Results 6541 - 6560 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6541 | Literal or Paraphrase Translation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10243 | ||
Greetings Hank! There are basically three approaches to translation: Literal, Dynamic Equivalent, and Free. I will list some of the translations which use each style, advantages to each, and problems with each. Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing in the original language. Translations: KJV, NASB, RSV Advantages: Stays closest to the original text. Problems: Sometimes causes people to misunderstand a verse because it uses structures and/or wording that are not meaningful in the language of the person reading the text. Dynamic Equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receptor language. Tranlations: NIV, NAB, GNB, JB, NEB Advantages: Allows the text to make the most sense in the language of the person reading the text. Problems: Allows some interpretation to creep into the text. Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern about using the exant words of the original. Also called a paraphrase. Translations: Phillips, Living Bible. Advantages: Very east to understand and read. Problems: These are usually translated by only one person, rather than a large group. They become commentaries, rather than translations. My personal opinion is that Dynamic Equivalent is the best overall technique for the average reader. It is faithful to the text, but smooths out the language to make it more readable. The best option is to learn some about the original languages so that you can do your own translations. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6542 | Differences: higher, lower criticisms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10239 | ||
Greetings Hank! I love technical questions! As you mentioned in your question, there are two types of biblical criticisms. The first is called "lower criticism." "Lower criticism" basically focuses upon textual questions. It takes the various manuscripts, and based upon the evidence, tries to determine the original text of the Bible. Thus, "lower criticism" is basically Textual criticism. "Higher criticism" differs quite a bit from "lower criticism." "Higher criticism" uses assumptions about the way in which information is transmitted, arranged, or used. It uses these assumptions to try and determine what the original form of the information may have been. Unlike "lower criticism," which uses the hard texts to form its conclusions, "higher criticism" uses assumptions only to determine what the original story might have been. Unfortunately, most higher critics tend to have a very low view of Scripture. So, they spend most of their time trying to explain why the text didn’t really mean what it says. Here are some of the disciples within "higher criticism." 1) Literary Criticism: This is the study of questions such as authorship, date, place of writing, recipients, style, sources, integrity, and purpose of any piece of literature. 2) Form Criticism: This is the attempt to analyze the Gospels in order to recover the process by which the original, purely historical tradition was transformed into the supernaturally colored tradition as it is embodied in the written Gospels which we have today. 3) Historical Criticism: This is the attempt to critically study ancient records in order to re-construct what really happened in the past. The main problem with all of these disciplines is that they all approach Scripture with an anti-supernatural bias. According to these disciplines: miracles could not have happened; Scripture is simply the product of someone’s religious agenda; we must get back the "historical Jesus." In conclusion, I have very little trust in "higher criticism." It is a realm of opinion, bias, and speculation. However, "lower criticism" deals with facts - the manuscripts as we have them. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6543 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10080 | ||
Greetings Jim! Thanks for the response! Concerning your minor "problem," grammar is not a hard, fast science. Grammar has, at best, only loose rules which chance over time. So, it is hard to say that there is a problem with someones grammar. Especially in Greek, which really has no particular word order anyway. Concerning inerrancy, I am a firm believer in it for several reasons. One, Scripture claims it for itself. Two, God's nature demands it. God, who can not tell a lie, cannot publish a lie. However, like with the word 'literal,' there are many problems with the word 'inerrant.' Here is the definition that Millard Erickson gives in his systematic theology. It is one of the best definitions I have seen. "The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms." This allows the Bible to be judged based, not upon today's standards, which have changed, but on the standards of the time in which it was written. For instance, is the Bible in error because it does not footnote? Some today would say yes, simply because they are judging the Bible on today's standards. Your example at the end of your post is a good example. The purpose of 1 Peter 3:20 was not to define the word "few." To take it that way is to take the verse in a manner in which it was never intended. Furthermore, 'few' may have had a different meaning then as opposed to now. You also mentioned the sciences. Obviously, the Bible is not a physics textbook. It was never meant to be. Saying that the Bible is inerrant, doesn't mean that it includes every detail about every subject. It simply means that where the Bible does touch on issues relating to science, health, or government, the Bible is right. Inerrancy can't be stressed enough. When Paul says that homosexuality is a sin, he is not simply giving his opinion. He is speaking for God. To abandon inerrancy or inspiration is to turn the Bible into a collection of nice sayings equivalent to the book, "Chicken Soup for the Soul." It is a good read, but not God's word. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6544 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10037 | ||
Greetings Jim! I think that the issue which began this thread really was the issue of how does inspiration work. How and in what manner is the Bible the Word of God? The theologian Milliard Erickson defines inspiration in this way: "By inspiration of the Scripture we mean that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon the Scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God." It is this influence of the Holy Spirit that makes Scripture more than just a history book. This is where I differ with many modern theologians. We have tried to dig so much into the human side of Scripture (motives, structure, culture) that we have neglected the Divine side of Scripture. My understanding of the inspiration can be summed up under the following terms. 1) Inspiration is Verbal: The influence of the Holy Spirit extends even to the words chosen. The writers didn't always even understand what they were writing. They didn't always have all the facts, but the Holy Spirit gave them the words. 2) Inspiration is Plenary: The influence of the Holy Spirit extends not only to the words, but it covers all of Scripture. There are some who believe that the parts of Scripture that deal with spiritual issues are "God's Word," but everything else is simply human. I reject this view. Everything in the Bible is there because God willed it. 3) Inspiration is Confluent: Having said all of the above though, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit simply dictated the Bible to the authors. Rather, God worked through them in such a way that their personalities, style, ect... shine through. This view is consistent with 2 Tim. 3:16. 2 Tim. 3:16 makes it clear that Scripture has God as it's ultimate source, in that it is literally "God-breathed." I have said all of this that I might apply it to your question. Scripture was never presented to it's readers or hearers as just another biography, history, or sermon. It was always presented as "Thus saith the Lord." Therefore, I think we err if we assume that each detail in Scripture must have had a human source of information. There is much in Scripture that is recounted by eye-witnesses, but there is also much (Like Revelation or all Prophecy) that comes directly from the Holy Spirit. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6545 | Don't sweat the small stuff? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9957 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! I have been following this thread with some frustration. The frustration is because no one seems to be listening to anyone else. I think I see what you were trying to say, but it is difficult. You phrased it poorly and should have quoted the post you were responding to! How about this for a suggestion? Rewrite what you were trying to say so that everyone can follow it. I don't believe that people are sure which parts were meant to be yours and which parts were meant to be a summary of the post you were responding to. If you rewrite your post, I think you can clear up a lot of misunderstanding. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6546 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9939 | ||
Greetings Jim! I too had the impression that you were trying to say one thing, but it was sort of coming out a different way. I'm glad that you have had to opportunity to come back and clarify your position. This is an excellent leason for all of us on the Forum. We must be very careful how we say things. We must also define our terms. For instance, in this particular thread there were two definitions (or more) of literal being used. The result was that communication wasn't really taking place. Concerning my definition, it is a simple definition that I have worked out over the years which I think most who believe in inerrancy would agree with! The word 'literal' has a lot of baggage associated with it in our day. It is hard to pin down. Even in your example, you said that if someone "had the manners of dragon," taking that literally would mean that someone has draconian manners. However, you could also make the case that taking that literally means the person is a dragon. I like my definition (no bias here :-).) It is simple and gets to the heart of the matter. We need to read Scripture for what it is. If it's history, we read it as history. If it's poetry, we read it as poetry. If it's a parable, we read it as a parable. To me, that is taking Scripture literally. Thanks for your response! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6547 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9938 | ||
Greetings Jim! Thanks for the clarification! I thought that was what you were trying to say. The Genesis issue is one for another thread! I understand where you are coming from, but I think there are reasons to see it as history, not symbolism. We can do that discussion some time if you would like. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6548 | Holy Spirit without evidence of tongues? | Acts | Morant61 | 9875 | ||
Greetings JVH0212! Excellent presentation! I have come to the same conclusion as you have over the years! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6549 | Thank you... | John 9:3 | Morant61 | 9874 | ||
Greetings TerryM! I didn't get to read all of this thread yet, but I would concur with your testimony. My wife and I lost a son to congential heart defects. While I do not believe that God caused it to happen, I do believe that God used it to mold me and make me a better, more loving Christian. May God Bless your Minsitry! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6550 | God's wrath tribulational. | Revelation | Morant61 | 9872 | ||
Greetings RCScroll! Could your provide a Scripture reference and a clarification of your question? I'm not sure what you mean! Thanks, Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6551 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9870 | ||
Greetings Jim! I understand what you are trying to say in this post, I just don't agree with the definition you quote from Dr. Boyd. His definiton of 'literal' is a straw-man philosophically speaking. No one that I know of, who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, believes that 'literal' rules out the use of literary genres. Could God have used symbolism in Genesis to recount the creation account? Of course He could have! The question is, "Did He?" The answer that most give is "No!" The reason is simply that Gen. 1 and 2, doesn't present itself as symbolism. It says on this day, God created this. On this day, God created that. The important point is that the definition of 'literal' that you seem to be using is not accurate. This is what has caused so much stir on this thread. You seem to be saying that some passages use literary devices. If this is what you mean, most of us on the forum would agree with you. If you mean that because literary devices are used then Scripture is in error, most of us on the forum would disagree with you. Hopefully, you can clarify your position! Thanks, Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6552 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9869 | ||
Greetings Jim! I was going back and reading this entire thread, simply because it has caused quite a stir. I just responded to one of your later posts. But, allow me to respond to this one, because it may the cruz of the problem with the rest of the thread. The issue is Inspiration. 2 Tim. 3:16 makes it clear that Scripture has God as it's ultimate source. It is literally 'God-Breathed.' This word (translated as 'inspired') was used of a boat carried along by the wind. So, the human authors were moved or carried along by God. Therefore, Scripture is unique in relation to all other literature in that it has "two-authors." What do I mean by that? Simply this, Scripture is the product of both the Divine will and the human will of the individual author, like Matthew. This answers the question you seem to have been asking. "How did Matthew know what went on during the temptation of Christ?" "How did Moses know about the events of Creation?" The answer: They didn't, but God did. In a purely human book, someone would have to witness the events in order to record or report them. However, Scripture isn't just a human book. God is the primary source of information and inspiration. Just as Scripture is unique in relation to all other literature, it is also similar to other literature. It uses figures of speech, methaphors, poetry, ect.... To take the Bible as literally true simply means to take it in the way it was intended. If Jesus uses a parable, interpret the passage as a parable. If He uses an historical reference, interpret as an historical reference. If an historical narrative uses an estimate, interpret it as an estimate. Literal means nothing more nor less that this. I hope this helps and I would be happy to discuss this in more detail with you if you like! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6553 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9866 | ||
Greetings Jim! I haven't been involved in this thread as of yet! (I don't think!) But, I did want to respond to your post. There seems to be two theological problems with your position. 1) The Source of Inspiration: As you pointed out, 2 Tim. 3:16 does not say specifically that Scripture is without error. However, it does say that Scripture is God-breathed. So, the source of Scripture is God. If this is true, then how could a God, who knows all things and who cannot lie, be the source of error? 2) The Meaning of Literal: The second problem concerns your use of the word literal. Some use a different definition than I do, but I think most of us simply use the term literal in the following sense. "Scripture means what the author intended for it to mean." Therefore, if an author uses hyperbole, we should interpret his statement as hyperbole. If an author uses an estimate, we should interpet his statement as an estimate. However, this is a far cry from saying that these statements are errors. None of your examples illustrate a single error, but do illustrate quite a bit of opinion. a) and b) are both assumptions, we simply do not know exactly how many generations were involved. However, if Matthew or Luke used an established practice of listing a geneology, how does this equate with a error? c) What definition of literal do you use here? If it was written as an allegory, isn't reading it as an allegory taking it literally? d) Another assumption! The only historical record we have of Job says that he had 7 sons and 3 daughters. Is there another source that shows this one to be in error? e) Here is a good example of what is means to be literal. Mt. lists all of the areas from which people were coming to John (a city-wide crusade so to speak). Nothing in the passage says that every indivdual was present, only the regions. f) Again, we take the Psalms literally when we interpret them according to how they were written. They are songs of praise and prayers. Many of them may be based upon actual events, but they are not intended to be read as history, but as prayer or praise. Concerning David, if the text says he wrote a Psalm, what evidence is there that he didn't. g) Again, we take Revelation literally, when we interpret it according to how it was written. It was apocolyptic literature. However, that doesn't make it false. Jim, I havent' read all of this thread yet. Maybe you have explained your definition before, but would you mind explaining to me what you mean by 'Literal?' It would help to make sure that all of your responders are debating your actual position. Thanks! In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6554 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9863 | ||
Greetings JVH0212! Try both! :-) and :-( I am! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6555 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9862 | ||
Greetings Schwartzkm! You posted an excellent and well thought out arugment! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6556 | When was Revelation accepted? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9690 | ||
Greetings Wist Ye Not! The history of the acceptance of the Canoncity of Revelation is an interesting story. There was almost complete acceptance of it by the Early Church Fathers and the Western Church. However, in the Eastern Church, in the 3rd century there was a rising oposition to the belief in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ, so the Eastern Church was slow to accept Revelation as canonical. It was not included in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnositc. The Council of Laodicea (about 360 a.d.) omitted it from their canonical list. However, the third Council of Carthage (397 a.d.) included it. Consider the following quote: "Those accepting John the Apostle as the author universally recognize the divine inspiration of Revelation and its rightful place in the Bible. Because its style differs from that of other New Testament books, acceptance of Revelation by early Christians was delayed by a rising opposition to premillennialism. The doctrine of the literal 1,000-year reign of Christ was rejected by some church leaders in the third and fourth centuries. The evidence, however, shows that orthodox theologians readily accepted the book as genuinely inspired. Early fathers who recognized the book as Scripture include Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Apollonius, and Theophilus, the bishop of Antioch. By the beginning of the third century the book was widely quoted as Scripture. The fact that the Book of Revelation complements other inspired Scripture such as the Book of Daniel has confirmed its divine inspiration." - The Bible Knowledge Commentary. So, the answer to your question is that most accepted the canoncity of Revelation right from the beginning. However, it was not until 397 a.d. that the Eastern Church accepted it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6557 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9564 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Thanks for the kudos! My car definitely needs your prayers! I promised EdB that I would do some research on 1 Tim. 2:11-12. I am getting a headache! Everyone has a totally different spin on it. I think I am going to nominate this passage for the most confusing passage of the year award. However, I am learning a lot. The biggest surprize that I've had so far is that the word "to have authority" over a man in v. 12 is only used once in all of Scripture. It seems to have the meaning of "dominate," perhaps even by force. One other possible meaning is that of "originate." This leads to some interesting possiblities. It may have been that some women in Ephesus were teaching a Gnostic heresy that women were the originators of men and that Paul was countering this with his discussion of Adam and Eve. I still have a lot of research to do, but the view (so far) that I think makes the best sense of all the data is that Paul was forbidding wives to have authority over their husbands. However, I am not ready to commit! Thanks also for the support of inerrancy! I have been dismayed over the years to find that Christians are steadily watering down this belief. I went to a solid evangelical Christian college and actually had to defend myself (even there) for believing in inerrancy. Your Brother in Christ and fellow Hoosier, Tim Moran |
||||||
6558 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9559 | ||
Greetings EdB! I think we agree more than we disagree! I think the problem is that we are simply approaching the issue with slightly different assumptions. I agree with you that we should never "explain away" a passage. My concern is that we "fully understand" a passage, and then apply it in the way that the author intended. For instance, 1 Cor. talks about praying with head coverings. Paul gives a command there, but most of us realize that this was a cultural custom from a different time, so we don't pray with our heads covered. However, we do recognize that there is a universal principle being taught as well. So, I think that we agree more than not! I never would want to eliminate a truth of the Bible, but I do want to be careful that I truly understand what that truth is. The whole issue of general principle as opposed to universal principle is not easy. It takes a lot of effort and prayer. It seems that most of the difficult issues come from the epistles. Which makes sense, since they are the most occasional of all the writings. P.S. - I am pleased to see someone stand up for infallibility. Personally, I am a Plenenary, Verbal, Confluent, Inerrant person. 1) Plenenary simply means that God's inspiration extends to every part of Scripture. 2) Verbal simply means that even the very words used are exactly the words God wanted to be used. 3) Confluent simply means that Scripture is a geniune product of two wills. God moved upon the Scripture writers, but He did so it such a way that their personalities and quirks come through. (As opposed to say the Dictation Theory.) 4) Inerrant simply means that God's Word is without error in all that it affirms or teaches. So, I share your concern EdB! However, especially in the Epistles, it is much like listening to one side of a phone converstation. So, digging into the culture and background is very important to understanding the message. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6559 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9545 | ||
Greetings EdB! I must been half asleep because I could have sworn that I did answer, but maybe I didn't. :-) My short answer is this: If the pagan used sound interpretational principles, I think that he would come away with sound doctrine. However, without any other resources (history, language, culture, ect...) I believe that there would be some passages of Scripture that he (or she, since a pagan can also be a woman) would not have a clue as to what they were saying. Like I said previously, I can't really think of a single doctrine that hinges on history or culture. However, I can think of plenty of Scriptures that can be misapplied because of a lack of understanding of history or culture. Concerning your illustration, I don't believe that anyone on the forum has been saying that because a verse may have an occasional or limited application that it doesn't apply to anyone else. The issue is do we correctly understand the situation that Paul (or whatever other writer) was addressing! Obviously Paul is giving a command in 1 Tim. 2:11! Once we understand what that command is and the circumstances surrounding it, then we must apply it to today as well, not simply ignore it. I just haven't been satisfied with any interpretation of the passage that I have seen thus far. There are simply too many unanswered questions for me to be dogmatic on this issue, especially when the rest of Scripture seems to make the opposite case. I'm going to try to do some more research of 1 Tim. 2:11-12 over the next few days. I'll get back to you with my results. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6560 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9543 | ||
Greetings EdB! Like I said in my previous post, there are just som many unanswered questions about this verse that I'm not sure exactly how to take it. I really haven't seen any interpretation of it that answers all my questions. I'm going to be off of work at the beginning of the week, so I'm hoping to have time to do a little more research on the question. I'll try to get back to you on it! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 ] Next > Last [339] >> |