You failed to give an answer to my position below, choosing, rather, to cultivate the personal issues you seem to enjoy discussing. Did you agree with my post and why?.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:25:45 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The TEXT will never be uniformily apprehended!!!
You don't view English translations as "translation." Or, you would have a profound respect for Greek studies. If God works through the written Word (i.e. the Bible), then Greek studies are critical -- someone has to do it. You can sit down and prof-text all day, if you want, ONLY because someone took the time and energy to give you the English wording from the Greek text. There is no denying this.
JD -------- but I gots to go.
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:14:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The TEXT will never be uniformily apprehended!!!
No that is not the case. Whether Gk or Zulu it makes no difference to me. What I am saying is that God is
not as dependent on these things as you apparently are - If the Greek didn't work He would have found something
else because He can speak to those with a heart willing to hear Him no matter what the language. However, if
one has a dull heart, ears that are hard of hearing and eyes that are closed - they will not understand regardless.
I don't agonize over English translations though I have my favorite. I praise God for them. jt
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:45:06 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I really do not know, Judy. You apparently think that it would make no difference if all of the Greek text(s) were suddenly and completely destroyed. No supporting documents. More than this, you apparently think that we never needed the Greek documents from which we have our English translations. Is that the case? JDSo? God communicated with A&E and Abraham without a written text didn't he?He is able to make a way where there seems to be no way to our darkened minds.However, in our generation we do have the written text along with His Holy Spiritto reveal His Mind to us; and this written text is very plain in Isaiah 8:20 and otherplaces, Jesus Himself validates this. Both He and Paul quote the OT and I see notone question or quibble about hermeneutics, punctuation, etc. Why is that?? jtOn Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:00:02 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:You can make fun of verbs, punctuation and hermeneutics - but you wouldn'teven have a bible without these things.JDTruth is apprehended spiritually JD and an old unrenewed carnal mind can get in theway - even when filled with Gk verbs, Gk punctuation, and hermeneutics.On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:41:26 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Two and two is four. Word of God? Truth?Think before you write. Or maybe that is not necessary under the administration of the Holy Spirit.JDThe Word of God and Truth are one and the same JD; Jesus is both.How sad that you would ascribe an evil motive to David Miller who so far as I can tell isalways working toward peacemaking. jtOn Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:22:28 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I missed this post, David, so I will reply in addition to Lance.I did not say anything about the bible not containing truth. You did that when you changed the wording (and , hence, the meaning, of what I wrote) from "contains the Word of God" to "contains truth." I personally believe that you practice this sort of thing intentionally and when you really have no argument for what was actually written. You do this sort of thing often. Please respond to what I said and the examples I gave you FROM THE BIBLE (by the way).JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:29:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The TEXT will never be uniformily apprehended!!!
The Bible IS entirely trustworthy, David. It is you and I who are not.----- Original Message -----From: David MillerSent: October 13, 2005 17:50Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The TEXT will never be uniformily apprehended!!!I'm glad you clarified this. I thought maybe you had 1 John 5:8 in mind, but deep down, I think I knew better. :-)If you study the Scriptures a little closer, you will find that what you attribute to man is actually attributed to the Holy Ghost. For example, consider Heb. 3:7, which quotes a psalm, something which you apparently attribute to man, but the author of Hebrews attributes to the Holy Ghost.When I hear the statement that the Bible contains truth, there is an implication that some of it does not contain truth. The problem with this is that it suggests the Bible is only trustworthy when one weeds through the parts that is true and separates it from what is false (kind of like the Thomas Jefferson approach to the Bible). When I hear the statement that the Bible is truth, this has the implication that there is no falsehood in the Bible (in other words, the Bible in its entirety is trustworthy).DM.----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:53 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] The TEXT will never be uniformily apprehended!!!Of course it did. You Judy and Linda simply don't read. I said there were at least three sources of information in the biblical record. God "thus said the Lord" (verses abound); Satan "thou shalt not surely die" (you have no idea where this is found IN SCRITPURE ????) and man ( many of the psalms.)You, in return, offered nothing ----- once again ----- that speaks to the issue. And you can't.JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The TEXT will never be uniformily apprehended!!!
So now I have to provide proof whenever you come up with another of your baseless statements?Your assertion contained no supporting data, why not?Where did you learn the Bible "contains" the truth?Thy word IS Truth JN 17:17It is not a "message"It does not contain truthit is the very word of God
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Kevin, kevin, kevin --------------- you have offered nothing for proof. Who among us argues what is written in 17:17. The biblcial message does present at least three sources of information. If you need a proof text for that , well, you're just not reading the book.JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 04:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The TEXT will never be uniformily apprehended!!!
Since the "scholars contains truth" crowd won't provide proof tetxts, here they are:JN 17 :17 thy word is ((contains)) TruthHi Iz,I presume that when you wrote the following (that about which Judy responds, "what Izzy says stands ..."), you were asking a rhetorical question -- the answer being, Of course not: "Can you separate God and His ... written Word?" I would like to challenge you to reconsider. If there is no difference, i.e., no separation, between God and his written word, then go ahead and pray to your Bible, for they are one in the same. You (not you personally, but your cohorts) criticize d John for suggesting that the Bible contains the Word of God, demanding proof texts; yet you yourself write that it is "the Truth contained within" the Bible which is holy, and that Jesus' word speaks to you from those pages, if you have ears to hear. Would you mind explaining to me how this is different from that which set you (pl) off concerning John's statement?Christians know better than to think it's okay to pray to their Bibles, yet with their own words, they sometimes exalt the Bible to a status due only to God. The two are not the same: that is what Lance is saying, and that is what John is saying, and, if I correctly apprehend your latest comment, that is what you are saying -- Judy's kudos noted. I think we all agree. Praise the Lord!Bill__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
