 | Authoritative answers? | Prov 3:5 | EdB | 107662 | ||
Kalos Actually most of the Catholic religious doctrine is basically what orthodox Christianity holds today. The big problems started when the church tried to control the politics of the time. Soon money and the lust thereof became problem and direct contributor of many of the doctrine faulted by Reformers. Of course there is the big argument over works and grace but I’m more a James man and see the answer more in the middle of either house. Then there is Mariology but that is a rather recent phenomena which has occurred within the last couple hundred years. And even today is not as wide spread in the Catholic church as many Protestants would believe. My wife who was born and raised a Catholic is shocked by what she hears Catholics being accused of in reference to Mary. While I don’t claim to be an expert in Catholicism I have talked to enough knowledgeable Catholics that have convinced me there will be more than a few Catholics in heaven. Our own Emmaus is very sound in his doctrine although there are still areas he and I disagree. Just as you and I disagree but I expect to see you both in heaven one day, my brothers in Christ EdB |
||||||
5 | Authoritative answers? | Prov 3:5 | kalos | 107669 | ||
Would it be better if everyone were Roman Catholic, since then we would all believe alike? I would think accuracy of doctrine would be preferable to unity of doctrine. I.e., truth is more important than all of us believing the same thing, whether it be truth or error. Is Catholic religious doctrine more Scriptural and biblically sound than what Protestants believe? Is there so little difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and evangelical doctrine? Is the evangelical doctrine of salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion of secondary importance? Is the authority of Scripture AND of the Catholic church to be preferred above the authority of Scripture only? Is ritual more important than preaching? Moreover, the idea that there was universal agreement in the Catholic church before the reformation sounds like Catholic mythology. History indicates otherwise. Ed, I don't mean to be critical, but it sounds like you're implying that the Protestant Reformation was evil, destructive, and undesirable -- that we'd all be better off if only we had remained faithful to the Roman Catholic church. I do not post any of this to be argumentative. I only wish to understand where you are coming from. Grace and peace to you, my friend! kalos |
||||||
6 | Authoritative answers? | Prov 3:5 | EdB | 107739 | ||
Kalos Let me try to answer each part of your many questions separately. First let me say at the time of reformation the Catholic church was in need of reform. Also let me say I'm not, nor do I want to become a defender of the Catholic church. That said let us precede. You said: "Would it be better if everyone were Roman Catholic, since then we would all believe alike? I would think accuracy of doctrine would be preferable to unity of doctrine. I.e., truth is more important than all of us believing the same thing, whether it be truth or error." I respond: John I agree we must always follow truth, however who decides what is the truth? Since the reformation we have thousands of denominations and Christian religions all claiming they have the truth yet in many cases they lie in direct opposition to each other. Today we have everyone deciding for himself what is right and wrong and quite frankly there is more wrong than right. Look at the any stat on church growth, Christian lifestyle, morality or social reform, they are all saying we are slowing removing more and more of God out of our lives. You said: “Is there so little difference between Roman Catholic doctrine and evangelical doctrine?” I respond: Kalos read Luther’s 95 thesis, the reformation was a battle over the selling of indulgences not all the other peripheral issues many Protestants and Catholics fight over today. Read the Catholic church’s written doctrines or catechism and see how very close they are to what you call evangelical doctrine. You said: “Is the evangelical doctrine of salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion of secondary importance?” I respond: Absolutely not and that is not what Catholicism holds. You said: Is the authority of Scripture AND of the Catholic church to be preferred above the authority of Scripture only? I respond: The issue is not over what the Bible says, it is over who makes the call on what it means. In the Catholic church the Pope and his theological advisors determine what a verse means and how it applies. In the protestant church the head of the denomination along with their theologians does. For those that hold no denomination they are the deciding factor. Is one that much different than the other? Is one better? You said: “Is ritual more important than preaching?” I respond Absolutely not but ritual does have it’s place. In a Catholic church you will find a reverence for God that simply doesn’t exist in many protestant churches. Before you jump on me for this let me say. In the Catholic church they focus on the mysterious, majestic, wondrous aspect and power of God. Holding God in awe and reverence. They treat the things set apart as holy as being holy. This can lead to an impersonal cold religion. In the protestant religion we focus more on our accessibility to God, in many cases this leads to an almost casual view of God. One where little is respected or appreciated. Is one more correct than the other? Is one better than the other? You said: Moreover, the idea that there was universal agreement in the Catholic church before the reformation sounds like Catholic mythology. History indicates otherwise. I respond: Yes there was discontent in the Catholic church, but it wasn’t over interpretation of scripture or even doctrine it was concern over practices that weaseled their way into the church. The Catholic church had become corrupt becoming more of a political machine than a church and it needed reformed let there be no doubt to that. You said: “Ed, I don't mean to be critical, but it sounds like you're implying that the Protestant Reformation was evil, destructive, and undesirable -- that we'd all be better off if only we had remained faithful to the Roman Catholic church.” I repond: Kalos let me say once more I believe with all my heart the Catholic church needed reformed, overhauled, corrected, cleaned up. But I look at the results the fractured division within Christianity and say there had to be a better way. You know as well as I do everyone has opinion and in today’s world everyone is deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong. We have homosexuality, same sex marriages, divorce, child molestation, abortion, fraud and etc. all in the church and being done under “that is how I READ THE BIBLE.” EdB |
||||||