re: “Sorry if that sounds mean…”

Not really sure how to address that, it all depends on what you mean by ‘mean’. I’m not sure which definition of
the word i should insert if I’m to correctly interpret your narration.

Do you mean:

1. base, low, contemptible; or

2. average, or, intermediate; or

3. cruel

Do you know what i me…um…am trying to say? Oh well nevermind…it doesn’t matter, i might change my mind tomorrow.
——————————
Okay, all playing aside (just playing)

you said: “even when we have agreed ”

Here is the ‘crux’ of the matter. We have ‘no’ agreement in anyway whatsoever, nor can there ever be. The two positions are poles apart, north and south.

…and very truly, this is not a personal issue, it is much bigger. Again (for the third time), to all,

“for we wrestle not against flesh and blood”!

allow me to quote a ‘pre-modern’ voice from the past; A.T. Pierson, who has touched upon this:

(full article linked above in another post)

“There is a conflict ahead, and it is alike irrepressible and irreconcilable, and may as well be recognized as such. There are some believers that cannot and will not relinquish their faith in the eternal verities and certainties of the Word of God, in which they have been instructed. They know of whom they have learned them, and that Teacher is God Himself. Moreover, it has pleased God to reveal Christ in them, as well as to them, and they have the witness in themselves that the Word of God is an inspired and infallible guide in doctrine and duty. It has proved itself the Word of God, and all its utterances true, “as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times,” that is, proven by the seven-fold test of varied earthly or human experience (Psalm 12-.6).”

That’s very clear is it not?

re: There is a conflict ahead, and it is alike irrepressible and irreconcilable,

Here is the nature of the issues at hand….they are poles apart. This is no agreement. Period.

Has this day arrived?

Now, allow me another quote, this one from the apostle Paul, and you tell me which ‘pole’ is best described here:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Your doctrine, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
Your doctrine is blowin’ in the wind.

—————————————————–

“Buy the truth, and sell it not” (Pr.23:23)

(go away because it’s making this stuff harder to sell)

What stuff? Standing up to liars and slanderers? So far I have not been impressed with you are selling… in fact most the time I can’t even tell what it is… but I do think it has been out in the sun too long and stinks a bit.

Now, if you were adding to the conversation even a voice, one might find cohesion in your words… but all I get is gobbled bits of nonsense wrapped in pride.

Sorry if that sounds mean, but really even when we have agreed I have been wrong somehow… so I gave up with you.
And believe me that takes quite a bit!

iggy

hello, for the record, just a concerned independent adding to the conversation…a voice of opposition, or are those not allowed?

Certainly, but typically when you come to someone for “adding to the conversation”, you don’t consistently stick your thumb in their eye and expect nobody to notice.

As for “independent”, I’d say you’re about as “independent” as Hillary on a good day…

In terms of the crap you’re shoveling, though, it is slander. Plain and simple.

Chris,

hello, for the record, just a concerned independent adding to the conversation…a voice of opposition, or are those not allowed? Yup, just label it ’slander’, it’s much easier that way.

you did have a typo in your reply though,

“Since you keep posting inanity here…”,

but i know you really meant to say “since you keep posting ’sanity’ here….” (go away because it’s making this stuff harder to sell)

but i’ll leave it alone, ciao

——————————————–

Yes, ‘n’ how many ways can a man narrate the Word,
Before it’s no longer true?
The doctrine, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,
The doctrine is blowin’ in the wind.

On a more personal level neither my wife or myself did either. What did we know of orthodoxy or orthopraxy! I certainly didn’t know that a church made a point of making up doctrinal statements of what they believe. I thought a church was a church. AND the same was true for us as I stated in the previous paragraph….it wasn’t until we became more mature did we see the importance of the doctrinal statement. As Bruce said, I too have seen those 60 some pages of a doctrinal statement, MANY times!

I also liked what Joe said, and keeping in mind what I said about the doctrinal statement being for believers, if ya don’t like what it says, DON’T go there. I really don’t see need to harp about it! If one doesn’t like Rob Bell, that’s fine. I don’t see the need to nit pick or rag on about word usage.

Being the more mature Christian that I am, compared to when I first started this walk, the Mars Hill statement makes perfect sense in light of the knowledge that I now possess. Is it verse and chapter, no but the intent is all there……..

I seeing nothing more that tail chasing going on here.

I see this as a complete non sequitur. One person or a group of people (it doesn’t matter) slapping a copy right on the word of God announces that its not really the word of God anymore but merely the intellectual property of the people who translated it.

I don’t think your quite understanding my point. I don’t think the copyright is necessarily protecting intellectual property in this case. No one is paid royalties or anything when Scripture is quoted. There was real academic work that went into the translations, though.

So now I hear you saying that God doesn’t have the power to make sure his divine words are properly used but rather that God needs the power of the copyright laws to help him?

Well people have done some pretty ugly and evil things by misrepresenting Scripture. I don’t blame God for that.

But wouldn’t it be far better to hand that translation to the world and say “I believe these are the true words of God” instead of saying “its really my own personal translation so therefore I claim and retain legal property rights”?

To me it would be an immediate red flag if someone released a translation saying, “these are the the true words of God”. I do believe the Holy Spirit guides translators for the most part, but they are still human beings. They are not inerrant.

Gosh! That sounds exactly like what Rob Bell seems to be trying to do yet so many “Christians” are calling him a heretic.

Exactly.

I see this as a complete non sequitur. One person or a group of people (it doesn’t matter) slapping a copy right on the word of God announces that its not really the word of God anymore but merely the intellectual property of the people who translated it.

>The copyright, in my opinion, is meant
>ensure that the translation itself doesn’t
>get misrepresented somehow.

So now I hear you saying that God doesn’t have the power to make sure his divine words are properly used but rather that God needs the power of the copyright laws to help him?

>Also, translating from one language into
>another is never an exact science.

But wouldn’t it be far better to hand that translation to the world and say “I believe these are the true words of God” instead of saying “its really my own personal translation so therefore I claim and retain legal property rights”?

>Different languages present ideas differently.
>A lot of times there is not a direct word-to-word
>correlation. So translators have to first decide
>what the original language is expressing,
>and then decide how best to present that
>in whatever language they’re translating to.

Gosh! That sounds exactly like what Rob Bell seems to be trying to do yet so many “Christians” are calling him a heretic.

If the translated bible I’m reading is the word of God then no human has the right to slap a copyright declaring it as their own intellectual property.

Well, first off, the vast majority of translations were done by large teams of people from across the theological spectrum. They hardly represent one person’s “ideas”. The copyright, in my opinion, is meant ensure that the translation itself doesn’t get misrepresented somehow. It’s not necessarily to protect an author’s intellectual property as in other works.

Also, translating from one language into another is never an exact science. Different languages present ideas differently. A lot of times there is not a direct word-to-word correlation. So translators have to first decide what the original language is expressing, and then decide how best to present that in whatever language they’re translating to.

If you want read the “unadulterated” version of the Bible, I guess you’d really have to learn the original languages. Short of that, there are some really good commentaries that go into the text in depth.

Seriously, though it seems that people have been struggling to discern what exactly “God’s ideas” are for millenia. I actually believe where churches and individuals get in trouble is when they start thinking and believing that their ideas are God’s ideas. Sometimes I wonder if God isn’t like, “sorry, I really don’t want any part in that…”.

I’m not saying that there isn’t truth that is pretty plainly revealed through Scripure. It just seems to me that as humans we try to take a truth and tie it up in a nice little package and put it in our pockets rather than let it mold and transform us.

In my view that doesn’t wash. If the translated bible I’m reading is the word of God then no human has the right to slap a copyright declaring it as their own intellectual property. If my bible is not the word of God (but rather just a book containing flawed human translations) then its not worth reading.