The Words vs. the Message

Good points, LeBuick, but we are limited to the confines of what God has given us, which is words, spoken and written. We know God spoke directly, with an audible voice, at times to people, and wrote the decalogue on stone Himself, but we don't know what other methods He mighta used in communicating to others. Those whom He caused to write His Scriptures were also limited to words, the words of their own language, to express, as best they could, the messages God gave them.

 

I agree, I often vision heaven and imagine being John trying to describe what he saw with the limitation of our understanding. Skip the fact that he was in prison so wrote in code to get the letters past sensorship, what is transparent gold? Foundations made of precious stones? Try and vision the heavenly choir?

 

If gold was common, it'd be the ideal building material. It's the most malleable metal known, it does not rust or tarnish, it's a super insulator, is completely non-toxic, easy on the eyes, so heavy that it could resist any storm, and is one of the best conductors of electricity known. I dunno about the properties of the gemstones mentioned in Scripture, but I suspect they would also make building materials far superior to what we now use.

I also suspect a pure, perfectly-burnished gold floor could appear transparent. Also, what's to keep God from making structures from some substance now unknown to us that appeared to John to be gold?

On Patmos, John wasn't really in prison...he was in exile. It is arable enough, with enough potable water to have sustained a population of about 3000. In John's time, it had many date palm groves.

 

This is the belief of the very men who translated the KJV. They believed that the word of God continues despite the wording of the translation. So how is it that some folks turn this completely around today and claim that the words are more important than the message? That the words were more important than the message was not the thinking of the KJV translators, and it should not be the thinking of anyone today. This belief that the words are more important than the thought has surfaced in these latter days, and it is not at all correct - it is founded in deep error and confusion.

 

I think that if a KJVO had said such a thing he would have been chunked clean off of the Baptist Board.

A.F.

 

Tell that to the Ethiopian eunuch whose story is told in Acts 8:26-40. The eunuch was not understanding the words at all, but when Philip shared with him the message, he understood and he was saved and baptized. Now which was more important to the eunuch? He had the words right in front of him, and in a language that he understood, yet he did not understand. Yet when the message was presented to him, he understood and it led to his salvation. The specific words are not as important as the message. If the words were more important, then the Ethiopian eunuch would be in torment today, because he didn't understand the words. The message is what got the job done, and it is the message that gets the job done today - not the specific words. Some of you place far too much importance on the specific words, while it is the message that is truly of the most importance.

 

First...Ps. 138:2 in the KJV is a poor translation. It shoulda read "along with all your name". It's evident from other Scriptures that God's name is paramount.

Second...We don't use God's words...we use ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of them. And one correct translation doesn't out-rank another correct translation in more modern language.

 

While there are some who place exaggerated high estimation upon just one given translation of God's words, ignoring the others He's caused to be made.

 

If the words are so very important, then I need to start learning Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic! :smilewinkgrin: Do you use only the words in the original languages? Or do you, like most of us, use translations of God's original words? After all, if we're going to rely solely upon God's original words then the only sources are the original languages.

 

The trees or important forest: which is the more?

I'm sure the above important words held almost no meaning for most readers.

Lets try the same words again--

Which is more important: the trees or the forest?

Words are important because they are the building blocks of the message. The trees are important because they form the forest. But words must be subservient to the message or they have no meaning. The message is greater than the individual words that construct it: Gestalt! (the idea or phenomenon that elements become so unified as a whole that its properties cannot be derived from a simple summation of its parts).

Its like a marriage. Who is greater in a marriage: husband or wife? Neither. Equality; even though scripturally the wife is submissive to the husband. A marriage should be greater than the sum of two individual lives.

 

If a person is multilingual, which understandable Bible version is that individual's final authority? Stated another way: assuming the message understood by the multilingual person is exactly the equivalent, which set of words should be esteemed better than the others?

 

I'll hafta say, "that person's BEST language, the one he/she uses the most often."

"For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables?
Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free,
use one precisely when we may use another
no less fit, as commodiously?" (AV translators, "To The Reader")

 

So, do we agree that each valid English Bible version was written in the words appropriate for the era in which it was written? And, given the multiplicity of valid meanings in English for many Hebrew & Greek words/phrases, that we can expect several versions to have been made in each era?

 

AVBunyan said...

Isaiah 55:11
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

HankD

 

Right...and nowhere is any one language nor any one version within any one language specified.

 

Jesus indicated the language when He said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law.

There are no jots and tittles in English but there are in Aramaic and Hebrew, so no English version (of the Torah) can be that language He meant.

Also in Romans 3 Paul said that unto the Jews (Hebrew, Aramaic speakers) were commited the oracles of God.

This would at least exclude English as one of the languages of inspiration.

HankD

 

deacon jd, perhaps instead of "throwing rocks," you could engage in discussion.

That seems more Christlike to me.