|
Judy, in all respect and candor, how do you know
you are "from the Spirit of Truth"? I'll speak for my self here, when I go to
Scripture, I go in prayer, earnestly, inwardly, desiring that the Spirit lead me
to truth. Yet I sometimes (most times?) come away with a "leading" different
from the "leading" you receive. Does that
necessarily mean I am the one in error, the one
deceived, the one perverting the words of the living God? Does it necessarily
mean the same about you? Of course not on both counts. Please listen to what
Lance is saying, look to his words for their intended meaning, try to understand
him. This is an important distinction and one which gets to the heart
of any discussions of fellowship (see parallel thread).
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:35
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Perverting the words
of the living God
What about the HS giving understanding Lance?
Believers!! Ppl believe in all kinds of doctrines and ideas and not all
are from the Spirit of Truth. Those with opposing meanings should be able to
show in balance and in context why the scriptures I post are being wrongly
used. By intrinsic do you mean "inward"? (In the person or
in the Word)? Both should be the same. I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of
the latter at the 'eschaton' because without understanding they will be the
ones walking in lawlessness who will say "Lord, Lord!!"
judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Check archives re:the role of
the HS in interpretation (my understanding). Given: Some on this site
are actually "believers". They quote scriptures
intended to support an opposing meaning to those
you've quoted. This, at its worst is the "O Ya" factor and, at its best is
simply an indication that some can't or won't be lead by the Spirit to a
correct apprehension of the "intrinsic meaning"
therein.I believe everyone is and will be reflective of the latter position
this side of the eschaton. Lance
Correct me if I'm wrong
Lance but I'm reading you stating that I misread scripture because of
outside influence (you have already said that you don't believe the Holy
Spirit is involved in this) so IYO I am led away from what is "intrinsically
true and right" However, in saying this you are setting yourself (or some
theologian that you respect and follow) up as the standard of what is true
and right rather than God's Word. If I am perverting truth here, you
have the responsibility as a fellow believer to show me in balance and in
context why you think I am doing so (in love), so that I may walk in all
truth. judyt
Kinda yes and kinda no. The "no" part" has to
do with your scripture quotations. Every one of
them is believed by yourself to refer to a meaning
that makes whatever point you are about in that
conversation. Sometimes that meaning is the real meaning. But, you
too are"influenced". Sometimes that "influence" (folks you study with, books you read etc)
can be seen to have lead you away from that which
is intrinsically true and right. Please don't
respond by asking me if I believe myself to always reflect one over the
other 'cause just like you and all others on TT, I don't. Lance
Are you being funny
Lance? Yes some matters do influence others, (where is discernment these
days)? Bad company corrupts good morals and we are not ever exhorted to
seek out the devil in order to receive
wisdom from God. Read the Preface to the KJV and compare that with
what these other theologians were about. judyt
Jt provides "worldview analysis" Whoda thunk
it. Yup, convictions arrived at concerning some matters influence
others. Lance
Now Bill, got to tell
it like it is. I'm just reading how Nestle and Aland were evolutionists
and Westcott and Hort were only nominally orthodox in theology, both
denied Biblical inerrancy and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and
Aland, like Kittel were German theological liberals... What's so good
about all that? As the old saying goes, no smoke without
fire...jt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oh please. When new manuscript evidence is
discovered, a new edition is released with notes in the lower margin
explaining the nature of the discovery. It's only when the evidence
contains a very high degree of probability concerning authenticity that
the actual text is changed, reflecting the updated evidence. The variant
is then placed in the margin, with explanatory details as to why the
change. You guys should be journalists for CNN; you can make
anything sound seedy. Bill
Please do, I will be
looking fwd to that. I don't know a whole lot about German
theologians
other than things began to change for the
worse when their textual criticism began to
permeate the Seminaries in this country. I
had heard of Westcott & Hort but not this
Nestle/Aland pair. jt
From: Kevin Deegan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> I
have a lot of problems with the NA text. When they finally get it
right I will give you a critique. Right now we are at revision 26 -
revised corrected new improved edition and counting, right? You should avoid like the plague, the Wescott & Hort text -
Nest/Aland any edition
Kevin. A true scholar is one who can separate his
personal views from the task he is qualified
to perform. The guy who cannot do that is just a well
educated sectarian. All you have proven
is the former. So you don't agree with Aland in
theory. That does not change the fact that he
and others did a monumental work in this most recent text (and
the others). Do you have
some textual criticism. I was quoting the text with no
reference to Aland's theology. Aren't you
the guy who thinks the KJ is the inspired version?
John
|
