MIXED SWIMMING

Hepzibah House ^ | Unknown | Dr. Ronald Williams

[Commander8]

There are a lot of fundamentalists who are farmers in the midwest who plough their fields with their shirts off.

Oh, the scandal!!!

[editor-surveyor]

"I've got news for ya: the words in the King James are no more inspired than the words in the NIV or NASB. It's the words in the Greek and the Hebrew that are inspired."

These don't sound like the words of a believer.

The apostles didn't have the original hebrew texts given by the prophets, yet they clearly state that the texts they had were the Word of God. Do you really believe that God would give us his inspired word, and then remove it from us in the next generation?

Doesn't sound like you have much of a handle on the nature and promises of God.

[RnMomof7]

I think that Mack and I are saying the same thing here. There is a difference between honest, prayerful study, and puffing self-agrandisement.

Agreed.

I think you are discussing the method of presentation and not the contents of the sermon then right?

I think that often commentaries and , scripture references make clear something that might be difficult to understand without a knowledge of hebrew or greek or the culture. BUT I do believe that all that is necessary for salvation is clearly presented in the word so even a child can understand it

To tell the truth , I so admire men that devote a lifetime to the study of the scriptures and the original languages. It speaks to a love of Gods word.

[drstevej]

Is the text of the TR fixed or are there variants?

[fortheDeclaration]

I've got news for ya: the words in the King James are no more inspired than the words in the NIV or NASB. It's the words in the Greek and the Hebrew that are inspired." These don't sound like the words of a believer. The apostles didn't have the original hebrew texts given by the prophets, yet they clearly state that the texts they had were the Word of God. Do you really believe that God would give us his inspired word, and then remove it from us in the next generation? Doesn't sound like you have much of a handle on the nature and promises of God.

It says 'all scripture is given by Inspiration'(2Tim.3:16), that the 'word of God is quick and powerful'(Heb.4:12).

If a translation is not inspired then it cannot be quick and powerful' since it is dead.

Being born again, not of incorruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom.10:17)

A person is saved by hearing the living word, not a dead 'translation'.

The only reason that those like 'Jude 24' wants the Greek and Hebrew to be inspired is so they do not have to be under the authority of any translation, KJB, NKJ, NIV, NASB etc.

Ofcourse, if you run and use the Greek/Hebrew, then they will disagree on which text is inspired.

[snerkel]

Because the nuances of meaning are important to total communication.

A philosopher is a scolar, but a good scolar is never a philosopher.

There are no subtle distinctions between scholar and philosopher.

[RnMomof7]

Did they all accept a seven (24 hour day) creation?

Probably not then, but I bet they do now. ;^)

Yep and they are all Calvinists now too :>)

[drstevej]

Thanks, snerkel.

[snerkel]

I've got news for ya: the words in the King James are no more inspired than the words in the NIV or NASB. It's the words in the Greek and the Hebrew that are inspired.

Absolutely true.

[ksen]

It really is a good collection of articles even though they were written almost a century ago.

When my rebate comes in, sometime next week, I'll be using part of it to purchase this CD. Looks like there is a lot of good stuff in there......well except for that Westminster rag..... Kidding! ;^)

[editor-surveyor]

"Is the text of the TR fixed or are there variants?"

If I recall correctly, there are 4,997 individual manuscripts, and pieces of manuscripts that collectively constitute the basis of the received text.

There are few that are in exact, word for word,line by line agreement, and few complete epistles in existance. That is, except for the two codices Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, which were institutionally prepared and preserved. Those two are in substantial agreement between themselves, but in major disagreement with the majority of the other manuscripts on doctrinally significant areas, and are not considered by many to be part of the "received text.".

Are there variants?

[editor-surveyor]

"There are no subtle distinctions between scholar and philosopher."

Perhaps to you.

To many a soccer ball and a volley ball are just balls, and quite equivalent. A scholar is one who studies. A philosopher generates his 'wisdom' inductively, in his own mind, independent of the Word of God. Philosophy, as used by Paul, was the mind of man.

[drstevej]

Nice summary, but you did not answer my question.

Are there variants in the TR?

[ksen]

Those two are in substantial agreement between themselves...

What? You may want to recheck that. I believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone.

[editor-surveyor]

"I think that often commentaries and , scripture references make clear something that might be difficult to understand without a knowledge of hebrew or greek or the culture."

But then, the commentary can only provide one man's guess, since all that is reliably known about the culture is what was preserved of it in God's word. Pitiful little else out of that era has survived. The Greek of Homer's time differs much from that of the New Testament, which is much closer to modern Greek than classical. They were different nations, and different peoples.

One's time is far better spent reading the Word, than commentaries.

[editor-surveyor]

Do you mean variants in what later was published for mass consumption?

[editor-surveyor]

"I believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone."

Are you talking about differences in meaning, or small differences in exact wording? - I know that there are a few solid differences, but not so many as they differ with the rest of the mss.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I listen and read along with the Bible 1 hour every day, it takes about 70 hrs to read thru the whole Bible doing this, you can read thru it about 5 times a year doing this.

Do I understand it all? No, but each time I understand more and more, and I believe God gives me what I need when I need it.

I trust the Holy Spirit far more then any man, I have a preacher, I listen, I also buy his tapes and listen to them again at home, but I chech his every word with the Bible to see if it lines up with what Gods really said, if it does fine, if it doesn't I go have a talk with him.

On reading what others write about the Bible? I read some but not many, and I trust the Holy Spirit to let me know if I run up against any false teaching, so far he hasn't let me down yet. :)

BigMack

[snerkel]

snerkel: "There are no subtle distinctions between scholar and philosopher."

editor-surveyor: Perhaps to you.

To many a soccer ball and a volley ball are just balls, and quite equivalent. A scholar is one who studies. A philosopher generates his 'wisdom' inductively, in his own mind, independent of the Word of God. Philosophy, as used by Paul, was the mind of man.

Bad analogy.

A scholar is also one who is educated, a learned person. A philosopher is a person who expounds a particular theory or belief. Both definitions are sufficient to describe and define pastors.