/ Topic > Better manuscripts, alternate readings / Forum > TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / Date > 15 Sept 1999 /
.
> elliejohn wrote: Obadiah said something that made me think; he said: "The only way KJV can be
> the perfect word of God they claim it to be is if it is not a translation, but the product of an original
> inspiration of God ...". My question is this: Do any of the translations, available today, claim to be
> an 'inspired' translation?
.
Tondaar say: Dear elliejohn, there *is* one translation that claims to be inspired -> the Prophet Version.
Now this is not - alas! - a complete translation of the entire Bible, and I certainly do not claim that it is better
than the original language texts; BUT it is vastly superior to all the popular versions available to Christians today!
.
> On 15Sept99 Obadiah replies to Tondaar: Any translation which makes a claim of divine inspiration is
> making a false claim. God inspired His word, drawing it to a close with the completion of the canon
> (1Corinthians 13:10). Anyone who claims inspiration for any further writing, including a translation of
> Scripture, is attempting to add to God's word, and will ultimately be reproved by Him as a liar (Prov 30:5).
.
Tondaar answers: Dear Obadiah, it is most uncharitable of you to call me a liar. Who are you to bind up the Lord, and say what he can and cannot do? Inspiration did not cease with the completion of the canon, for that would mean that the Holy Spirit has long since abandoned us. In the same way, the seventy translators of the Hebrew scriptures certainly claimed that the LXX was an inspired translation, and none of the early Christians had any problem with that. Neither did they accuse them of adding to God's word; even though Greek holy books were, in fact, added to the collection. Thus if some translation is clearly better than the majority, is it not possible that we can call it 'an inspired translation'? The Holy Spirit has been inspiring saints and writers in every generation (with varing results, of course), so why not translators and exegetes? Moreover, I am not attempting to add to God's word, but rather to clarify and unveil what has been, up to this point, deliberately hidden and obscure.
.
> <snip> When it comes to translation, by the nature of the game, no translation is perfect.
.
Yet some are clearly better than others, Obadiah. Your theology is simply incapable of accounting for this fact. The best you can do is to admit that no translation is perfect. I am not claiming that my translations are perfect, only that they are better than what the popular translations offer.
.
> Yet, what we hold in our hands is the word of God. <snip>
.
This is true. However, when we compare English translations of Jude with the best Greek texts it is plain to see that
the modern translations deliberately falsify and distort the prophet Judas' message by biased translations that water
down the truth so as to make the epistle tame and acceptable to the delicate consciences of pious and arrogant Christians. If English Bibles cannot or will not give us an accurate and faithful translation of Jude, how can we still assert that the corrupt English versions of Jude are 'the word of God'?
> On 17Sept99 Obadiah da Moderator wrote: Tondaar: How curious that you find it "uncharitable" for
> me to call you a liar, when you have had no compunction about calling me a liar in the previous forum!
.
Tondaar answers: Dear Obadiah, what previous forum? ... I have no recollection of doing any such thing! Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? But if not, can you show me the evidence of your claim (or tell me where it can be found)?
.
> Actually, it appears that we entertain differing concepts of inspiration.
.
Very possible ...
.
> For me, the inspiration of Scripture is verbal: every word is precisely inspired by God. I prefer, in theological
> discussion, to restrict the word inspire to that sense. Certainly the Holy Spirit remains active among God's
> people and inspires, if you wish to use that term, our thoughts, prayers and worship. So, if your claim is
> limited to this secondary level, it is not necessarily mendacious, although it may very well be inaccurate.
.
What is inaccurate is the silly idea of verbal inspiration. This foolish notion implies the idea that the Bible was NOT written by *any* of the biblical authors, but rather that they were all nothing more than glorified secretaries taking dictation. Thus none of Paul's letters were written by him. He simply heard God speaking and wrote down whatever it was that he happened to "hear". Furthermore, this miraculous genesis of the scriptures clearly implies that there is only one author of all the sacred texts, namely God, and therefore there cannot possibly be *any* errors or mistakes in the texts *whatsoever*! All the history and science is true; and every assertion of whatever type MUST be correct in every way (because God doesn't make mistakes). In other words, those who wish to hold to the idea of verbal inspiration must (to be consistent) believe *everything* that the texts say. Thus the world was created in six days (cosmology is wrong); woman was created after man, out of his rib (biology and evolution are wrong); the world is flat and floats on water (pictures and atlases showing the earth as a globe are false and faked); all the NT books were written by who the text claims to have written them (4X: 1&2Peter by the apostle Simon-Peter) ... but not really since God is the only *real* author; etc etc ad nauseum!
.
> That clarified, I do not welcome your arrogant spirit to this forum.
.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I only hope that your attitude will not prevent the Lord from accomplishing His purposes.
.
> You see yourself as "the" one not to water down the truth, as some sort of latter day
> prophet whom God has raised up to bring forth truth obscured for centuries.
.
Very well said, Obadiah! That's it exactly ... :)
.
> Get over yourself, man. You don't even recognize as true the claims in the text of Peter's
> epistles that he was the apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:16),
.
A literal interpretation of such things is suitable only to children. 1&2Peter were not written prior to about 90CE, so *of course* Simon-Peter did not write them! This is not a difficult concept; nor should it cause believers to keel over in a fit of extreme angst!
.
> or that the "twelve tribes" to whom James wrote are, in fact, the twelve tribes.
.
Since the book of James is NOT a jewish document, but is fundamentally and essentially a *Christian* document it is apparent that the term "twelve tribes" cannot be taken literally as referring to the twelve tribes of Israel (ten of which did not even exist in Jacob's day)!
.
> Hardly a position representing a beacon of truth.
.
Not when one is fundamentally biased against reality and history.
.
> Please do me a favor.
.
Uh Oh ... here it comes ...
.
> There are plenty of other fora
.
Huh? "fora"? Wuts dat? ... Do you mean 'other forums'?
.
> on this site where you can express your opinions without having to subscribe to a belief in the
> inerrancy of the New Testament text. I'm sure there are contributors to those fora who would
> enjoy a dialogue with you.
.
Dear Obadiah, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that I must first remove my brains before I can participate in this bible study forum? ... Which forum on this site deals with scripture in such a way that it will allow me to study the Word with all my God-given faculties?
/ Subject > Better manuscripts, alternate readings / Forum > TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / 18 Sept 1999 /
>> On 17Sept99 elliejohn asks a difficult question: Does it seem consistent that God ...<snip> would
>> favor his children by raising up inspired men [prophets] to not only intrepret the written word, but
>> also to give new revelation and inspiration, when needed; and then suddenly cut off and deprive
>> his children, living thereafter, leaving them to flounder and stumble with the interpretations of
>> uninspired men and with no inspiration and revelation, when needed?
.
Tondaar answers: Dear elliejohn, no it does not!
.
> Obadiah da Moderator answers: Elliejohn: <snip some rubbish> And, within the body of Christ,
> He differentiates by granting rewards for different levels of service (1Corinthians 3:10-15).
.
But not to those who claim to be prophets, right Obadiah?
.
> In regard to revelation, though, it's really not an issue of favoritism.
.
I agree ...
.
> It's simply that God has completed the revelation of His written word,
.
I am not disputing this either ...
.
> and there is no further need of partial revelations now that the complete revelation has arrived
> (1 Corinthians 13:10).
.
But how does this translate into "No More Prophets Thx!" ... ???
.
> Again, if there's any favoritism, it's on our behalf, not on behalf of those to whom He doled
> out partial revelations before this age.
.
Perhaps that is why the Lord favored the early Greek churches with the prophets Jacob and Judas and the unknown author of 2Peter. When the Egyptian churches faced their greatest danger (ie. from the gnostics) the Lord sent them the inspired prophets (and part of their efforts are enshrined in the NT). The early Christian prophets shaped the future of the Faith, and contributed much to the NT, but Obadiah says "No, this is quite impossible because it contradicts my idea of inspiration"!
.
> And, finally, true theology is not what "seems consistent," but what in fact is consistent
> with the written revelation.
.
Where in the Bible does it say that Christian prophets are impossible?
.
> There is no need for "stumbling and floundering," for Paul says that we are no longer to be children,
> tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, but to attain to the maturity of Christ (Ephesians 4:14).
.
Paulos of Damascus was the first and greatest of all the Christian prophets. Why then do you refuse to take his advice, and persist in reading the Word like a child?
.
> How much stumbling in this age is caused by those who claim to be revelators instead
> of yielding to the revealed word!
.
I do not claim to be a so-called "revelator", but only a prophet. How much stumbling in this age is caused by those who refuse to accept and acknowledge those who are sent by the Lord to benefit, not themselves, but the People of God as a whole?
/ Subject > A Dialogue on Inspiration & No More Prophets Please! / Forum > TheologyOnLine - BibleStudy / 20 Sept 1999 /
> On 18Sept99 Mr Raedisch wrote: The Bible points to God as its author;
.
Tondaar say: Dear Mr. R, yes it does; and rightly so. Thus I certainly am not one to deny its divine origins or aspects. However, consider the extremes to which this simple fact is pushed. And I have even recently seen one expressed view that well illustrates the full depth of absurdity that arises from a pious and non-critical determination to mock the truth by willful irrationality in the name of faith. One of the opinions of this pious and literal reading of scriptures is as follows: Moses the prophet wrote the Torah. This means that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch (aka 'The Five Books of Moses'; being the first books of the Christian Holy Bible). BUT Moses isn't the *real* author because he simply wrote down each and every word at God's dictation. Thus the written Hebrew language and the Pentateuch both come directly from Yahweh via Moses. ... Presumably, some sort of similar arrangement will be said to apply to the remaining holy books (ie. whatever particular selection of them is congenial to minds that harbor such gross stupidity).
.
> yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the
> characteristics of the several writers.
.
Just so. However, the recognition of all this is inconsistent with, and incompatible with, any view or position based upon what is called 'verbal inspiration'. That is, there cannot be one author (ie. God) "faking" the differing personalities and styles and knowledge of those unique and blessed men and women who were 'verbally inspired'.
.
> The truths revealed are all "given by inspiration of God" (2Tim. 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words
> of men. The Infinite One by His Holy Spirit has shed light into the minds and hearts of His servants. He has
> given dreams and visions, symbols and figures; and those to whom the truth was thus revealed have
> themselves embodied the thought in human language.
.
Well said; and I quite agree.
.
> The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand.
.
You mean the flaming finger of the Lord carved the ancient Hebrew characters directly into the two slabs of stone that Moses carried down to the people, and subsequently destroyed in a fit of rage? ... Ummmm, okay ... Say, have you seen 'The Prince of Egypt'? I haven't seen it myself yet; but I mean to do so asap :)
.
> They are of divine, and not of human composition.
.
Really? Then how do you explain the extant documents from the Ancient Near East that demonstrate remarkable similarities to "The Ten Commandments [that] were spoken by God Himself"?
.
> But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men,
> presents a union of the divine and the human.
.
This is the view I hold, and the one that strikes me as being most consistent with the fullness of the Faith.
.
> <snipsome> And the truths thus revealed unite to form a perfect whole, adapted to
> meet the wants of men in all the circumstances and experiences of life. <snipsome>
.
I would say rather: ... adapted to meet the spiritual, ethical, and religious needs and natures of all good men and women in all the circumstances and experiences of life.
.
> In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The
> Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will.
.
The scriptures have authority, as you say, but the only *infallible* manifestation or revelation of the Divine Logos was given unto us by means of the Son of Man. This is only right and proper for believers to affirm, because Jesus was a person (and only a person can fully and infallibly reveal the Logos of God). The Bible, we should not have to point out, is *not* a person!
.
> They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience.
.
And the test of all prophesy also. ... And, I might add, the measure (canon) of all authentic Christian faith.
.
> "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
> which is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good
> work." 2 Timothy 3:16, 17, R.V.
.
This is indeed the most popular verse to be quoted whenever discussing the meaning or purpose or value of the scriptures. What is always overlooked is that this NT observation comes from very near the end of the age of composition (ie. early second century). Thus, 4X, if we wish to know what Paulos thought of the scriptures, we must turn to his authentic epistles (and bearing in mind also that he was very *NOT* referring to the Christian canon of the Holy Bible): "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by stead-fastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope" (Romans 15:4 / RSV).
.
> <snip cogent digression> In like manner, after the close of the canon of the Scripture, the
> Holy Spirit was still to continue its work, to enlighten, warn, and comfort the children of God.
.
Quite so. And part of this ongoing work was to provide prophets to speak with authority on behalf of the Word. They are to exhort and encourage, and also to open wide the scriptures such that the Truth may be proclaimed to all human creatures ...
.
> Jesus promised His disciples, "<snipquotes>" John 14:26; 16:13. Scripture plainly teaches that
> these promises, so far from being limited to apostolic days, extend to the church of Christ in all
> ages. The Saviour assures His followers, "I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."
> Matthew 28:20. And Paul declares that the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit were set in the
> church "<snipquote>" Ephesians 4:12,13.
.
I quite agree with all this; except that I would point out that Paul did not author the epistle to the Ephesians (but rather that someone wrote it in his name). That minor detail aside, I have to say that your overall exposition is quite good and concise and, of course, biblical. My only criticism (aside from those above) is that you neglect to address the main point of my two articles above. We agree that the Spirit of Truth remains active among disciples today, but it is still unclear to me whether or not you recognize the special ministry of the prophets today. If there are prophets among the People of God even now, who and where are they, and what exactly are they doing by way of assisting the Spirit of Truth in guiding believers "into all truth"?
P.S. "Which do you prefer? The dirt of the farm? Or the grime of the city?"
-- from an untitled and unpublished Mickey Spilane novel.
/ Christian Forums > Theology (Christian Only) > Christian Scriptures > Bibliology & Hermeneutics / Date > 15 Feb 2012 / Topic >
> dcyates said: No offense intended, dana b, but where on earth did you get
> any of this from? Does it have any biblical or historical warrant whatsoever?
.
] dana b replies: Yeah, I got it straight from the bible.
.
wurm say: Yeah, just you and a really active imagination, maybe? :)
.
] dana b: You have to be really interested to study it and understand it though.
.
Here, here! I second the motion ... On the other hand, not all energetic efforts
necessarily produce good fruits. dana b's efforts at finding deep trinitarian meanings
in the table of contents is kinda like building sand-castles in the air, and could
definitely benefit from some more time on the vine ...
.
Like A LOT more time! :D
] dana b say: If you're not interested in this stuff then don't look at it. it's funny
] how the ones who have nothing constructive to say about the matter seem to
] do all of the talking. There is some very serious and interesting investigations
] that can be done here.
.
wurm say: I'm sorry I tweaked you, dana. Your post certainly is interesting ... and curious, at the very least. It's just that I think your efforts and energies could be better spent investigating other, more pressing, areas and problems within the scriptures. For example, did you know that in the time before Constantine the greek-texts were actually used as weapons in the ongoing theological-battles between the overseers of the Empire's major cities? ... It's true; and the implications for textual-criticism are many; and obviously very serious as regards the history and formation of the NT canon ...
.
Yes, the sacred-texts contain *many* mysteries worthy of your undivided attention, dana! For example, I noticed that you seem to think that the 'Gospel of Luke' and the 'Acts of the Apostles' are two seperate and distinct books. In fact, Lk-Acts is *one* book in two parts. And this is one true and important fact that is *hidden* by your 66 book table of contents. In truth then, your bible only has 65 books! And this unpleasant literary fact kindda messes up the nice neatness of your *artificial* arrangement of books ... Yes?
] dana b say: I know all that.
.
wurm say: Do you really? And yet you think that the table of contents is more important and more interesting than all these other mysteries combined? ... Can't really say that I'm much impressed with the *quality* of your judgment regarding these matters. What if the Lord himself told you to investigate more urgent areas? Would you also tell Him 'No'?
.
] d: I've read every book. <snip>
.
Great. And have you read every book with total and complete understanding?
.
] d: If you don't see the miracle of how the Bible Canons were developed
] then it's not your cup of tea.
.
Not my cup of tea, you say? Well, in one sense you are right. I'm not at all impressed by this *miracle* you speak of. However, I am a manic for the *real* and *true* HISTORY of the greek-scriptures; and since we're speaking so boldly today, I'll even go so far as to say that nobody appreciates the need for knowing this history more than me! So maybe you, dana, should pray to the Lord about this matter, and ask for his guidance. Would you kindly do just that? ... please? :)
.
> drjean say: Acts was written by Luke... which was the prophet?
.
wurm say: Nobody knows who really wrote Lk-Acts, drjean. My best guess is an early second-century Roman theologian/novelist. We just call this author 'Luke' because of the silly myth that is supposed to account for the authorship.
.
btw: as to your division of the NT --> It sucks, big time!
