FREE FROM STRIFE AND DISPUTES?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by UZThD, May 19, 2005.

  1. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    BRO NEWMAN:

    Howdy. Do you think , as you say in the compass thread, that Baptist Board without me is free from strife and disputes or that there is no place for such here? Retract that ,or prove it, or be shown as a false accuser.
     
  2. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where did I say that?
     
  3. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll help you out, since I don't want to be here all day. I said
    Maybe you misunderstood me, because I did not write it in greek. There is a forum for version debates. You obviously have a bone to pick with the KJV and it's use of the word compass, which you feel is too hard to understand for modern man. I agree, modern man can't understand the need to study to show himself approved, why should he understand the need to use a dictionary every once in a while.

    No, the board is not free of disputes. I said this forum (the Baptist Theology forum) was free from 'such'(version) disputes. There is a version forum for this argument, I am merely asking why you feel the need to take the version debate from it's assigned forum and bring it into the theology forum. Is this a theological issue? Or is it nitpicking over translations?
     
  4. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill: You say that BB w-out me is free from strife and disputes?

    James: Where I say that?

    James: " I don't see anything in YOUR recent posts other than a suble attempt to engender strife in a forum that is other wise FREE FROM SUCH DISPUTES." (from Compass thread).


    Here you make these claims:

    1)MY posts are attempts to engender strife.

    2) Other than such posts by me, this forum is free from such disputes (as caused by my posts) .

    Again, prove it, or retract it, or be shown as a false accuser.!
     
  5. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read my next post?
     
  6. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the board is not free of disputes. I said this forum (the Baptist Theology forum) was free from 'such'(version) disputes.


    ===


    Oh. You meant VERSION disputes! And you are the one who counseled me to SAY what I MEAN?

    ===


    There is a version forum for this argument, I am merely asking why you feel the need to take the version debate from it's assigned forum and bring it into the theology forum. Is this a theological issue? Or is it nitpicking over translations? [/QB][/QUOTE]


    ===

    It certainly IS a theological issue! When has epistemology not been a theological concern? And how do versions not relate to epistemology.

    If in the O.S.A.S. thread Zachary comments, "If you have a good old KJ Version Bible," and builds his case on that translation, then, HOW can translations NOT be connected to theology?

    IF in the Wives Obey your husbands thread, Thankful quotes Eph 5:23 from the HCSB as, "wives RESPECT your husbands," then how can translations not be connected to theology?

    The worth of a translation on a particular text , as that in Acts 28, certainly is a fair topic for this forum.

    If you don't like it, then complain to the mods. I certainly am subject to them.

    Now, you get can back to your very deep study of God's Word by defining the words in the KJV with a dictionary. Or, you can prove that this topic is worthy for this forum by going on and on about it.

    Perhaps there is a PhD somewhere to be earned for that noble effort.

    Just imagine, "And here folks is DR. XXX who has looked up every archaic word in the KJV in a modern dictionary."

    [ May 19, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
     
  7. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Allright brother, I repent of having spoken of it to you. The theological implications of compass are astounding. I am sure there is a cult somewhere that believes the Israelites invented time travel and used modern camping gear while roaming the wilderness for 40 years. As for the deep study of God's word, I go to church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Tim 3:15). What biblical basis do you have for presuming the only way to learn the deeper truths of the bible are to go to a seminary? That truth must have been lost in translation somewhere.
     
  8. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==

    My friend where did I say that the deep study of the Word can only be done in Seminary? I would deny that.

    But I do think that formal training is very helpful.

    Was your pastor not formally trained?

    Do many Baptist colleges and seminaries not provide excellent training?

    The thing is, there is really a great deal to learn. Learning part of that, IMO, is best done under the guidance of experts in the field in which they teach.

    But many fine Christians can devote themselves to learning much on their own! I much agree!

    Ones degrees, and I have a bunch of them, does not evidence the correctness of ones positions. A belief is to be evidenced by the strength of one's arguments and not by the time one has spent in formal training.

    I'm sure that you would agree that what one believes to be God's Word can very much affect one's theology. This is proven, eg, in Cultism where generally noncanonical books are added.

    In the same manner if Bro Carl thinks the KJV=God's Word, and I think only the originals PRECISELY=God's Word, then, IMO that much relates to theology as it is Bibliology!

    Anyway, I hope that you and I can be friends just as I hope Carl and I can. I think our common bond in Christ must be greater than anything which might divide us.
     
  9. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well brother, I tend to agree with Bro Carl on the KJV, but not for the same reasons I'm sure. He is a strange one in my eyes. He believes that God preserved the Bible in English, but thinks most of it only applies to the Jews.

    I think our common bond in Christ is a good starting point. As brothers in Christ, we should be able to discuss the deeper issues of faith in charity. I apologize if I came across in an accusatory manner before, I was not sure what to make of you and I suppose my flesh may have gotten the better of me. I understand that there are many people who do not think the KJV is inspired above any other version. I disagree, but I am willing rather to lay the issue aside to talk of more important things. I would love to discus with you the accountability of a Christian at the judgment seat of Christ. I'm sure at some point we would disagree on what the Bible says and then we would have to draw swords and fight over words, but we could at least try to be friendly about it.
     
  10. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I apologize to you. Some have said that it takes five years to "get over" getting a doc. And, I've only had 10 days!
     
  11. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Disputes are not necessarily bad. Debate helps us sharpen our understanding. It is all a matter of how the arguments are handled. When they become petty, personal and vindicative, then they are wrong.

    UZThD is right. The version debate enters into almost every theological question. We cannot eliminate the version issue from our theological discussions in whatever thread.

    Finally, please allow me to say that UZThD is knowledgeable, intelligent, and well educated. He is also fair-minded and sincere in his passionate love for the Word of God and truth. If this makes him opinionated, then more power to him. We can't be sentimental and mealy-mouthed about God's truth. I don't agree with him many times but I do respect him. He will wear his newly conferred doctorate well.
     
  12. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not trying to be contentious, so I hope this is perceived as a fair question. One of the arguments for using multiple versions and part of the average MVers' line of reasoning is that "No doctrines are affected" by using an NIV, NAS, etc. So my question is, If no doctrines are affected, then why does the KJV debate come up in "almost every theological question"?


    Lacy

    PS. This has been a most charitable thread on all sides.

    1Pe 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
     
  13. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  14. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not trying to be contentious, so I hope this is perceived as a fair question. One of the arguments for using multiple versions and part of the average MVers' line of reasoning is that "No doctrines are affected" by using an NIV, NAS, etc. So my question is, If no doctrines are affected, then why does the KJV debate come up in "almost every theological question"?

    Lacy

    PS. This has been a most charitable thread on all sides.

    1Pe 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
    </font>[/QUOTE]It’s okay to disagree. But, we can disagree without being contentious.

    IMHO, you are making a basic presupposition here: “No doctrines are affected.” There are those who would disagree. Doctrines are affected by versions, texts, and translation. The advent of the RSV in the 1950’s was seen as a challenge to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth even though one could find support elsewhere other than the contested verses.

    The NIV, for example, does have a theological bias in its translation of certain passages and it is generally known and admitted by its supporters. I would argue that all translations have the theological bias of the translators. On the other hand, the consulting of multiple versions does not average out the bias because one will naturally prefer one or the other translation in inclination toward his own theological predisposition. With humans, there is no eliminating of biases.

    Regarding Scripture texts and translations, there are the underlying epistemological questions of authority and inspiration. Having answered these affirmatively, we struggle with their application as to which text is authoritative. Since our theological debates are premised upon Scriptural authority, the textual issue is inherent to every theological dispute. To which text do we appeal to as authoritative in our theological discussions? (Remember that we have not established to everyone’s satisfaction that there’s no doctoral difference in versions. This, itself, is a point of contention. Therefore, it cannot be used as an argument until it has been established by force of argument.)

    Therefore, I conclude that in every theological discussion, the question of text or translation is a potential point of debate. Would you agree?
     
  16. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. UZThD

    UZThD
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,238
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cannot guess as to why the NIV or KJV rendered glosse as " a tongue, " but I do like that rendition as opposed to " a language."

    Explaining my preference exposes my leaning on the issue of whether these were the languages of men or ecstatic utterances. I think the latter, but remain open for correction. such might be best done in another thread.

    1) glossa can mean the physical organ- the tongue.

    2) In some places the NT uses another word for language.

    3) "Language " seems a term suitable for verbal symbols representing understood concepts wherein both the speaker and the auditor use their reason.

    4) In Hellenism there were mystical/ecstatic glossolalia , and Paul may have seen some parallels of it with the phenomenon at Corinth--though he attributes the latter certainly to the gifting of the HS.

    5) These tongues in Corinth were used to speak to God (14:28). I don't know why, then, they should be a known language.

    6) The speaker did not speak to men (14:2). I don't know why, then, they should be a known language.

    7) He spoke mysteries *by* (taking "en" as instrumental) his spirit not by his understanding. (14:2)

    8) If he prays in a tongue, his spirit prays, not his mind (14:14).

    And in 7) and 8) perhaps comes a good reason for my liking the translation "tongue."

    I wonder if the physical organ was not controlled by something beyond the man's rationality, and if so, if " a language" is not less suitable than " a tongue."
     

Share This Page

Loading...