Let me start of that I believe in universal salvation via Jesus Christ. But I have wrestled with coming to that Let me pose my questions
- On the forum, there are many arguments for universal salvation via Solo Scriptura (i.e. scripture only). But what canon do we work with? Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches have different canons. Should we pay any attention to sacred tradition, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions do?
- Do we look at mystical experience? If you read the Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mystics, you have some interesting perspectives. In Eastern Orthodox tradition, you have the dessert fathers, with the prayer of the heart. Roman Catholic mystics, like Saint John of the Cross and Meister Eckhart, saw God as one of love. When Roman Catholic mystic Julian of Norwich asked about hell, she was told, "all will be well and all manner of things will be well." Lutheran mystic Jacob Boehme was shown the inner workings of creation, heaven and hell. And Quaker founder George Fox had a vision of Christ as the inner light. Do we dismiss all this as nonsense or learn from their experiences?
- What should we make of people's experiences with Near Death Experiences? Are they real, imagined or something else?
- Can science add anything to our understanding? I don't know about everyone here, but to me quantum and astro physics are mind boggling. Just read the August 2013 of Scientific American article entitled "What is Reality?"
Enough questions for now. What does everyone else think?
You ask some excellent questions which I too am trying to seek greater understanding of. Another thing I would add to things I don't really understand is reincarnation. I was watching a show the other day about kids who have visions about past lives and find out who they were. It seemed too legit to just dismiss, but I'm not sure how it fits into scripture.
Anyways, here's a good article that deals with NDEs that will hopefully answer some of your questions. I feel like there are more articles that deal with these types of things, but I can't find them right now. Hope this helps for now. :URWelcome:
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/ever-been-to-hell-and-back.html
I have a very clear personal view about that.
It's EXTREMELY bad and totally impossible.
Not even the original writings are suited for sola scriptura. On their own that is.
The English version you are reading is based on translations by flawed humans. The only Scripura I accept is written directly by HS. --> As an example Moses was guided by HS so I qualify his writings as "by HS".
Words have cultural background. You simply can't understand a book written from a Jewish perspective without knowing Jewish thinking patterns.
:banana: all imo :banana:
Hi WW, and welcome back,
Not sure I understand what you r saying about sola scriptura- Are you saying that the English versions are to faulty to be regarded as scripture? or are you distinguishing between the writers presently accepted as the cannon in contemporary versions?
I'll put it even more clearly. It will sting many no doubt.
Even if God Himself personally wrote down the whole Bible in Hebrew and publish it, Sola Scripura would turn His efforts into a total waste of time.
Jesus was 100% Jew, teaching from a 100% Jewish book, living in Jewish society with Jewish thoughts. My point is that we will not understand Jesus if we don't listen to Jesus with Jewish ears. (most people have Greek ears)
Example: What does the last trump for a Jew mean. The 7th trumpet in Revelation? Or let's say something related to the Feast of Trumpets.
Note: I'm NOT saying the English Bible is junk, lies, whatever.
I do however feel/know there are a lot of errors in it. I also think it's within forum guidelines to say so, because Gary spend lots of time on YouTube pointing out translation issues.
Or let's add this thought on sola scriptura. The bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek, which modern and ancient English bible translations are based upon. But Jesus spoke Aramaic. Would we have a better understanding of what Jesus said, if the new testament is translated into and from Aramaic (i.e. some scholars have tried or are trying this)?
Doesn't this (you and some others)basically say that the Bible is 100% accurate as it was originally written. It was written in a different language, at a different time, with a different cultural bias from ours so, there is no way we can find the true meaning of 100% of scriptures?
Isn't it obvious? I don't think any 2 people interpret 100% of scripture exactly the same way. I also don't think the Holy Spirit says the same exact thing to others all the time that he says to us.
The important thing, IMO, is that we are responsible for the parts of the word of God that we DO understand. :Peace2:
...and the last trump is the ace since that will beat any other trump. :laughing7:
Randy.
More and more scholars believe Jesus spoke real Hebrew. Many Jews spoke 2 or 3 languages. Lot's of trading going on with foreigners.
Modern linguists even find more and more evidence that all, as in 100%, of all languages originate from the Hebrew.
Also a steadily growing belief is that a major part of the NT was written in Hebrew. Only the parts especially for Gentiles was in Greek. But even that has vast amounts of let's call it "Jewish logic".
QuoteWould we have a better understanding of what Jesus said, if new testament is translated into and from Aramaic (i.e. some scholars have tried or are trying this)?
Never heard of such a translation. A least not published. But yes it was done for linguistic reasons. The story goes if you do a simple word for word Greek Hebrew translation, you often get perfect Hebrew. What's more including many Hebrew idioms that are unknow in Greek.
I have strong feelings about that. That's why you will often see mentioning it in about every thread. A good example is the American "hot girl". In many languages it may be assumed the girl has fever. In my own language it means sexually exited or slutty.
My point is "we" start with Hebrew. Do a rather simple translation to Greek. And then let a million Greek scholars analize that text for 2000 years. For me it's like having the Chinese law translated into English by a high school kid and then 1000's of top of the crop lawyers start studying that law and assume they fully understand Chinese law.
There are Aramaic translations of the bible available on Amazon. You can also Google or Bing them for online forms. I can't personally say if they are good or bad - don't know.
I think the problem is correct understanding, if we opt for solo scriptura. Let's take something as simple as the last supper. Most protestants take the last supper (i.e. drinking the wine and eating the bread) as a remembrance. But a Lutheran pastor and theologian said the the same Greek word for remember also means sacrifice. Hence, Lutherans will argue for the spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine. Anglicans leave it up to the individual practitioner, Roman Catholic theologians argue for a process called transubstantiation, and Eastern Orthodox leave it as a divine mystery how Christ is present in the bread and wine.
Saint Paul said "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I think this is true for language and symbols. While the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox argue that the church is the final authority on holy scripture, so do many denominations (i.e. Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc.) make a similar argument. Ultimately, we don't have a full understanding - but enough for the basic truths.
Ultimately, I am an Evangelical, in that I say the best way is to preach the gospel of Christ. I have to side with Roman Catholics, Quakers and many protestant groups, in that I identify with a form of Christian inclusivism (i.e. as far as other faiths go). But I agree with many Eastern Orthodox (i.e. both that see it as an actuality and/or a hope), Julian of Norwich and folks here, that things will ultimately be restored. But like the Eastern Orthodox often mention, it will be a divine mystery how this will ultimately take place.
I don't mean to offend anyone with my questions or responses. I like to ask questions and think things through.
The problem of any translation in any language to another:
The translator must totally understand the language being translated. The translator must also totally understand the language being translated to. The problem is if anyone wants to fault the translators translation, they must be at least as competent in both languages as the original translator. If not, how could they detect errors?
Quote from: randylewiskemp on August 14, 2013, 07:57:05 PM
I think the problem is correct understanding, if we opt for solo scriptura.
Amen. Our understanding/revelation - probably, being human and as believers, at various stages of spiritual growth, all limited. I believe it also includes
accurate translation (I think translations are improving, but obviously not "perfect" yet) - but most of all,
Spirit-revealed and
Spirit-translated into our heart and spirit. I personally don't read the KJV very much, I think there are a lot of translational issues. I DO enjoy its beauty and the glory it often gives to God and Jesus. However, I know people who read pretty much the KJV only, and God has decided to break through any translation issues and shown them, through the Spirit and in their regenerated spirit, just what He wanted them to see - for His glory and in His timing.
I'm not sure if you can call this sola scriptura, but I'm personally one that believes the scriptures, accurately translated, SPIRIT-REVEALED [
interpreted/applied] in a regenerated/spiritually reborn heart and spirit, is very much able to give us correct "doctrine" (including Jesus, Savior of the world) and is a Word of Life - and is trustworthy. I believe that's often where the relationship comes in. Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. Blessings.
Trust me to have a different take.
For many years I studied many different Bibles. Strongs Concordance and a Hebrew Greek Interlineer Bible amongst my prized possessions. The more I sought to understand the less I knew.
Father through his Spirit has revealed so much more than all my "reading" could ever hope to uncover. Why, because the Spirit granted "Understanding" where before just words belonged.
I agree with WhiteWings, cultural differences and time change many things, especially the way certain things are understood.
Luk 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." :HeartThrob:
Jhn 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. :HeartThrob:
Col 3:16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. :HeartThrob:
Just a different perspective. Father cannot be "Found" in a book no matter how or who Inspired it. Father isn't lost where He needs to be found. :HeartThrob:
Love Julie
Quote from: randylewiskemp on August 14, 2013, 07:57:05 PM
There are Aramaic translations of the bible available on Amazon. You can also Google or Bing them for online forms. I can't personally say if they are good or bad - don't know.
I think the problem is correct understanding, if we opt for solo scriptura. Let's take something as simple as the last supper. Most protestants take the last supper (i.e. drinking the wine and eating the bread) as a remembrance. But a Lutheran pastor and theologian said the the same Greek word for remember also means sacrifice.
And I think it was an engagement party....!
Jesus followed all the steps of the ancient Jewish wedding at that supper. Except the final step which is fetching His bride which will happen in Revelation.
Remembrance possibly is a correct understanding. But it depends on how they understand that term. If it's something like "Remember I was great teacher sent by God" it's wrong.
When a boy proposed a girl many steps were taken. Relevant for this topic is that the groom left for usually two years and never saw his bride in that period. He had a mediator) groomsman. I believe the mediator Jesus is HS.
So he gave her gifts so she who keep remembering him.
Note everyone Jesus gave footwashing and drank wine with at last supper is legally married to Him.
IMO
Is that NOT everyone or NOTE: everyone? big difference in meaning :Peace2:
It brings up the question when to understand things Biblically literally and when to understand things symbolically. For example:
- In some rural southern churches, it was a common practice to pick up poisonous snakes. After all, true believers would be immune to poisonous serpents. In some cases, they did not die. In some cases, they did. Here they interpreted things literally for this particular passage
- For the Eastern Orthodox, when Christ says the kingdom of God is within you - they interpret it literally (i.e. at least, some bishops and others I met). The rest of us think it means, in the midst of us. The kingdom of God is within us, according to the Eastern Orthodox
Some folks do think that Christ not only fled us from sin, but also the curse of illness and poverty. And they do have sound passages to back them up, if we take them literally. Other times, folks in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches take scriptural passages symbolically.
I agree that we have different levels of understanding. But who has the highest understanding? Is it the scholars, theologians and ministers? Or is it the mystics? After all, many think the age of miracles died after the apostles passed away. But the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox tell stories of living and past "saints" doing miracles. And you find stories in third world countries like Africa, where Protestant congregations are doing miracles - healing the sick, raising the dead, making the blind to see, etc. So if you believe miracles are dead, illness and poverty are things we must live with, poisonous snakes can hurt us, etc. - they probably are. I'm not going to play with poisonous snakes to prove a point. But I'll side with the Christian mystics any day - over the scholars, theologians and preachers.
Randy imo 2 things are absolutely required to start with. A good translation and understanding of the cultural background. The cultural background is the anchor point.
It's also level 1. Literal understanding. But obviously the Bible also spiritual. Most Christian think teh Bible has 2 levels. Literal and spiritual. That's the Greek mindset. Jews believe the Bible has 4 levels.
1. pshat=simple/direct
2. remez=hinting
3. darash=comparison/commentary
4. sod=deep, hidden
I tend to believe Jewish view. I enclose a picture of something that's work in progress. It shows 4 is a returning number.
BTW satan has a similar table. But obviously all negative.
I leave it to you which view you follow.... :URWelcome:
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: JulieTang84 on August 14, 2013, 08:32:58 PM
Trust me to have a different take.
For many years I studied many different Bibles. Strongs Concordance and a Hebrew Greek Interlineer Bible amongst my prized possessions. The more I sought to understand the less I knew.
Father through his Spirit has revealed so much more than all my "reading" could ever hope to uncover. Why, because the Spirit granted "Understanding" where before just words belonged.
I agree with WhiteWings, cultural differences and time change many things, especially the way certain things are understood.
Luk 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say." :HeartThrob:
Jhn 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. :HeartThrob:
Col 3:16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. :HeartThrob:
Just a different perspective. Father cannot be "Found" in a book no matter how or who Inspired it. Father isn't lost where He needs to be found. :HeartThrob:
Love Julie
No one's saying "just read", or "just go by the letter", so I'm not sure exactly what you're addressing. The scriptures say the carnal mind can't understand the things of God. OTOH, I believe when spiritually delivered, translated, interpreted, the scriptures will cut asunder, dividing..instructing, correcting, etc...all those things scripture says about itself. As said earlier, the Spirit and relationship are considered important. IMO, there's just a danger of several possibilities - searching by reading
only [which can "ignore" the Spirit]; searching by the mind
only [which also "ignores" the Spirit]: searching by "relationship"
only (if other spiritual "tools" are available). I believe the Spirit can certainly be involved there, but also our own imaginations might come into play and lead us and others astray if not careful. Thus "they searched the scriptures daily to see if those things be so". Blessings, James.
Quote from: jabcat on August 15, 2013, 01:38:13 AM
No one's saying "just read", or "just go by the letter", so I'm not sure exactly what you're addressing. The scriptures say the carnal mind can't understand the things of God. OTOH, I believe when spiritually delivered, translated, interpreted, the scriptures will cut asunder, dividing..instructing, correcting, etc...all those things scripture says about itself. As said earlier, the Spirit and relationship are considered important. IMO, there's just a danger of several possibilities - searching by the letter only [which can "exclude" the Spirit]; searching by the mind only [which also "exclused" the Spirit]: searching by "relationship" only [the Spirit can certainly be involved there, but also our own imaginations might come into play and lead us and others astray if NOT CAREFUL. Thus "they searched the scriptures daily to see if those things be true"]. Blessings, James.
By no means am I suggesting that the Bible is not an incredible source of information. I was only trying to put things into perspective. I have had many people hold their Bible in their hand stating: "This is My God!"
Where I am today (Father might slap me on the back of my head for saying this) but If I could never read my Bible again, I would not be any further from Father. In fact I am 100% sure that I would be closer as I would be left with the need for trust.
I posted earlier somewhere about Jesus instructing us to become as little Children and Paul quoting David (I think) when he said Everything that can be known about Father can be learned through Creation. Jesus just gave us two commandments, and that is to Love Father and everyone else. :HeartThrob:
My goodness, I might as well complete my whole expose and throw in Psm 23. There you have it in a nutshell. Father's love is not complicated and neither is His Truth.
Blessings to you too James,
Love Julie :HeartThrob:
Sometimes God speaks to others, whether they want to listen or not. Or whether they want to read scripture or not.
- Saint Paul was happy killing and persecuting Jews. But we all know what happened to him
- Jacob Boheme was happy to just make shoes. One day a stranger walked into his shop. He bought some shoes and say Jacob would be a great man someday. As Wiki put it, "in 1600 as one day he focused his attention onto the exquisite beauty of a beam of sunlight reflected in a pewter dish." He didn't seek visions. They came to him. He just wanted to be a good shoe maker.
- George Fox looked for truth in various Protestant churches. But he heard a voice that said, "there is only one, Jesus Christ, who can speak to your condition." Then he had a vision of the inner light. What's not too well known is that George Fox also had the gift of healing
Maybe George Fox and Jacob Boehme studied the Bible. Perhaps not much. But the truth found them, just like it did Saint Paul.
Quote from: randylewiskemp on August 15, 2013, 02:51:14 AM
Sometimes God speaks to others, whether they want to listen or not. Or whether they want to read scripture or not.
- Saint Paul was happy killing and persecuting Jews. But we all know what happened to him
- Jacob Boheme was happy to just make shoes. One day a stranger walked into his shop. He bought some shoes and say Jacob would be a great man someday. As Wiki put it, "in 1600 as one day he focused his attention onto the exquisite beauty of a beam of sunlight reflected in a pewter dish." He didn't seek visions. They came to him. He just wanted to be a good shoe maker.
- George Fox looked for truth in various Protestant churches. But he heard a voice that said, "there is only one, Jesus Christ, who can speak to your condition." Then he had a vision of the inner light. What's not too well known is that George Fox also had the gift of healing
Maybe George Fox and Jacob Boehme studied the Bible. Perhaps not much. But the truth found them, just like it did Saint Paul.
Sure, that's the thing, God can do whatever He wants/chooses to do. He seeks us, and He holds us. However; to whom much is given, much is required. He also exposes, disciplines, and corrects us. As David said, "thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee".
Quote from: jabcat on August 15, 2013, 02:57:44 AM
Sure, that's the thing, God can do whatever He wants/chooses to do. He seeks us, and He holds us. However; to whom much is given, much is required. He also exposes, disciplines, and corrects us. As David said, "thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee".
Amen to that :gimmefive:
Jon 15:5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
So comforting :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Love Julie
Hey Randy:
I would like to take a stab at answering you questions if I may.
Quote from: randylewiskemp on August 14, 2013, 04:12:51 AMOn the forum, there are many arguments for universal salvation via Solo Scriptura (i.e. scripture only). But what canon do we work with? Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches have different canons. Should we pay any attention to sacred tradition, as the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions do?
The whole think hinges on the origin of the phrase. Firstly the phrase is Sola Scriptura. It is one of the five solas brought forth by the protestants of the reformation as a direct contra point against the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic teachings would seem to be precluded from inclusion in the list of possible authorities.
Quote from: randylewiskemp on August 14, 2013, 04:12:51 AM
Do we look at mystical experience? If you read the Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mystics, you have some interesting perspectives. In Eastern Orthodox tradition, you have the dessert fathers, with the prayer of the heart. Roman Catholic mystics, like Saint John of the Cross and Meister Eckhart, saw God as one of love. When Roman Catholic mystic Julian of Norwich asked about hell, she was told, "all will be well and all manner of things will be well." Lutheran mystic Jacob Boehme was shown the inner workings of creation, heaven and hell. And Quaker founder George Fox had a vision of Christ as the inner light. Do we dismiss all this as nonsense or learn from their experiences?
Although Sola Scriptura does allow for other sources, they must be weighed against the scriptures to verify their worth. This would seem to make the mystical neat and exciting, but in itself, not a real source, because its value must be measured against something else. Logically it can't be anything but a confirmation if it agrees with scripture, and dismissed if it doesn't.
Quote from: randylewiskemp on August 14, 2013, 04:12:51 AM
What should we make of people's experiences with Near Death Experiences? Are they real, imagined or something else?
Again, your premise was that the forum was using Solo [sic]/ Sola Scriptura, as the source. I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "What should we make of ..." Even if it was real, does the existence somehow negate anything?
Quote from: randylewiskemp on August 14, 2013, 04:12:51 AM
Can science add anything to our understanding? I don't know about everyone here, but to me quantum and astro physics are mind boggling. Just read the August 2013 of Scientific American article entitled "What is Reality?"
Science can only show us what is happening now. Therefore if understanding is sought, it must be done through personal filters. Science can't show us what happened before; scientist can speculate and give hypotheses, but science itself cannot be used to prove anything beyond what is being observed. I once told a student in grad school that scientific reasoning was merely another form of rhetoric. I still believe that. Some people lean toward certain types of reasoning and logic, others lean toward other explanations.
These are only my opinions, and are there to be accepted of rejected as you choose.
In Love,
VB
I personally prefer "monon graphe" to "sola scriptura" because I think the Greek manuscripts are more authentic than the Latin. I am an ex-Catholic from way back, and I agree that whatever else you're dealing with should agree with and not contradict scripture because I believe it is the inspired written word of God. That's the problem with church tradition, and I'm not just talking about the Catholic Church because the Protestant Church shares the same basic doctrine. I've had a mystical out of body experience, and it didn't contradict the word of God. It confirmed that God is light, God is love, and it directed me to scripture. So I consider it valid, but I don't base my belief on the mystical experience, only on the word of God. I have no use for church, ritual, or the false tradition of man that invalidates the word of God. So I'm good with "monon graphe."
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 01:55:22 AM
I personally prefer "monon graphe" to "sola scriptura" because I think the Greek manuscripts are more authentic than the Latin. I am an ex-Catholic from way back, and I agree that whatever else you're dealing with should agree with and not contradict scripture because I believe it is the inspired written word of God. That's the problem with church tradition, and I'm not just talking about the Catholic Church because the Protestant Church shares the same basic doctrine. I've had a mystical out of body experience, and it didn't contradict the word of God. It confirmed that God is light, God is love, and it directed me to scripture. So I consider it valid, but I don't base my belief on the mystical experience, only on the word of God. I have no use for church, ritual, or the false tradition of man that invalidates the word of God. So I'm good with "monon graphe."
Works for me. When traditions just become something you do they start to mean nothing. I remember reading the first chapter of Isaiah and saw God telling the Jews he was tired of their sacrifices and rote way of dealing with Him: just going through the motions.
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 02:23:14 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 01:55:22 AM
I personally prefer "monon graphe" to "sola scriptura" because I think the Greek manuscripts are more authentic than the Latin. I am an ex-Catholic from way back, and I agree that whatever else you're dealing with should agree with and not contradict scripture because I believe it is the inspired written word of God. That's the problem with church tradition, and I'm not just talking about the Catholic Church because the Protestant Church shares the same basic doctrine. I've had a mystical out of body experience, and it didn't contradict the word of God. It confirmed that God is light, God is love, and it directed me to scripture. So I consider it valid, but I don't base my belief on the mystical experience, only on the word of God. I have no use for church, ritual, or the false tradition of man that invalidates the word of God. So I'm good with "monon graphe."
Works for me. When traditions just become something you do they start to mean nothing. I remember reading the first chapter of Isaiah and saw God telling the Jews he was tired of their sacrifices and rote way of dealing with Him: just going through the motions.
Amen, bro, that's the problem with church tradition, but "the word of God is living and operative." (Hebrews 4:12)
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 02:56:48 AM
Quote from: VineBranch on September 01, 2013, 02:23:14 AM
Quote from: Tom on September 01, 2013, 01:55:22 AM
I personally prefer "monon graphe" to "sola scriptura" because I think the Greek manuscripts are more authentic than the Latin. I am an ex-Catholic from way back, and I agree that whatever else you're dealing with should agree with and not contradict scripture because I believe it is the inspired written word of God. That's the problem with church tradition, and I'm not just talking about the Catholic Church because the Protestant Church shares the same basic doctrine. I've had a mystical out of body experience, and it didn't contradict the word of God. It confirmed that God is light, God is love, and it directed me to scripture. So I consider it valid, but I don't base my belief on the mystical experience, only on the word of God. I have no use for church, ritual, or the false tradition of man that invalidates the word of God. So I'm good with "monon graphe."
Works for me. When traditions just become something you do they start to mean nothing. I remember reading the first chapter of Isaiah and saw God telling the Jews he was tired of their sacrifices and rote way of dealing with Him: just going through the motions.
Amen, bro, that's the problem with church tradition, but "the word of God is living and operative." (Hebrews 4:12)
Amen! :2thumbs:
I agree that the Greek translations are superior in many ways to the Latin translations, but for me the measuring standard is how true they are to Hebrew thought and expression, rather than on the basis of word for word rendering, because the Greeks transliterated many of their own concepts and ideas and mythology into the word-as did the Romans and then later the English and the Germans.
IMO the only way to break through the veil of mistranslation is to go through both the Greek and the Latin into the Hebrew and Aramaic. Studying the writings of Moses, David and the prophets are the surest contextual background against which to compare, as Paul put it, "spiritual words with spiritual realities".
If our spiritual terms do not compare with spiritual realities........
such as Sheol vs Hades vs Hell(neither Hades or Hell compares with the spiritual reality of Sheol), or such as olam vs forever, eternal, everlasting......
we dont know what we are reading and speaking(altho we may be certain we do understand)
I think this language barrier is over estimated- I think the real barrier is in the ideological, philosophical and spiritual perspective changes when we read the scriptures from a Greco/Roman influenced English/European mind-set.
That is why the surest way to UNDERSTAND the scriptures what the MIND OF GOD is when He speaks a word(LOGOS-EXPRESSED THOUGHT) is to study them as a contextually integrated, unique expression of God's perspective on what is real.
I personally think it is this over-emphasis on individual words against a failure to grasp the scriptures in their topical contexts and historical contexts that is the reason for why people can miss the ABOUNDING EVIDENCE for the restoration of all things- because of how one word, such as olam or aion or kolassis is translated in one verse somewhere.
I became a believer in UR before I did the studies in language and translation because my faith in the overall contextual integrity of the scriptures convinced me of its truth. It was only then, as I started researching the reasons for the seeming contradictions that I was led on the trail through the translations, which(not without acknowledging the help of some other writers- mainly Andrew Jukes) the Holy Spirit led me to do in HEBREW through Lexicons and dictionaries that took the words back to the Hebrew roots.
"solo scriptura" is meaningless to me, because so many deceived people trumpet it like a mantra of self justification for their shallow understandings, lazy scholarship and spiritual indifference- based in presumptions they received from their mentors who were also shouting out "SOLA SCRIPTURA" as they paraded their errors and traditions about as if they were the very "sword of the spirit".
Quote from: eaglesway on September 01, 2013, 08:33:31 PM
I agree that the Greek translations are superior in many ways to the Latin translations, but for me the measuring standard is how true they are to Hebrew thought and expression, rather than on the basis of word for word rendering, because the Greeks transliterated many of their own concepts and ideas and mythology into the word-as did the Romans and then later the English and the Germans.
IMO the only way to break through the veil of mistranslation is to go through both the Greek and the Latin into the Hebrew and Aramaic. Studying the writings of Moses, David and the prophets are the surest contextual background against which to compare, as Paul put it, "spiritual words with spiritual realities".
If our spiritual terms do not compare with spiritual realities........
such as Sheol vs Hades vs Hell(neither Hades or Hell compares with the spiritual reality of Sheol), or such as olam vs forever, eternal, everlasting......
we dont know what we are reading and speaking(altho we may be certain we do understand)
I think this language barrier is over estimated- I think the real barrier is in the ideological, philosophical and spiritual perspective changes when we read the scriptures from a Greco/Roman influenced English/European mind-set.
That is why the surest way to UNDERSTAND the scriptures what the MIND OF GOD is when He speaks a word(LOGOS-EXPRESSED THOUGHT) is to study them as a contextually integrated, unique expression of God's perspective on what is real.
I personally think it is this over-emphasis on individual words against a failure to grasp the scriptures in their topical contexts and historical contexts that is the reason for why people can miss the ABOUNDING EVIDENCE for the restoration of all things- because of how one word, such as olam or aion or kolassis is translated in one verse somewhere.
I became a believer in UR before I did the studies in language and translation because my faith in the overall contextual integrity of the scriptures convinced me of its truth. It was only then, as I started researching the reasons for the seeming contradictions that I was led on the trail through the translations, which(not without acknowledging the help of some other writers- mainly Andrew Jukes) the Holy Spirit led me to do in HEBREW through Lexicons and dictionaries that took the words back to the Hebrew roots.
"solo scriptura" is meaningless to me, because so many deceived people trumpet it like a mantra of self justification for their shallow understandings, lazy scholarship and spiritual indifference- based in presumptions they received from their mentors who were also shouting out "SOLA SCRIPTURA" as they paraded their errors and traditions about as if they were the very "sword of the spirit".
From what I've read the Latin corrupted the Greek through church doctrine. I don't read either. I just try to find the true meaning as you say contextually from what I think is the best translation. I know "sola scriptura" is the motto of Protestantism. I'm an ex-Catholic, ex-Protestant, ex-church member who studies scripture because I believe it is the inspired written word of God that is the source of truth. Since I'm an ex-church member, I no longer care about the creeds of the church or its rituals. I realize something is always lost in translation, but I think it's important to try to find the most accurate translation to know the truth. We can see what just changing a few words does to perpetrate the doctrine of torture forever in fire, and I think we have the Latin to thank for that. I don't idolize scripture, but I think it is a more reliable source of truth than church doctrine. So I agree with the Protestant idea that scripture is sufficient, but I disagree with the doctrine of Rome that the Reformation neglected to purge. That's why I'm an ex-church member and a member of no religious organization, but I am a member of the body of Christ who seeks the truth in scripture. As I've said a few times before, I don't think somebody even needs to fully understand the evangel to be a believer, but I study the written word of God because it inspires me like no church tradition does. I don't claim to be an authority. I'm just a fellow student like the rest of you. I've read the church history of persecution of believers simply for reading scripture. They were killed with fire. I've also read how the church distorted scripture to perpetuate its agenda of controlling its followers through fear of being tortured in fire forever. That's why I don't want to have anything to do with church doctrine or its distorted version of scripture. When I say church, I'm usually referring to both Catholic and Protestant because they are both guilty of atrocities and distorting the evangel. We are just supposed to forget about the past and think the church is doing good now, but I don't. I have received as much persecution online from church folks as I have from atheists. I feel sorry for all of them because I know it isn't their fault that they haven't been given the truth. That's why we need to study the truth from a reliable source and share it. Someone out there will have their eyes opened. We may never know about it, but we just need to plant the seed and let God make it grow. If we shine the light of truth that is the love of God into the darkness, folks will be drawn to it, but I think we need to consult a reliable source to fully understand what truth is. I can fellowship with folks of different opinions about different things, but I have to speak the truth as I understand it from scripture. If you want to talk about church doctrine, I'll pass because I'm not interested. I think we all have different perspectives, but it is interesting to share them with each other as long as we do it in love. That's what's happening here for the most part from what I've seen, and I'm grateful for all my brothers and sisters here. We don't all agree on everything, but what group of people do? God bless you all.
" As I've said a few times before, I don't think somebody even needs to fully understand the evangel to be a believer, but I study the written word of God because it inspires me like no church tradition does. "
Beautiful, and I agree :thumbsup:
I go by sola scriptura although in my country we are mainly Orthodox. They place tradition on equal terms with the Scripture, a bad mistake in my eyes.
Quote from: Eduard on September 02, 2013, 07:14:14 PM
I go by sola scriptura although in my country we are mainly Orthodox. They place tradition on equal terms with the Scripture, a bad mistake in my eyes.
I agree, brother. I was raised Roman Catholic. So I didn't get familiar with scripture until after I left the church because it's all about tradition.
Does it even matter anymore? Even to say we belive sola scriptura it doesn't mean that to most.ET is a perfect example. Sola scriptura plainly says that ALL will be saved and ET says no only some.
Sola scriptura says 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago and many good christian believers that say sola scriptura say no, God meant something different than what it says.
Since it's all interpretation and we all enter into our interpretation with our preconceived world view and bias, Does sola scriptura matter anymore?
We all know people that can take almost anytthing the bible says and "make it fit" to what we want or what someone has convinced us is true. Are we taking their word over Gods'? They don't deny it directly but simply say it means what they want it to say. God help us all.
When we stand before God (and then fall at his feet in worship) I don't want to be one of the people that has to answer Jesus when he says, "Why didn't you believe me? I gave you over 30 different translations that all said essentially the same thing. You strained at the gnat and missed the camel. You didn't trust me to make sure my message was recorded accurately. :dontknow:
Quote from: ded2daworld on September 03, 2013, 08:40:33 PM
Does it even matter anymore? Even to say we belive sola scriptura it doesn't mean that to most.ET is a perfect example. Sola scriptura plainly says that ALL will be saved and ET says no only some.
Sola scriptura says 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago and many good christian believers that say sola scriptura say no, God meant something different than what it says.
Since it's all interpretation and we all enter into our interpretation with our preconceived world view and bias, Does sola scriptura matter anymore?
We all know people that can take almost anytthing the bible says and "make it fit" to what we want or what someone has convinced us is true. Are we taking their word over Gods'? They don't deny it directly but simply say it means what they want it to say. God help us all.
When we stand before God (and then fall at his feet in worship) I don't want to be one of the people that has to answer Jesus when he says, "Why didn't you believe me? I gave you over 30 different translations that all said essentially the same thing. You strained at the gnat and missed the camel. You didn't trust me to make sure my message was recorded accurately. :dontknow:
I hear what you're saying, brother, and I say "monon graphe" only matters if you realize it means to reject the false tradition of the church and seek the truth in the word of God. I think that's what Christ was telling folks about the Pharisees. I think the church is the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees.
"you invalidate the word of God because of your tradition" (Matthew 15:6)
The problem seems to be that Protestant church folks think they're relying only on scripture, but they're blinded by church tradition. We're born into it church tradition and raised to believe it is the truth. Some folks never seem to come to the realization that it is a distortion of the evangel. I was born into the Roman Catholic Church. So I had no idea what it meant to believe "only scripture." I left it when I was a very young man, and I tried the Protestant Church for awhile years later. Eventually I came to realize that the Catholics and Protestants share the same basic doctrine. Then I decided to get out of the church and just get into the word of God. I thank God that I'm free from the bondage of the church, and I have the word of God to know the truth.
See the attached file for "The Gospels Differentiated" URV20P1 pages 69-86
http://concordant.org/expohtml/CorrectPartitioning/CorrectlyCutting.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
See the attached file for "Eternal Torment Or Universal Reconciliation URV24P1 pages 77-123."
http://www.saviourofall.org/charts/ChartOfJudgments.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: ded2daworld on September 03, 2013, 08:40:33 PM
Does it even matter anymore? Even to say we belive sola scriptura it doesn't mean that to most.ET is a perfect example. Sola scriptura plainly says that ALL will be saved and ET says no only some.
Sola scriptura says 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago and many good christian believers that say sola scriptura say no, God meant something different than what it says.
Since it's all interpretation and we all enter into our interpretation with our preconceived world view and bias, Does sola scriptura matter anymore?
We all know people that can take almost anytthing the bible says and "make it fit" to what we want or what someone has convinced us is true. Are we taking their word over Gods'? They don't deny it directly but simply say it means what they want it to say. God help us all.
When we stand before God (and then fall at his feet in worship) I don't want to be one of the people that has to answer Jesus when he says, "Why didn't you believe me? I gave you over 30 different translations that all said essentially the same thing. You strained at the gnat and missed the camel. You didn't trust me to make sure my message was recorded accurately. :dontknow:
Leave it to you to clear everything up and take all the fun out of playing around in the mess: sheesh. :laugh: Thanks Bro. :thumbsup: