The question is as follows: Is it morally wrong to use a version other than the King James Bible?
I find such a proposition impossible. If it were, how many people would we know who are in constant sin? How many on Dad's side of the family use the NIV? What of the Haitians who only have the equivalent of the NIV in their language? Are they doomed because of it?
If it were morally wrong, they could never be right with God. But we know that God doesn't allow His children to remain in unconfessed sin. So either they're not saved, or it's not wrong. I can't believe that Heidi is a Christian and also believe that it's morally wrong to use the NIV over the KJV. Thus, I find it impossible to believe that this is a moral issue.
What, then, is it? A matter of personal preference? A matter of what's best? I don't know how to classify it. If it can't be morally wrong to read the NIV, can it be morally right to read the KJV? Is the person who holds to the KJV automatically a better Christian because of it? Is it impossible to find, by the Holy Spirit's leading, the same theology in the English Standard as you'd find in the King James? Dare we limit Him so, to think that He cannot teach us just as much from one version or another? Or is it that we think He just won't? But why, if it isn't right or wong?
Perhaps, you never thought it was wrong. Perhaps, you still do. For me, I cannot condemn it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The questions are: Is it morally wrong to be Arminian? Is it morally wrong to stand up for Calvinism? Is it morally wrong to believe in believer's baptism? Is it morally wrong to believe in the rapture of the church? Is it morally wrong to believe that the seven days of Genesis 1 were not literal seven days? Is it morally wrong to believe that meat is bad?
You either don't think that these apply, and thus misunderstand the issue of the text; or these do apply and you realize that you are drawing a line that no human really has the right to draw. The issue of the text is a Biblical issue. It is drawn from the many texts of Scripture that I have cited and expanded upon in multiple settings. I am not the only one to have done this. The questions you asked are not as simple as you esteemed them.
Let us take the case of the Arminian. Quoting you here:
If it were morally wrong, they could never be right with God. But we know that God doesn't allow His children to remain in unconfessed sin. So either they're not saved, or it's not wrong.[really? You won't dare apply this to Arminians.] I can't believe that Heidi[John Wesley] is[was] a Christian and also believe that it's morally wrong to [be an Arminian] use the NIV over the KJV.[At this point you are determining absolute truth based on your belief. You can't believe and also believe. Without being mean, who cares what you believe? We are talking about God's absolute truth.] Thus, I find it impossible to believe that this is a moral issue. [Again, your belief.]
Let me continue:
Is the person who holds the doctrine of Calvinism better than the person who doesn't? Can we say that an Arminian cannot by the Holy Spirit come to real truth? How do you explain or define this? This is a huge question. It isn't simple. There are people who are closer to God than others and there are people who are mislead in ways. There are Christians that believe contradicting facts, and what can we say about them? Generally, we say they are mislead. The Arminians are mislead. They have sat under false teaching so long they are mislead. They are sheep who don't know better. Still responsible before God, and yet not heretics. What do we say about the pastors that stand in the pulpit and say, "I saved myself; God is not sovereign?" We say that if any man preach any other Gospel than that which the Bible says he is accursed. A little leave leaveneth the whole lump.
Lastly, I must comment on this sentence: "Dare we limit Him so, to think that He cannot teach us just as much from one version or another? Or is it that we think He just won't?"
It isn't anywhere near a matter of limiting God. It is a matter of asking God to teach us His perfect truth from a book that is a paraphrase of His holy Words when we have the exact thing right there. How offended would you be if you wrote a book, went over to someone's house and they asked you to explain what you wrote, and handed you a paraphrase to teach them from. Yes, you could and would still convey things, but would the sense be there? When you picked a word for a specific purpose and they replaced it, what would you say? Your premise with this comment already assumes that we do not have the perfect Word, or that after giving the perfect words each time God said something, He still wants to use man's rendition. Maybe you do not assume that. But your questions assumes it.
This shows you leaning to the other side. The fact that you are asking doesn't. Asking is good. Questions are good. Thinking through things thoroughly [say that 5 times fast] is good. The way a question or phrase is worded though says a lot about the view you have.
Perhaps this is why you feared to put controversial things on here. Yet, I think we as your family feel at a loss. Our views are attacked in private[not to say that Zack is purposefully attacking, it just happens when there is disagreement], where we are not present to offer a defense. I hope that the response does not prevent further controversial topics. We as people need other people. We heard a story in chapel today how that Aristotle stated as fact that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Galileo disproved it almost 2000 years later. No one thought to question it prior to that. If you don't post the controversial, there will be less friction and discussion, but you risk believing a myth.
Love you.
I fear to put controversial things on here because it's a difficult forum to have a conversation. Also, your responses are always twice as long. But moving on.
Seriously, Dave? You think it's sin to be an Arminian? Like it's sin to pray to Mary? I think Arminians are wrong, as in, they are incorrect. I don't believe that living as an Arminian is living in sin though. I can't. All those years that David Ragan was an Arminian you think he was in sin? And now he's Calvinistic but doesn't hold to the KJV only position. If he went from habitual gambling to being a drunk, we'd say he probably isn't saved. I'm pretty sure he is though. Why? By their fruits ye shall know them.
It's not morally wrong to believe that eating meat is sin; it's bad theology. It IS morally wrong to eat the meat in front of the person who thinks it's bad though. Why would God make that provision if the guy who thinks it's wrong to eat is living in sin?? He wouldn't.
I wasn't determining absolute truth. But I'm pretty sure we went over this in email already. :)
The Christian who holds to Calvinism is NOT better than a Christian Arminian. They have better theology. But my righteousness, like any other Christian's, is found in Christ. WE are NOT better people.
So you don't believe Pastor Hanson was saved? How about any of the pastors at Houghton Lake?
As for the last part which addressed that question in particular. . . .
A) We don't have the exact thing. The EXACT thing was in Hebrew and Greek.
B) We can't understand a WORD of the Bible without the Holy Spirit's help. He CAN use a translation to give you just as much as He gives someone else from the Greek. So - for the sake of the argument - why wouldn't that work with a paraphrase? If I misquote John 3:16, God can't use it to convict someone? If I paraphrase Romans 5:8, the truth becomes ineffective? The Holy Spirit's power diminishes? What??
C) God used man's rendition. He used men to pen the Bible. Is it God's Word? Absolutely. Luke's rendition is still different than Matthew's.
Oh, I forgot to add this:
"You either don't think that these apply, and thus misunderstand the issue of the text; or these do apply and you realize that you are drawing a line that no human really has the right to draw."
Or they do apply, and here is the point: to say that any of the above mentioned beliefs are sinful is drawing a line that God did not draw, and therefore you can't say they're wrong.
"You think it's sin to be an Arminian? Like it's sin to pray to Mary? I think Arminians are wrong, as in, they are incorrect."
How do you judge the difference? Really, praying to Mary is sin, but telling people that you saved yourself, and that you have goodness within yourself is better? And there is the crux. You seemed to separate praying to Mary. Why? Because God said we pray to Christ only.
God also said that we are totally depraved. Claiming to have goodness within us is calling God a liar. John 1 says so. Is it not sin to call God a liar? I mean, where is the line Jenn?
"I don't believe that living as an Arminian is living in sin though. I can't. All those years that David Ragan was an Arminian you think he was in sin?"
Your first statement I understand. That's your argument, but I don't understand the next one. "I can't." You can't? You sound like you are using your ability to grasp something as your determination for what is right. Arminians "can't" believe that God would take away their rights. Many people say they "can't" believe that God would send the unsaved person in Africa that has never heard of Christ to Hell. We heard our family say they "couldn't" tell the truth when asked about the Jews, and so it was right to lie. What do you mean, you can't? You are debating by saying that you can't believe that someone could be in sin. You can't argue with someone by asking them what they think about a person. Does it matter what I can or can't think about the salvation of David Ragan?
Then you asked me what about Pastor Hanson. What about him? What about those pastors? What can we say Jenn? We say what the Bible says: If any man preach anything other than the Gospel, let him be accursed. Is that hard for us to hear and say? Yeah. Is it hard for us to actually consider what it means when before Christ's throne many gather and say I have done all these things in your name and He says, "depart from me." We don't understand, and we strive to do right. But, you can't ask me about Pastor Hanson like that is going to be the logical argument. It isn't. My feeling about someone's salvation does not, should not, and cannot determine anything besides what I feel. And if it is true that they aren't saved, what can we say? Surely not that there is unrighteousness with God. We say God is good. But we don't conclude absolute truth(yes, this IS truth.). That is what this is. Determining whether something is sin or not is not a matter of opinion but a matter of what God says. We don't get to have "feeling" or "opinion" when it comes to what is sin. That is the whole relativistic mindset. That IS relativism. It doesn't matter what we "can" do, or what we "feel;" it only matters what God says.
"Or they do apply, and here is the point: to say that any of the above mentioned beliefs are sinful is drawing a line that God did not
draw, and therefore you can't say they're wrong."
But you DID draw a line. You determined that praying to Mary was a sin. Why? Because God said that Christ is the only mediator between God and man? God also said that none are righteous. Where does false belief turn into sin? How do you decide that? False belief, like the belief that we have the ability to save ourselves, is unbelief in the fact that we are truly dead, and lost. False belief is unbelief.
Someone believes that man has goodness inside of him, that is unbelief in the depravity of man. What can we say then about the fact that saved people live in false belief? We can't say that it doesn't matter. We know God does not take each of us down the exact same path where we get principle A before we move on to principle B, and principle Z is the last one. Some people learn more and different things first and others not. Does that mean any of those beliefs are not wrong any more? No, they are still wrong. Do we try to figure out the mysteries of God? Why does God not teach everyone the same doctrines at the same time. . .I dont know why. Does it matter? No. Why doesn't God teach us all to be patient and kind and merciful and honest at the same time? He doesn't. Does that mean it isn't sin when we
do it? No. Why is unbelief any different? Basically, you are saying that since we aren't all perfect we can't say it is sin, because God hasn't shown it unto us to do that. God hasn't shown me to be as kind as thoughtful as Kaylynn. Is it sin when I'm not kind and thoughtful? Yes, because it is MY fault. I sinned when I was not kind. The person that says "I saved myself." is being like
Nebuchadnezzar when he said look what I built. Is that pride? Yes, it is.
And let me go in a bit of a different direction. Even IF it is not morally wrong, that does not mean it is not a dig deal, unless you are now willing to admit that some of these things aren't a big deal. Is calvinism? Baptism? Transubstantiaion? Literal 7 day creation? (You didn't comment on this one last time.) So, while we [might still] struggle through the list of what is morally wrong and not, we must still admit that this (Bible issue) canot just be regulated a minor issue because it *may* not be a moral issue. We haven't figured that part out yet.
"We don't have the exact thing. The EXACT thing was in Hebrew and Greek."
That is exactly what the whole debate is about and that is exactly what the other side says. We disagree. You just began your (numbered) response by assuming your side. Of course you can come to the conclusion you do. We argue we do have the EXACT words (in the TR; you said "was," it IS in Greek and Hebrew.), and I guess you argue we don't? So, we should step back and try to figure out how you got there and argue that, because all of this is apparently pointless since you are assuming the other side. Of course we have the exact words of God, and if we don't then yeah, it is pointless to discuss any of this.
Everyone admits of the fact of the usefulness of translation. In order for any translation to be of good use it must be accurate to the original. If we have God's Word, then we better translate from those exact words. Not from a paraphrase.
B) Really? The better question is, why would you paraphrase what Holy God said if you had it? Wouldn't it be better? Why ask if you can
still be saved and live in Sodom? Yeah, once saved always saved, but don't walk the line with the world. be holy, and separated unto God. Why ask what we can get away with, when we know the good way to do it? Answering your argument then: we don't know how the Holy Spirit works. We know that He uses the living Word of God. The Word of GOD is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword. It is not man's word. Why would you want to dull your Sword, even if the Holy Spirit can stil use it? Hey, we can use the dull axe to chop the tree down, or we can use this new chainsaw. Sure, the both work and a lumberjack can use each, but which makes more sense? Someone asks why we can't use the axe and we look like dumbfounded because the chainsaw is right there!
C) "Rendition: the act or result of rendoring; surrender, translation, interpreation." You say God used man's rendition when arguing about God using Scripture. God used Luke's view (It wasn't even a rendition, beause it was not Luke's translation/interpretion of what
happened as many history people will claim is history. It was the actual facts that happened that Luke viewed.) of history to pen the very words of God. the very WORDS. God used MAtthew's to pen the very words of God. But it was not like God gave them the words and they rendored them into what we have today. We have the perfect Words of God today. Each word is God's Word. Not Luke's interpreation of what God wanted said. Not Luke's rendoring of what God said. Not Luke's translation of what God said. Luke wrote the very words of God. Otherwise, Scripture is not God's Word. We didn't come up with the title "God's Word" as a title. It means that each word is God's. I'm
unsure what point you were making but it sounded bad. Maybe you didn't mean what it said.
I will post three comments which will correspond to your three comments.
I have a problem with the Arminian argument, simply because I don't know what they say. I have no experience of my own. I understand that you are taking things to their logical conclusion but I don't know how an Arminian could say that they saved themselves and actually be a Christian. Understanding that God is the One saving you is a pretty key part of salvation.
You're saying they say one thing; Zack is saying they don't; I'm stuck not knowing who to believe. This is not a comfortable place to be. From what I understood that Arminians actually believe, not just the logical conclusion of their beliefs, I did not think that it was sin. However, I have no hesitation about admitting that my understanding is limited on this topic.
On the other hand, do we honestly believe that WE have everything EXACTLY right? I surely hope not. If we did, there could be no room for theological improvement. Do we believe that in not having everything right we are constantly in sin because of our misunderstanding or our current inability to see deeper truths? Is the man who thinks it is wrong to eat meat in sin for thinking so? No. But God has said that it isn't! Is he then calling God a liar? No. If he were, God through Paul would not have let that stand. The man can believe that it is wrong to eat meat AND believe that God is truth. I would submit that this is the case with the Christian Arminian as well.
You ask where the line is. The line is the things that God has said, "Do this" or "Don't do this." We are told to pray only to Christ, so we pray only to Christ. We understand that we have nothing good in us. But really, what do we do with this? If the Arminian praises God for his salvation just as much as I do, where is he in sin? Proper doctrine aids in proper living, but understanding all the depths of theology aren't necessary to living a holy life. Too many godly people through the years haven't known half what you know. We aren't told to know everything or get it all completely right. We're told to do right with what we have.
When I said "I can't," I didn't exactly mean that I can't. I meant, based on Scripture and my current understanding of it, such a thing does not line up, therefore, I do not believe it. I apologize for the confusion.
Yes, it does matter what you can or can't think about David Ragan's salvation. Because you ought to be able to tell whether or not he's a Christian. And if you can't, there's a problem with one of you. Either he's not bearing fruit, or you're not seeing properly. Either way, it matters. Which is why it matters if I believe that David Ragan is a Christian. Because he can't be in habitual sin and be a Christian. So something's gotta give. Either I'm wrong, and he's not saved; or he is saved, and Arminianism is not sin. It matters if there is proof that he is a Christian and I'm just not going to see/believe it because he's an Arminian.
False belief is NOT unbelief, as proven with the example of the guy who believes it's wrong to eat meat. It's not a correct belief; it's also not sin and unbelief is sin. Praying to Mary is sin because it's idolatry; it's placing Mary in God's position. Idolatry is an obvious sin, openly condemned in numerous places. I did not draw this line; God drew it. If Arminianism gets to the point of making a god of Man, then yes, I will heartily agree it's sin. I haven't heard an Arminian thus condemn himself.
There is a difference between incorrect belief and sin. Can a belief even be sin? Isn't sin an act? Believing is passive, not active. It's what you do based on your beliefs that is right or wrong. Is it righteousness to believe God? The devils do. Is it sin to believe it's wrong to eat meat? It impacts your life; it impacts the lives of other believers if they know. It's a false belief. Yet, somehow, it's not sin. BUT, it would be sin for him to eat if he thinks it's wrong. Wait a second! That sounds like his beliefs are determining what sin is! How can it be? At times, it does matter what you feel.
It depends on what you mean by "big deal." Do you mean that they determine whether you're saved or not? No, I don't think believing in a literal, 7-day Creation period determines whether or not you're saved. I don't know why you wouldn't believe it (the Bible says days, not weeks, months, years, millennia, ages, etc.) but I don't see how it (unless you mean something more by that, like we came from tadpoles) of itself would necessarily mean you were in sin or could not be a Christian. I'm not going to go through your new list because that could go on and on and seriously, this is already plenty long. We don't need more to talk about.
I didn't say it was a "minor issue." I asked if it were a moral issue. I never said it wasn't important. I never said it wasn't worth study. I asked if it were morally wrong to read a version that was not the KJV. You have yet to give a reason why it is. What it seems you've done to me is just ask, "How can you say that? You can't do that." Now, just to preempt here, I understand that if the KJV is the only Word of God in the English language that it would be ridiculous to read anything other than it. However, if you don't BEGIN with the KJV being the ONLY Word of God, then how do you get that it's wrong to read the ESV instead? You told me that I assumed the other side - I'm just not assuming a side at all.
When I said we don't have it, I meant, we as English-speaking people don't have the exact words. I certainly don't have the TR, and if I did, I wouldn't be able to understand it. So, when I said we don't have it, that's what I meant. I wasn't assuming a side; I was simply saying that the English is a translation, and by definition a translation cannot be exact. If it were exact, it would be the same language. If it were exact, we wouldn't have the name Elias.
B) I didn't say it would be better. I was saying if I needed a verse, didn't have a Bible handy, but I knew the gist of it, God could use it just fine if I paraphrased. I would even venture to say that it'd be better to paraphrase than not use it at all. You're taking this way to the extreme. I didn't say always; I didn't say I was using a book of paraphrases. I was giving an example of how God can still use it even if it's not exact. You jumped way into the extremes.
C) Rendition may have been a poor word choice. So the The Model Prayer that Jesus gave: what exact words did Christ say? The ones in Matthew? The ones in Luke? They're all God's Word; I'm not arguing that. But which words did Christ speak? Actually, He didn't speak either of them. He didn't even speak the ones in the TR or the CT; He spoke Aramaic. They're both God's Word; they're not the same; Christ didn't speak either one. Those are all facts. They are God's words by virtue of inspiration, but they're not exactly what Christ said. Does this mean that God didn't preserve His Word? Not at all. It's God Word, even if they're not exactly the words Christ spoke.
It seems a rather important hinge-point for the KJV-only argument that we must have the exact words of God for it to be God's Word, which seems strange to me, since we read an English translation. We have God's Word; we don't have the exact words that Christ, Paul, Peter, etc. spoke/wrote. Even if you count the TR as being God's exact words, the vast majority of God's church doesn't have it. I have certainly never read them; I don't even know if I've ever seen them. How can you argue that we have to have the exact words when we use a translation? Wouldn't that make the KJV as much an axe compared to the chainsaw of the TR? We would all have to learn Hebrew and Greek. But you know that's not true. God doesn't require us all to be linguistic scholars.
I forgot to add that John 1 doesn't talk about what you were using it for. If you meant I John 1, it still doesn't say what you were saying. "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar...." Saying we haven't sinned at all is different than saying, "I believed and that was a good thing to do." If we haven't sinned at all, we have no need for repentance, or a Savior, etc. etc.
Sorry it took so long to get back. I can't get on at school. . .it stinks.
Ok. Arminians can take it to the extreme, or not. I have heard a pastor in the pulpit say "I chose to be saved." That statement is a lie. That statement counter's God's Word.
You say "I don't know how an Arminian could say that they saved themselves and actually be a Christian." And I say does it matter if we can or not? We can't tell people they are unsaved; we can tell people their beliefs are wrong. Unless we must stop at the bare doctrines of Scripture (which we would still argue over those).
"You're saying they say one thing; Zack is saying they don't; I'm stuck not knowing who to believe."
Obviously, if at least one person said something then I coulD say what I said. It is far more probable, and logical to say that someone of a certain set of beliefs said something than to try and assert that they have not. But, you are right. I took the Arminian view to the extreme, and the Catholic view not so much. So, I have a Christian who prays to God and also prays to Mary on occasion. Each one leads to a heretical blasphemous conclusion. If you take from 1 Cor. 10, eating meat offered to idols is fellowshipping with devils. If you are fellowshipping with devils, you are not with God. You cannot be the friend of one and the other. If you are NOT the friend of God you are the enemy of God. /gasp! Someone that eats meat is now God's enemy.
You said something about calling God a liar. I'm not sure if you were referencing what I said earlier or not. Arminians, by saying they chose to get saved, are saying that they are in themselves not totally depraved. In saying that, they are saying that there is something within them that is good. And then, Romans 3, we have calling God a liar.
My point is, that EVERY belief attaches to some heresy. It doesn't matter how small we may think it is. "The line is the things that God has said, "Do this" or "Don't do this."" Really? God says don't be proud, but pride consists in more ways than we can think. God says there is the sin of unbelief, but what is that? When do we justify unbelief? When not?
"understanding all the depths of theology aren't necessary to living a holy life." I never said that. There is a difference between believing something false and being ignorant. Yet, we also are not holy either. Progressive Sanctification works in and through us.
"We aren't told to know everything or get it all completely right. We're told to do right with what we have."
Ah, no. We are told to be holy. That means get it ALL right. We understand our nature is evil, and we struggle, but we must still do right. We are not told to make due with what we have.
"Yes, it does matter what you can or can't think about David Ragan's salvation." It doesn't matter in the sense that I cannot base an argument on it. I can't say that since I think he's saved that this other area can't be wrong, and I better find another interpretation of the verse. I can only interpret verses based on what the Scriptures say. Not on what I think. You are arguing what is right and wrong. We can't use what we think to interpret Scripture.
"Because he can't be in habitual sin and be a Christian." I think you need to be careful about this. Lot was in sin. Constantly, surrounded by it, and immersed in it. But he was righteous. You can't be in habitual sin, be saved, and not be seeing God's judgment on you. But others may not see that. Further, there are so many wolves in the flock that think they are sheep themselves, that it is foolishness to think we can ever tell someones salvation. Of course, I need to see if hes living right, and he needs to live right. But I can't base ANYTHING on it. I must base right and wrong on Scripture. You were using our thoughts of him to base right and wrong. You CAN'T do that Jenn. You are basing belief on your thoughts of someone else. Our thoughts are soooo wrong. We can't do that.
"False belief is NOT unbelief"
False belief is not ALWAYS unbelief. But if I believe falsely that God is not perfect, that is unbelief in the character of God. If I believe falsely that I saved myself, or that I chose God, or that I am not totally depraved, or that I can lose my salvation, than I am demonstrating unbelief in what God said.
"Praying to Mary is sin because it's idolatry; it's placing Mary in God's position."
I went through this above. Everything leads somewhere. Some people really don't believe they are placing Mary in God's position. They pray to God, and then also to Mary. Are they now free of sin because they aren't willing placing Mary in God's place? People don't willingly say God is lying. People don't willingly say that they are good when the Bible says they are bad.
"Idolatry is an obvious sin, openly condemned in numerous places."
So are many other things. Jenn, this is one of the hardest things. You said it was obvious. So is the fact that God elects the elect. What is obvious to you is not to others. I said that earlier.
"There is a difference between incorrect belief and sin." No, this is wrong. There can be a difference, but not always. I don't know what to say. . .you don't think belief can be sin? If you don't believe in God? That is sin.
Forget the meat, since maybe we disagree on 1 Cor. 10. Can you believe there is no God, and that be "ok"? Is it only sin when you act on it?
"No, I don't think believing in a literal, 7-day Creation period determines whether or not you're saved."
"I'm not going to go through your new list because"
The point wasn't to make it long. The point was that different beliefs are wrong. If someone doesn't believe that the World was made in 7 days, they are doubting God's Words, and that is unbelief in Genesis. But, TONS of people don't believe it. My point is not to say that they are unsaved. I started with that. I said different people believe different things, and yet, they are wrong.
"I didn't say it was a "minor issue." I asked if it were a moral issue."
I'm saying that way more of this is a moral issue. You are limiting moral issues to acts. Moral issues are also non-acts. Moral issues are also issues of the heart such as unbelief. You are limiting this in ways God doesn't. Sin is bigger than our actions.
(I messed up the three post thing; this one goes with the last.)
***I think this next paragraph is our focus***
"I asked if it were morally wrong to read a version that was not the KJV. You have yet to give a reason why it is."
You approached it as if "wrong" belief was not wrong. So, instead of arguing the topic, (which, again, I have for over 20 pages...why do again here?) I said that you need to try realize that false belief is wrong, is sin. I mentioned several wrong beliefs that were in direct conflict with God's Word, which the ones I brought up were what I thought were "obvious" to both of us. That is why I chose those. Not to say that anyone was not saved, but to say that there is false belief everywhere, and we don't excuse it by saying that it can't be wrong. From the blog, you said "But we know that God doesn't allow His children to remain in unconfessed sin." I think this might be where we should argue. God allowed Lot to live in Sodom. God does allow them to live in sin. They just suffer under
God's discipline. Once we establish that belief can be sin (what I'm trying to do), then we have to step back from the original blog and recognize that before we can say if this particular one is right or wrong, we must analyze all the facts.
****The above, maybe I'm wrong****
"However, if you don't BEGIN with the KJV being the ONLY Word of God, then how do you get that it's wrong to read the ESV instead?"
This is the reason I wrote 20 pages over the last two months. This is the question that we have not even really gotten too because of some beginning disagreements. We never even got to Scripture! I mean, seriously. I suppose if one were completely ignorant of all of it, than one would not know it was wrong to read the ESV. We could say the same thing about other things. If you are ignorant, than you would not "get that its wrong." You aren't ignorant though. And so, when you say that you think that its not a moral issue, or "wrong."
B) Ok, yeah I did take it to the extreme, but the original place your "B)" came from was from me saying something. I tried to stay within the whole context. Doesn't matter. Less to type about now.
C) Well. . .I don't know where you heard that Christ spoke Aramaic. There is so much stuff here. . .I mean, it looks like its just one or two issues that are different, but we are dealing with way more than just the KJV issue. Christ did speak Greek. There is Archeological evidence. Yes, Aramaic was well known. But, there are books and articles written about how the Providence of God caused the known world to know Greek so that when Christ and the apostles came on the scene God had prepared the world for them.
This "hinge-point" is a big deal. We don't start there because we are then arguing translations. Even with the proper text (assuming we have the perfect text now), and this text is God's perfect Word, we must have rules for translation. This generally consists in lots of principles being laid down because it is a big deal.
For a translation to be useful, first, it must be based on the real thing. That is our big argument. Second, it must adhere to the original. Even based on it, it would be pointless if it didn't stick with it. Third, any version can only be authoritative as long as it does adhere to the original. As soon as it veers, it no longer has authority. Its like a messenger of a king says what the king says with his authority. After that, anything the messenger says is not with authority.
Therefore as long as a version sticks with the original it is authentic and has authority "materially" and in regards to its "inward authority" -- doctrine. The originals have authority in both the "form" and "material" while the translation in changing the forms if true to the original can still retain the authority in the translation. The hinge-point then is not the exact words in English. It is the exact words in Greek. Because if we do not have the exact words in the fountain (original), the stream (translation) that comes from it will not be authoritative. This is all about the originals. We haven't even touched on translations for the "certainty."
Now that I read your response, I think that I was probably unclear before. I'm sorry. We do need certainty in the originals or the translations are nothing. Rereading what I wrote, I had not made that clear.
I did mean 1 John 1. Claiming to have goodness within us is calling God a liar. "If we say that we have no sin" "If we say that we have not sinned" "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie" I wasn't meaning it as something else we need to argue about the full interpretation of these verses. Saying we have no sin, or we haven't sinned, or saying we are good. /shrug. Saying that you have goodness in you is calling God a liar. Romans 3 good enough? 1 John 1 is the part that says calling God is a liar is a bad thing. I think 1 John 1 still fits, but its not worth arguing about for me.
Post a Comment