Thread: The bible says

Re: Post #18

Concerning Romans 13:8-10:
.

The context concerns the Christian attitude towards civil rulers (Rom. 13:1-5, cf. Mk. 12:17, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, 1 Pet. 2:13-17, etc.) which Paul then, in turn, makes application to people in general in vv. 8-10 in regards to paying off their outstanding debts. The basic idea is not that you can't borrow and go temporarily into debt (something Jesus permitted in Mt. 5:42) but rather you should settle your debts as soon as you can. In contrast, however, the only "debt" you should have that is "outstanding" is love - meaning you should never be able to say, in terms of "outstanding debt," that you have fully paid off your outstanding love debt.

See also Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 457-474 (available in preview form from Google Books here).

.
Just the Biblical concept of emphasizing the need to promptly deal with outstanding debt(s).


Concerning Luke 12:33:
.

That's a key passage in the Lukan theme concerning the relationship of Christian living and material possessions. The basic concept is that given the danger of staking too much of your focus on material possessions (see Lk. 8:14; 12:13-21; 16:10-13 for example) there is a great need for emphasis on generosity. Hence why you have both radical statements of "sell everything" while also having statements concerning generosity and alms giving (e.g. Lk. 6:34-35; 11:41; 14:12-14).

See Robert H. Stein, Luke, pp. 51-54 (available in preview form from Google Books here) for a fuller explanation of this Lukan theme.

.
There is nothing wrong with having a nice house, or a nice car, or a nice TV for that matter. The focus of the Biblical passages that deal with material possessions has to do with where your heart is concerning them (hence Luke 12:34). I'm sure everyone can attest to what having riches can do to certain people in regards to their personalities (i.e. arrogance, see Lk. 6:24). Hence the Lukan theme of warning people to avoid this by placing an emphasis on generosity.

By all means, point out hypocrisy when you see it. There is no doubt that some pastors have taken advantage of their position as a means of financial gain. Fortunately, Christians who see this hypocrisy can be relived in knowing that (1) we were told that this would happen beforehand (i.e. wolves amongst the sheep) and (2) they will dealt with accordingly.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Nice interpritation but anyone can spin it to what they think it means. Thats the main problem with the whole book or at least its current version.

Anyone can spin anything, it doesn't mean that we can not come to an exegetical conclusion as to the meaning of the text in regards to its historical context, authorial intent, etc. If you're imposing a postmodern standard to the text, then I don't buy it.

When Jesus Changed his name to Santa Clause and started using slave labor to spread the cheer of Capitalism.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

When Jesus Changed his name to Santa Clause and started using slave labor to spread the cheer of Capitalism.

ROFL

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

We aren't talking about just spinning things. Many versus can mean the exact opposite for 2 different people reading the exact same line. So who is right? How do you that your versus of what it says is what was meant in the original? Simply you dont. You hope you are and all the power to you for it but that doesn't mean you are.

Exact opposite? Doubtful.

Using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, as well as adhering to the principle of sola scriptura, I believe you can come to know what the authorial intent of just about any given passage is. This isn't to say that sometimes simply coming close isn't sufficient given that we lack some historical data concerning the situations that some chapters were written in regards to - meaning we can't develop a full historical context.

There is undoubtedly purposeful liberty with the non-essential doctrines - and by non-essential I don't mean they're unimportant. However, even with these liberties there are pretty clear boundaries set for what is acceptable within these liberties and what is not acceptable. Debate, of course, does a pretty good job of revealing what is what. Most of the time, however, I've found that the reason why untenable interpretations are held is because of an additional outside standard(s) other than the Scriptures themselves (e.g. personal experience).

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You dont buy that the current versus of the bible is an alteration of much older ones? This is suppose to be the word of god. How can you justify changing it to meet current standards?

I'm not real sure what you're asking about. Are you asking about the different translations? Or are you referencing some textual criticism data you're familiar with?

If you're asking about translations, I believe some are better than others given their method of translation from the existing Greek manuscripts and also from which Greek the translations utilized. Meaning, for example, that I think that translations that take the formal equivalence approach (e.g. ESV, NASB) are better than translations that take the dynamic equivalence apporach (e.g. NIV), and that translations that utilize newer Greek manuscripts, such as the KJV utilizing the TR (Textus Receptus), aren't as good as translations that utilize the oldest Greek manuscripts. Regardless, English translations are just English translations.

If you're talking about textual criticism data, you'll need to fill me in some more as to what exactly you're referencing.

Originally Posted by Sosiego

Exact opposite? Doubtful.

Using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, as well as adhering to the principle of sola scriptura, I believe you can come to know what the authorial intent of just about any given passage is. This isn't to say that sometimes simply coming close isn't sufficient given that we lack some historical data concerning the situations that some chapters were written in regards to - meaning we can't develop a full historical context.

There is undoubtedly purposeful liberty with the non-essential doctrines - and by non-essential I don't mean they're unimportant. However, even with these liberties there are pretty clear boundaries set for what is acceptable within these liberties and what is not acceptable. Debate, of course, does a pretty good job of revealing what is what. Most of the time, however, I've found that the reason why untenable interpretations are held is because of an additional outside standard(s) other than the Scriptures themselves (e.g. personal experience).



I'm not real sure what you're asking about. Are you asking about the different translations? Or are you referencing some textual criticism data you're familiar with?

If you're asking about translations, I believe some are better than others given their method of translation from the existing Greek manuscripts and also from which Greek the translations utilized. Meaning, for example, that I think that translations that take the formal equivalence approach (e.g. ESV, NASB) are better than translations that take the dynamic equivalence apporach (e.g. NIV), and that translations that utilize newer Greek manuscripts, such as the KJV utilizing the TR (Textus Receptus), aren't as good as translations that utilize the oldest Greek manuscripts. Regardless, English translations are just English translations.

If you're talking about textual criticism data, you'll need to fill me in some more as to what exactly you're referencing.

Not only is doubtful a bad answer but its telling of your demeanor that you would think what you think a phrase says is exactly how someone else would take it.

How can you come to what the aurthor meant when you have nothing but hand me downs of what the orginal book said? Of which you do not have as of yet. Translating hearsay all the while losing bits and peices with every translation. No different then passing a tale from one person to the next.

So i ask again how do you know your version is whats right? You can give me every translation you are aware of and in the end you still can not give me an accurate answer because there is no way to know.

Let me save you some time typing. I have had this same conversation with preists, pastors, and scholars. In the end the answer is always the same. It's just a belief. Some need that belief to make it thru the day and others dont. However they didn't try to impress apon me on how accurate the current translation is. I wonder why.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Not only is doubtful a bad answer but its telling of your demeanor that you would think what you think a phrase says is exactly how someone else would take it.

I was saying doubtful to "exact opposite." I'll grant that people can come up with different interpretations but I find it doubtful someone is going to come up with an interpretation that is the "exact opposite." That would like someone interpreting that Satan is the "father of lies" as Satan is the "father of truth."

And, again, in case where an interpretation is radically different from another one, debating the interpretation most often reveals that one of the interpreters is using an outside standard/source. This is outside standard/source can be anything from a philosophical belief, to a belief that rests on the (alleged) authority of a source outside of Scripture, to an interpretation of a personal experience.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

How can you come to what the aurthor meant when you have nothing but hand me downs of what the orginal book said? Of which you do not have as of yet. Translating hearsay all the while losing bits and peices with every translation. No different then passing a tale from one person to the next.

Are you saying that copies are hand me downs and hearsay? Have you researched the transmission of the New Testament? It was done specifically to avoid such issues coming up.

Let me put it this way. Say you hand write a paper and say that copy machines do not exist. Say that someone wants to make a copy of your paper, for whatever reason. This would mean that someone, or yourself, would need to sit down with your paper, blank paper, and a pen/pencil and hand write a copy. Would you consider that copy created to be a hand me down or hearsay?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

So i ask again how do you know your version is whats right? You can give me every translation you are aware of and in the end you still can not give me an accurate answer because there is no way to know.

Again, what you mean by version? Translations?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Let me save you some time typing. I have had this same conversation with preists, pastors, and scholars. In the end the answer is always the same. It's just a belief. Some need that belief to make it thru the day and others dont. However they didn't try to impress apon me on how accurate the current translation is. I wonder why.

When you say "its just a belief," what exactly are you referring to? That modern English translations, as well as older English translations such as the KJV, are the word of God?

My apologies for all the questions but I'm trying to figure just what you're exact issue is. If it's the modern "there's lots of different translations so therefore there is no word of God" argument then I'll address that issue - which stems from (presumably) a misconception as to what inspiration and inerrancy are. If it's not, I need you to tell me what you're getting at exactly.