Author Topic: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?  (Read 13081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2009, 06:33:01 AM »

I read the CLV quite often as I do other translations,  blasphemy over that?   I am glad I am not in that prison of thought any longer.   Thank you Jesus.



I'm constantly looking at what is blasphemous.  It is the biggest crime of the modern era.  It is no wonder that the name of the beast is Blasphemy.

Paul


Well, if Blasphemy is some trick to where we have to worry about a word here or there in a bible, then were all screwed.   Good luck.




Blasphemy means to "hold cheap" or defame.  When we hold God to something cheaper then we commit blasphemy.  When we present God's Word in a light that paints a different picture of His nature then we commit blasphemy.  Words are the most powerful thing I know.  God used His Word to create the Kosmos.  Words are so powerful that men have been executed or liberated by the very use of words.  If we don't have concern for the meaning of words in the Bible then we have errored.  We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon.  As you know this website has a community of people that are very devoted to what words actually mean.  So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.

Paul

Paul, the aorist is showing a state of timeless fact. It has the sign of the past and sign of the future. If the aorist is blasphemy then Paul's writings are all blasphemous for he used the aorist quite often as did all the writers of the New Testament.

It think it would be better if you chose a different word than "blasphemous"

"blasphemous" according to Merriam Webster is "impiously irreverent : profane"

I never said that aorist is blasphemy.  Far from it.  I said that to present the verse that I quoted in the present tense amounts to blasphemy.  I have no problem with aorist.  As I stated before Dr. Young even in his own literal translation used PAST tense in the very verses where the CLV is using the present tense.  That is Dr. Young translating the aorist.  To continue in this point of saying I'm calling aorist a blasphemy is just a strawman argument.   I got my definition of "to hold cheap" for blasphemy from an old latin concordance of the bible.

Paul

Offline Doc

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 853
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL men.
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2009, 09:43:09 AM »
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...

The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.

There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)
God does not instruct us to pray to change His mind. He wants us to pray so that we'll know His mind.
 
"Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me." --C.S. Lewis

God never had or needed a Plan B. He's still on Plan A.

Res Veritas Loquitur

Offline WhiteWings

  • Gold
  • *
  • Posts: 13057
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahshua heals
    • My sites
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2009, 10:13:32 AM »
There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)
This?
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d940801.htm
(about halfway the article)
1 Timothy 2:3-4  ...God our Savior;  Who will have all men to be saved...
John 12:47  And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #53 on: June 23, 2009, 02:47:26 PM »
We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon. 


What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context.  But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?



I have to disagree when someone wants me to believe a lie.  Don't you?

Paul


There is a difference between disagreeing and painting the picture of someone blaspheming and believing a lie.

Someone liking the CLV and not worrying that there might be a word here or there thats not to your liking is irrevalent to blasphemy in their life.

What I wrote is not a lie, it eliminates division and argument and shows a broader scope of scripture.  If you disagree, go about your business, if you think I am just believing a lie and blapheming, then you'd rather be divided.



Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2009, 02:53:44 PM »
So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.


And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing. 

When is it ever foolish to be concerned about what God actually means by the things He says?

Paul


When that concern turns to division. 


If I know God loves us all the time,  why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too.

The problem here is the implication is that if someone is not expressing that concern like you are they are risking blasphemy, you are just promoting division.   Oh and if your reading the CLV you might be risking blasphemy, it's ridiculous. 

If you want to share how you view the word differences and why that increases your faith,  share it,  simple as that.   



Offline Tony N

  • Bronze
  • *
  • Posts: 1666
  • Gender: Male
    • Saviour of All Fellowship
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2009, 05:49:36 PM »
Paul (trettep), below is from askelm's web site referenced above:

"To get over his point (which was basically correct in concept), what Mr. Knoch should have done, in my opinion, was first to show that the English is itself full of aorist expressions (which are normally rendered in words that appear to be present tense, but are not). He could then have proceeded to show that the Greek aorist is not a whit different than our English aorist state or condition, and that it is easy and proper to render the Greek aorist into an English aorist. The aorists are equal.

"Now look at how understandable things can become when this is done. As an example, the translators of the KJV (and almost all modern translators) will take the aorist indicative to be a past tense in English, even though the very meaning of the word "aorist" demands that no time indications or limits be associated with it. Look at Romans 8:30 as translated by the KJV. "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Now, the verbs shown in bold letters are all in the Greek aorist. Notice how all the words by the King James translators are rendered in the English Past tense. While it may make doctrinal sense to say that God predestined us (in the past), that he called us (in the past), that he justified us (in the past), it is not true that God has glorified us (in the past). Indeed, our glorification will not come to us until the second advent (which is future). What the apostle Paul actually meant was that God foreordains, he calls, he makes righteous, and he glorifies (without reference to time). True, to foreordain something involves a time when the ordaining occurred, but the apostle Paul used the indefinite aspect which also shows that God may in the future foreordain others (in other worlds besides our own). Paul was showing that it is God who ordains, who calls, who makes righteous, and who glorifies people (no matter what the time is). This is like saying that tap water is liquid. It is liquid no matter what time it is being described. And the English verb describing this condition of water is not in the English present tense, it is in the English aorist which appears to be (as a homonym) like the English present. I plan to write a paper on this very subject one of these days showing extensively that the English language (in fact, with every modern European language) uses the aorist in everyday parlance and in most cases the grammarians are calling it a modified form of the present tense when it is not. The only difference between the Greek aorist and the English aorist is the fact that the Greek uses letter forms within their words to indicate the aorist and the English does not. English uses what appears to be the present tense, but it is not the present. But even the use of the "present" (as does Mr Knoch) for the aorist is not a farfetched procedure because even in the Testament we find that one writer speaking of the same event will place the verb in the present while the other places it in the aorist (see Luke 11:3 with Matthew 6:11; Luke 6:30 with Matthew 5:42; and Matthew 5:12 with Luke 6:23). Mr. Knoch could hardly be accused of inventing some newfangled grammatical usage when the apostles used either the present or the aorist to explain the same thing."

Just because God says He will save all mankind
does not necessarily mean He won't.

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2009, 06:53:05 PM »
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...

The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.

There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)

Where is your proof of that bolded part?  That is a pretty amazing statement.  Maybe he was exercising his professional skill in Ancient Greek studies.

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2009, 06:56:25 PM »
We may as well not care if aionios means "eternal" or "everlasting" and jump on the Eternal Torment bandwagon. 


What I do not care about is the division over the word, people draw the line in the sand and point fingers when the truth is that the bible is actually greater in meaning when people learn that it is both in the proper context.  But will you want to find unity in that or will you disagree and draw your line?



I have to disagree when someone wants me to believe a lie.  Don't you?

Paul


There is a difference between disagreeing and painting the picture of someone blaspheming and believing a lie.

Someone liking the CLV and not worrying that there might be a word here or there thats not to your liking is irrevalent to blasphemy in their life.

What I wrote is not a lie, it eliminates division and argument and shows a broader scope of scripture.  If you disagree, go about your business, if you think I am just believing a lie and blapheming, then you'd rather be divided.




Sure there is a difference.  I'm not accusing anyone.  I'm accusing the writing of being blasphemous.

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2009, 07:02:53 PM »
So much that many of us have found the wonderful Truth about Universal Salvation in the very CONCERN we have for a specific words meaning.


And much foolish division comes about over the very same thing. 

When is it ever foolish to be concerned about what God actually means by the things He says?

Paul


When that concern turns to division. 


If I know God loves us all the time,  why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too.

You don't doesn't mean I shouldn't.  I DO CARE whether it is loved or loves.

Quote
The problem here is the implication is that if someone is not expressing that concern like you are they are risking blasphemy, you are just promoting division.   Oh and if your reading the CLV you might be risking blasphemy, it's ridiculous. 

That is a strawman.  I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy.  And I do favor division.  I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.

Quote
If you want to share how you view the word differences and why that increases your faith,  share it,  simple as that.   


Which is what I'm trying to do.

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2009, 07:14:25 PM »
Here is the CLV:

(Mat 1:2)  Abraham begets Isaac; now Isaac begets Jacob; now Jacob begets Judah and his brothers.

What Abraham really begetting Isaac at that time that was writtin?  (it is present tense for the aorist).  Was Isaac really begetting Jacob while Abraham was still begetting Isaac?  Was Jacob really begetting Judah and his brothers all at the same time while he himself was being begetted by his father?

This is the absurdity in aorist. It is interesting that some here have posted a link that says aorist shouldn't be a "tense" at all in support for arguming that aorist should be considered present tense. From the link posted:

"Actually, though, the English aorist (or the Greek aorist) is not a present tense. After all, the present tense can easily be rendered in the Greek of the New Testament. The aorist in English or Greek is not the present tense."

It reads further:

"This is because the word "tense" is used to describe the aorist. The aorist is not a tense! The word "tense" relates to "time," but the aorist is not in any way related to "time.""
 
Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2009, 07:18:23 PM »
Paul (trettep), below is from askelm's web site referenced above:

"To get over his point (which was basically correct in concept), what Mr. Knoch should have done, in my opinion, was first to show that the English is itself full of aorist expressions (which are normally rendered in words that appear to be present tense, but are not). He could then have proceeded to show that the Greek aorist is not a whit different than our English aorist state or condition, and that it is easy and proper to render the Greek aorist into an English aorist. The aorists are equal.

"Now look at how understandable things can become when this is done. As an example, the translators of the KJV (and almost all modern translators) will take the aorist indicative to be a past tense in English, even though the very meaning of the word "aorist" demands that no time indications or limits be associated with it. Look at Romans 8:30 as translated by the KJV. "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Now, the verbs shown in bold letters are all in the Greek aorist. Notice how all the words by the King James translators are rendered in the English Past tense. While it may make doctrinal sense to say that God predestined us (in the past), that he called us (in the past), that he justified us (in the past), it is not true that God has glorified us (in the past). Indeed, our glorification will not come to us until the second advent (which is future). What the apostle Paul actually meant was that God foreordains, he calls, he makes righteous, and he glorifies (without reference to time). True, to foreordain something involves a time when the ordaining occurred, but the apostle Paul used the indefinite aspect which also shows that God may in the future foreordain others (in other worlds besides our own). Paul was showing that it is God who ordains, who calls, who makes righteous, and who glorifies people (no matter what the time is). This is like saying that tap water is liquid. It is liquid no matter what time it is being described. And the English verb describing this condition of water is not in the English present tense, it is in the English aorist which appears to be (as a homonym) like the English present. I plan to write a paper on this very subject one of these days showing extensively that the English language (in fact, with every modern European language) uses the aorist in everyday parlance and in most cases the grammarians are calling it a modified form of the present tense when it is not. The only difference between the Greek aorist and the English aorist is the fact that the Greek uses letter forms within their words to indicate the aorist and the English does not. English uses what appears to be the present tense, but it is not the present. But even the use of the "present" (as does Mr Knoch) for the aorist is not a farfetched procedure because even in the Testament we find that one writer speaking of the same event will place the verb in the present while the other places it in the aorist (see Luke 11:3 with Matthew 6:11; Luke 6:30 with Matthew 5:42; and Matthew 5:12 with Luke 6:23). Mr. Knoch could hardly be accused of inventing some newfangled grammatical usage when the apostles used either the present or the aorist to explain the same thing."



The argument for Romans 8:30 being present tense is the best argument you put forward so far Tony.  See I'm a reasonable person but maybe you need to go back and find a way to deliver your case a bit better.  Maybe saying that Aorist is "present tense" is not the right argument you should be making.  The article makes a better case for saying that aorist shouldn't be a tense at all.

Paul

Offline reFORMer

  • < Moderator >
  • *
  • Posts: 1943
  • Gender: Male
  • Psalm 133
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #61 on: June 23, 2009, 07:44:38 PM »
Most often the reason people say CLV is a "bad" translation is they think Knoch's understanding of Scripture affected the way he translated.  They seldom actually know how he did the translating.  They just assume what somebody else told them is true, because, "Knoch was a Universalist and that means he has a spirit of deception."  If they have any knowledge of the version it is usually a misunderstanding of the fact it uses the transliterated "eon" consistently (eon, eons, eon of the eon, eon of the eons, eons of the eons, or eonian) to match the Greek.  It is very hard for them to give up their romance with "eternal." To be offensively frank, those I've encountered are either not intelligent enough to understand any explanation using a few Bible references to illustrate forms of a Greek word, or, they're more concerned with controlling people to think like themselves than getting involved in Bible facts that would make them look like they were wrong.  Rarely do I meet someone that has both the intelligence and candid interest to be a student of the Word.

Before encountering the CLV I stopped using the word "church" for a number of years because it was unlikely the people hearing it would think of anything other than either a religious bureachracy or its demoninational title, or they would think of the steeple house on the corner.  At best, with prompting, some would think of the imaginary "invisible" universal church.  With "Eclessia," which is so good to find used in the CLV, the possibility exists for the local visible gathering of members of Christ's body to come to mind.

When I found out about the Scriptural usage I almost completely stopped using the word "eternal." There are other words and phrases I don't use except by way of explanation.  It is right to honor God and His Word.  He says, "Who honors me, I will honor."  Pretty big promise!

It's unlikely anybody who examines the versions available can find a better version in English, certainly if they care at all for access to the original languages in which God gave His revelation.  The ulta-literal interlinear is superb!  And it is very rewarding to use the Keywords.  The one drawback is the lack of a tie-in with the Strong's numbering system that makes so many study resources available and that could be corrected in the future.  For that reason and my familiarity with KJV, as well as other people being acquainted with the KJV, I still use it a lot.  When people are already upset about the disparity between what they've been taught and what you're trying to communicate to them from the Word of God, it makes it all the harder if you try to introduce a translation with which they are unfamiliar.  I'm convinced I need more than patience.  It takes POWER to break through the blindness the god of this age has on the minds of those that believe not.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2009, 07:48:07 PM by reFORMer »
I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program!  JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!!  MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #62 on: June 23, 2009, 08:02:00 PM »
I actually don't know who Koch even is but the link is very well done and I'm going to go in depth and digest it.  I think it is making a different case then what the supporters of the CLV here initially made.  It is making a case that aorist is not a tense at all which is contrary to what was put forward by those here initially.  I have a read a bit of the article and find myself in some agreement with some of its conclusions.  That doesn't mean that I see the CLV as following suit in each case.  But for example, the CLV's translation of Romans 8:30 seems more accurate than Dr. Youngs translation.  But Dr. Youngs translation seems more accurate in the Roman 5:20. translation.  However, the CLV's translation would explain why Paul would have clarified such a blasphemous rendering in Romans 6:1-2 when he says:

Rom 6:1  What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2  God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

So Paul knew that from the previous statement that a blasphemous understanding could have been convenyed.  And since I gathered the same understanding from the CLV's rendering it would incline the CLV rendering to be more inline with what Paul figured would be gleaned from the writings thus giving the CLV more weight.

I'll definately look into this much further.  But for those of you promoting the CLV, stop pushing the "present tense" argument and stick with the articles argument instead.  The "present tense" argument doesn't work but the aspect argument has some merit in my opinion.

Paul

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #63 on: June 23, 2009, 08:09:56 PM »
That is a strawman.  I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy.  And I do favor division.  I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.


Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it,  just wanted to make sure.   Glad you agree.



Offline Doc

  • 500
  • *
  • Posts: 853
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ is the Savior of ALL men.
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2009, 09:40:23 PM »
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...

The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.

There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)

Where is your proof of that bolded part?  That is a pretty amazing statement.  Maybe he was exercising his professional skill in Ancient Greek studies.

Paul


Did you read the article WW linked? Tony also quoted the appropriate section of it, I believe.

I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with your POV. Trying to be true to the original language in translation into English is hardly blasphemous.

The statement I made is nothing like amazing, compared to some of the ones you make.

Professional skill is often clouded by bias. Everyone formally trained in something has biases from that training.


Ah, nevermind. I see you've read it.
God does not instruct us to pray to change His mind. He wants us to pray so that we'll know His mind.
 
"Prayer doesn't change God, it changes me." --C.S. Lewis

God never had or needed a Plan B. He's still on Plan A.

Res Veritas Loquitur

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #65 on: June 23, 2009, 11:00:07 PM »
That is a strawman.  I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy.  And I do favor division.  I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.


Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it,  just wanted to make sure.   Glad you agree.




No they are not risking it.   Only the CLV would be  making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.

Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #66 on: June 23, 2009, 11:04:13 PM »
Paul, sometimes I think you look for way too many small sharp objects in large piles of hay...

The aorist tense is for all practical purposes, what looks like present tense in English. Young was only following tradition by translating aorist as past tense. We frequently use "English aorist" when speaking of things without connection to time in English, we just don't recognize it as that.

There is a really good explanation of this over at askelm.com somewhere (IIRC)

Where is your proof of that bolded part?  That is a pretty amazing statement.  Maybe he was exercising his professional skill in Ancient Greek studies.

Paul


Did you read the article WW linked? Tony also quoted the appropriate section of it, I believe.

I'm sorry if it doesn't agree with your POV. Trying to be true to the original language in translation into English is hardly blasphemous.

The statement I made is nothing like amazing, compared to some of the ones you make.

Professional skill is often clouded by bias. Everyone formally trained in something has biases from that training.


Ah, nevermind. I see you've read it.

I'll be reading it further.  The statements the link make are different then the initial statements made in this thread about aorist meaning a present tense.  The link refutes that aorist should mean present tense.  However Tony's later assertion is more in line with the link and I think the link has more merit then the earlier statements of aorist being a present tense.  I like to follow rational thinking and understanding.  I'm not one of those that stands by what is clearly wrong.  If I discover something I know is wrong then I will attempt to conform to what is right.  This is how I came to the understanding of Universal Salvation in the first place.  It was with much debate until I seen I couldn't refute the argument of Universal Salvation from my annihilationists views I had at that time.  Before that I was an eternal torment believer.

Paul

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #67 on: June 23, 2009, 11:13:15 PM »
That is a strawman.  I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy.  And I do favor division.  I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.


Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it,  just wanted to make sure.   Glad you agree.




No they are not risking it.   Only the CLV would be  making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.

Paul

I like the CLV and read several others, I have on occasion compared as many as was available in an online format (never kept track of how many) when you see scripture as a whole and Gods nature and character as a whole I have to disagree that any one translation makes blasphemous statements.

For myself,  I find I struggle most when I single out a word or a scripture without applying it to everything else I have studied.


For instance,  "So loves the world"  "So loved the world"    A person trying to cause trouble could say concerning "loved"..  "well, thats contradictory unless God stopped loving the world"   A person can single out something like that in any existing translation.

The issue is that either way it is not blasphemous,   God is Love   So thats either true or not.

We can also see love as an action.   The act of having loved the world does not cease and will not return void.


One of the feathers that some ETers believe they have in their cap is to discredit certain translations.  For me, if a translation could be discredited that outcome would not benefit ET or UR.   

It is simply about how are we going to share the hope that is in us.   I am glad that I cannot find a translation where I cannot be uplifted by reading scripture from it. 

Those are just my thoughts on the matter.




trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #68 on: June 24, 2009, 12:08:22 AM »
That is a strawman.  I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy.  And I do favor division.  I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.


Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it,  just wanted to make sure.   Glad you agree.




No they are not risking it.   Only the CLV would be  making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.

Paul

I like the CLV and read several others, I have on occasion compared as many as was available in an online format (never kept track of how many) when you see scripture as a whole and Gods nature and character as a whole I have to disagree that any one translation makes blasphemous statements.

For myself,  I find I struggle most when I single out a word or a scripture without applying it to everything else I have studied.


For instance,  "So loves the world"  "So loved the world"    A person trying to cause trouble could say concerning "loved"..  "well, thats contradictory unless God stopped loving the world"   A person can single out something like that in any existing translation.

The issue is that either way it is not blasphemous,   God is Love   So thats either true or not.

We can also see love as an action.   The act of having loved the world does not cease and will not return void.


One of the feathers that some ETers believe they have in their cap is to discredit certain translations.  For me, if a translation could be discredited that outcome would not benefit ET or UR.   

It is simply about how are we going to share the hope that is in us.   I am glad that I cannot find a translation where I cannot be uplifted by reading scripture from it. 

Those are just my thoughts on the matter.


So you have no problem if people come to believe that aionios means "eternal" then. 

Paul

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #69 on: June 24, 2009, 12:28:50 AM »
That is a strawman.  I never said that I consider those not expressing that same concern are risking blasphemy.  And I do favor division.  I do embrace Universal Salvation and not Eternal Torment - so by doing so I already have favored dividing myself from the majority.


Ok, glad you clarified that someone reading the CLV is not blasphemous nor risking it,  just wanted to make sure.   Glad you agree.




No they are not risking it.   Only the CLV would be  making the blasphemous statements if indeed my assertions were correct.

Paul

I like the CLV and read several others, I have on occasion compared as many as was available in an online format (never kept track of how many) when you see scripture as a whole and Gods nature and character as a whole I have to disagree that any one translation makes blasphemous statements.

For myself,  I find I struggle most when I single out a word or a scripture without applying it to everything else I have studied.


For instance,  "So loves the world"  "So loved the world"    A person trying to cause trouble could say concerning "loved"..  "well, thats contradictory unless God stopped loving the world"   A person can single out something like that in any existing translation.

The issue is that either way it is not blasphemous,   God is Love   So thats either true or not.

We can also see love as an action.   The act of having loved the world does not cease and will not return void.


One of the feathers that some ETers believe they have in their cap is to discredit certain translations.  For me, if a translation could be discredited that outcome would not benefit ET or UR.   

It is simply about how are we going to share the hope that is in us.   I am glad that I cannot find a translation where I cannot be uplifted by reading scripture from it. 

Those are just my thoughts on the matter.


So you have no problem if people come to believe that aionios means "eternal" then. 

Paul



The issue is not about having a problem, it is sharing why I believe it is both so that I do not simply pit my knowledge against theirs but share hope and scripture.

UR does not hinge on one word it is a manifestation of scripture as a whole.

If I believe aionios is only eternal then is their scriptural truth that the character of God and his love for mankind can be seen?   Yes!     Aionios can mean different aspects of "time" and this include timelessness and what is conveyed is based on context and usage, not the study of the word alone.

Gods corrective nature is eternal and God is eternal  and some may awaken and be subject to that everlasting nature of God, but since the "context" of correction disqualifies a person from being punished forever then we can conclude that while we are subject to a eternal quality of God, we are not subject to it forever.   We can derive this from many other scriptures.

There are other ways that keep aionios in the aspect of time.   We can have a literal and a figurative context.    literally our punishment / correction is temporary and figuratively we cannot perceive it's ending or it will seem like it will never end.


My point is, thats what I share,  and it's not something I just make up, we are told Gods word has been preserved only to find people arguing over the right way to translate it. 

I have no problems with someone saying it should be "forever" because my belief of Gods character is deeper than one word.


trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #70 on: June 24, 2009, 01:54:11 AM »
[quote author=Paul Hazelwood link=topic=6211.msg66380#msg66380 date=1245792530

The issue is not about having a problem, it is sharing why I believe it is both so that I do not simply pit my knowledge against theirs but share hope and scripture.

UR does not hinge on one word it is a manifestation of scripture as a whole.

If I believe aionios is only eternal then is their scriptural truth that the character of God and his love for mankind can be seen?   Yes!     Aionios can mean different aspects of "time" and this include timelessness and what is conveyed is based on context and usage, not the study of the word alone.

Gods corrective nature is eternal and God is eternal  and some may awaken and be subject to that everlasting nature of God, but since the "context" of correction disqualifies a person from being punished forever then we can conclude that while we are subject to a eternal quality of God, we are not subject to it forever.   We can derive this from many other scriptures.

There are other ways that keep aionios in the aspect of time.   We can have a literal and a figurative context.    literally our punishment / correction is temporary and figuratively we cannot perceive it's ending or it will seem like it will never end.


My point is, thats what I share,  and it's not something I just make up, we are told Gods word has been preserved only to find people arguing over the right way to translate it. 

I have no problems with someone saying it should be "forever" because my belief of Gods character is deeper than one word.


[/quote]

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide.  But the contrary:

Luk 12:51  Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

1Co 11:18  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Paul

Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #71 on: June 24, 2009, 03:05:03 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.





Paul Hazelwood

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #72 on: June 24, 2009, 03:17:32 AM »
Luk 12:51  Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

1Co 11:18  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.



Would you say that heresies are blasphemy?


trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #73 on: June 24, 2009, 03:18:29 AM »

Then we have different views Paul.  I don't happen to believe that God meant to choose to believe in His Word anyway you desire in order to keep from a divide. 


I have no problem with our differing views,  but take note that saying  "believe his word anyway you desire" is not accurate to what I wrote.  Which is I think what you call a Strawman.

If you need me to clarify, I will.


I have no other conclusion based on your statements.  Loving and loved is doing different tenses, Loved is not the same meaning as loving.  Once is doing the action now why the other is having already performed the action.  So its not a strawman.  You said:

"...why do I care that a translation uses the word loves rather than loved.  I don't and do not need too."

Two different meanings.  But go ahead and please clarify.


Paul

trettep

  • Guest
Re: Is there anyone on this forum who uses the Concordant Literal Bible?
« Reply #74 on: June 24, 2009, 03:19:43 AM »
Luk 12:51  Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

1Co 11:18  For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co 11:19  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.



Would you say that heresies are blasphemy?



If they defame or devalue the value of the Truth then of course they are.

Paul