In Reply to: Translations & interpretations posted by Observer on February 27, 2006 at 20:23:19:
Observer:
That SOUNDS good (at first), BUT---
Fred should also be told that nearly ALL of the "new issues about ‘how much of the text is true to the original’" are dicussed at great length, but form only two basic, and opposing, camps of interpretation.
The subject matter is called "Higher Form Criticism", mostly based on some manuscripts called ""J", "E" "D" and "P" (which basically, in the Liberal camp, attempt to lay the groundwork for a REJECTION of God's Word the Bible as inspired; either wholly or in part), and the two opposing viewpoints are Orthodox, or original and historical, taken from the writings of the original disciples, the 1st Century Apostles, their "first-line students", and so on, for the first three or four hundred years of the Church, before the Catholic Church got their hooks into doctrine being contradicted and replaced by RC tradition. RCs have ALWAYS been hardcore Augustinians, which is why they have NEVER taken a stand on God's Word, since that would cost them their authority--very similar to Berg and his Mo' Letters!
Original/orthodox/historical
and Pre-Augustinian "theology" started with God: God WAS "big enough" to fully inspire completely the writing of all Scripture, do miracles throughout history (like heal and save people), and did so.
The "discrepancies" Observer is attempting to authoritatively quote, but ENTIRELY MISREPRESENTS in actual historical fact, were ONLY GRAMMATICAL, according to the teachers of the first three centuries, and EVERY VERSE of what was considered Scripture was fully quoted and discussed in the writings of the early Church Fathers, as they were called, whose translations are now online for all to read!
In other words, EVEN IF the THOUSANDS of parchments and velum containing this OT and NT Scripture were destroyed, it could be duplicated from their writings alone.
That by itself is far more amazing than the tradition brought to us by he Talmudists and Massoretes! Observer, you quoted that, but severely misrepresented its historical value, in comparison to WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED, and NONE of the writings of the ECFs agree with your position of "not fully inspired" Scripture.
In other words, NO ONE believed as you do, for at least the first three centuries, and were actually considered to even BE Christian; hisorically; sorry.
Thus, you are MISLEADING Fred in this, and he's not getting an accurate answer, only an opinion you borrowed from Liberal "De-ologians".
So, Liberal so-called "theology" begins with the premise, AFTER Augustine (which idea was eventually STOLEN by the Muslims following the advent of their 6th century religion), that one must begin with MAN, not God.
In the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" this "man-first, not God-first" idea became firmly entrenched in European thought, and they STOLE IT from Augustine.
Isamic thought was that essentially RIDICULOUS ideas could come from Allah, but must be unquestioningly obeyed (like Mo!). "Science" was thought of as verifiable, experimentally and experientially true, but essentially SEPARATE from spiritual things.
The "spiritual" could be absolutely LOONEY, and OK. ONLY "Science, a la Augustine/Islam" could be fully "rational". A good couple of books on the subject are Francis Schaeffer's "The God Who Is There", and "He Is There And He Is Not Silent". He does a wonderful job of tracing the philosophical history of European thought through the ages--NOT too philosophically technical to read!
This, the "man-first, not God-first" idea, was NEVER the point of view or belief of pre-Christian Jews, or of first- through
fourth-century Christians.
Here's the essence of the Liberal POV:
God becomes more uninvolved in a "DE-ology", than a THEo-logy, man makes lots of mistakes, and a shrunken "Deistic god" could NOT have inspired and/or protected in history, his actual word, done miracles, saved people, and so on.
Liberal "de-ology" BEGINS with the premise of EITHER direct anti-supernaturalism, in order to go on to "demythologize" ALL of the Scripture and undermine any kind of REAL faith in God speaking to man at all, OR it selectively reads INTO Scripture, what was historically NEVER THERE, and, since God DID make sure that there was an INCREDIBLE AMOUNT of extant manuscripts, unlike ANY OTHER ARCHEOLOGICAL FACT IN HISTORY, this is impossible, unless faith in God's Word, in GENERAL, is effectively undermined, and this would include ALL of the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, and ALL of the, first, German theologians, as well as the other European and American such "scholars" who followed, in the Liberal, but historically FALSE, vein.
In short, the Liberals are ALL scholastic frauds, content to BE "willfully ignorant"; nothing more--they have made UP their own morality (again, like Mo).
This can all be easily proved; it is really NOT, honestly, a matter of dispute; not really.
More later!
Observer, I'd suggest you read a book on the subject opposite to your current point of view; "Evidence That Demands A Verdict (Updated)"
by a Josh McDowell--its format is just nots taken on the subject from lots of libaries, representing THOUSANDS of study-hours, so personal conclusions can be fairly drawn in light of actual evidence.
I posted a long apologetics list I've refered to from time to time, over 31+ years of personal study, bit on ExFam and NDN. If you have the courage to read it, I do encourage you to do so.
You know Christians are to earnestly contend for the faith, ONCE FOR ALL given to the saints", so I will conclude you will not resent what I write here, or fail to adopt the attitude of the Berean Christians, to actulaly check out what I said.
Study is ALWAYS hard work; you have my sympathies--you may merely have not read important stuff I happened to have read on the subject.
Cheers!
Sincerely,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)