Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | ebrain | 178720 | ||
Hi Mark. Thank you for your post, asking if I believe that the Greek New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe that there is what I would describe as both Primary, and Secondary Inspiration. Primary Inspiration is responsible for the "Autographs", only, and not the copies, or the translations, and that Secondary Inspiration is applicablt to all three groups. As the autographs are no longer available for study, secondary only needs to be considered here. In my lifetime more that fifty different versions of the English Bible have been published, although a number were only of the NT. Non of these are exact word for word translations, as we do not have the originals, and in any case they are in a different language, I am not however saying that the translators did not have Divine assistance in producing their version. Any Reference Bible, will have marginal notes, and footnotes indicating such things as "Meaning of word unknown", or "The earliest manuscripts do not include", or "can also be translated as", ect, ect. Take for example Mark 16:9-20, which is considered as a later addition. Now have a look at v18, and tell me do you realy think that the Holy Spirit wants christians to put the Lord to the test by drinking deadly poison in order to prove that thay are the real thing, when Jesus who was asked the same question, said "Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test".? Now let me explain what I mean by "Secondary Inspiration". The Holy Scriptures whether autographs, copies, or translations are like no other writings in the universe, they are Supernatural, spiritual. and spiritual things have to be spiritually dscerened, the natural man is just not able to understand The Bible, and this is where the Holy Spirit comes in, He causes the man to be "Born again", then the man will say, "now I understand it, now it all makes sense, it's a different book alltogether", oh no it is not, the book is just the same as it has allways been, it's you the reader who havs been changed, and thereby been enabled to understand it. I may say something more on this subject at a later date, but for the time being, I hope the above will help to answer your question. The Lord bless you brother. Edwin. |
||||||
2 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | mark d seyler | 178749 | ||
Hi Edwin. Thank you for your answer. The only thing that I still have a question concerning is this: Do you consider the Greek New Testament, or portions of it, to be among the translatations? Or when you say “autographs”, do you include, for example, the first Greek manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel? Concerning Mark 16:9-20, were you aware that one of these “early manuscripts”, the Vaticanus, while it does not contain this passage, does leave a blank space where that text would fit? But this really isn’t a problem either way I look at it. Its addition doesn’t conflict with any other teachings, and it omission doesn’t remove anything that’s not taught elsewhere. And nowhere, including in Mark 16, are we told that we should test the Lord, with the one exception that the Jews under the Old Covenant were to prove God concerning His promised blessing in their tithes - at least to the best of my knowledge! :-) This gets into a whole different subject of textual criticism. But I have to say that I am uncomfortable with the idea that we would reject a portion of Scripture as being authentic because we don’t happen to like or approve or understand or agree with what it says. I have to conform to Scripture, not conform Scripture to me. The only sound basis I would accept for disallowing a passage from the text of Scripture would have to be based on textual evidence alone. May the Lord bless you! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
3 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | ebrain | 178776 | ||
Hi Mark. You said. "Concerning Mark 16:9-20, were you aware that one of these “early manuscripts”, the Vaticanus, while it does not contain this passage, does leave a blank space where that text would fit? But this really isn’t a problem either way I look at it. Its addition doesn’t conflict with any other teachings, and it omission doesn’t remove anything that’s not taught elsewhere. And nowhere, including in Mark 16, are we told that we should test the Lord, with the one exception that the Jews under the Old Covenant were to prove God concerning His promised blessing in their tithes - at least to the best of my knowledge! :-)". My answer to this is to be found in my reply to Hank posted at 7.25 am to-day 10/24/06. The other matters to which you refer will be delt with later on. Every blessing. Edwin. |
||||||