[geocentrism] Only originals inerrant?
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:39:14 -0600
>
> [Philip wrote:]
>
> "...as I agree with Neville, only the original is the inerrant word of
> God,..."
>
> You know, this is very problematic. How can we say that the original
> manuscripts, scribed by men, are infallible while translations by other
> godly men are automatically fallible?
>
>
> [ very problematic for those who hold to "BIBLE ONLY" for if you say the
> Holy Spirit guides all the the translaters and interpreters, how do you
> explain all the contradictions.Who has the authority or skill to discern the
> spirit infallibly? ]
Gary responds to Philip:
Philip, "BIBLE ONLY" is an article of our statement of faith, is it not?
Aren't we supposed to be holding to The Book? As for "Who has the authority or
skill to discern...", you are the one who "discerned" that only the original
manuscripts were inerrant. Unfortunately, you snipped the relevant portion of
my post in your reply. I repeat that here:
Do we really think that "truth" is limited to "originals" which probably do
not exist and certainly have not been
seen by the majority of humans today? Or do we understand that the God of
all would have planned for this
detail and provided findable truth for those will but seek it?
Philip, I further want to add the following:
Although it is my Bible of choice of course, I'm not sure how to defend the KJV
as the "one and only". It is a hot button topic with folks even in general
agreement on geocentrism. So I wonder if we can't just say basic truths are to
be found throughout most translations and leave it for earnest truth seekers to
ascertain the finer points? (Didn't the Bible validate this search by saying
"Seek and ye shall find"?) To be sure, Catholics and Protestants will never
be united with one Bible, I think.
>
> Take, Jesus. He was known to say "It is written..." a few times. Doesn't
> this lend a little credibility to translations? After all, some of the
> canonized books were over 1500 years old when He was on our globe.
> Languages and dialects would have dramatically changed in that amount of
> time. Therefore, wasn't Jesus using, and referring to, some kind of
> "translation"? Yet, wasn't He able to ascribe truth, and more, even
> authority, to the words that were commonly known in His day on the earth?
>
> [ Yes Gary, and you raised the correct question. Jesus had the Authority to
> interpret, not any other man there so had it. Not as you say "even
> authority", as it was the least important , but absolute authority. The
> question arises which you should think about. To whom did He pass on this
> authority when He left the Earth. Certainly not any Tom Dick and Harry,
> claiming the authority and the Spirit. Nor can He have meant it for each
> individuals conscience. For remember this,
>
> 30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And
> he said:
>
> Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
>
> 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired
>
> Philip that he would come up and sit with him. (now Philip did have the
> authority to do just that. ]
>
>
> That would mighty peculiar if all translations suffer from credibility.
>
> Jesus said, "It is written...", and I think there's some truth to be found
> in those three words.
>
> [The big problem is that it could never be written for every man. Certainly
> not till 1500 year later when the press eventuated. Yet could this invention
> be called a tool of God, when one looks at the 99% of printed material in
> Sodom today? Add to that the confusion caused by the abundance of
> contradictory Bibles. ]
> Philip
> snip.
Gary responds to Philip:
Then Philip, my friend, if you feel this way, to what "Bible" are you pledging
a belief for the inerrancy of in the statement of faith?
You may have a short answer to this or not. And I'm not saying you have
described the situation wrongly. The one book could never have been written
for every man. The KJV is in English. That is a pretty big limitation right
there. Sure there are translations of that English into other tongues, but now
we have a translation of a translation, so I do agree with you that no one book
could ever be "inerrantly written" for everybody. And again, as I said above,
the world will never be united in a single Bible anyway. Yet, miraculously
enough, all Christians follow this Book of which no inerrant copy exists,
supposedly. What I'm asking is what is the "it" that makes Christians believe
the Bible to be real and true? As I said, I believe that "it" is sanctified by
the New Testament as to being a thing which is "found" by a person who "seeks".
BTW, can you give me Chapter and Verse for the Biblical quotations you make
above?
Sincerely,
Gary
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: text/plain
-- Desc: "AVG certification"
Other related posts:
