So, you don't understand the difference between doctrine, and manuscript evidence. Textual criticism?
As far as literally translating the Bible, does that mean you ignore the genre? So, a parable is real and literally happened? Apocalyptic literature just needs to be directly interpreted? Similes and metaphors, are to be interpreted literally, when even the Bible writers knew they were representations?
As for allegories, never use it, never have and never will. This was something commonly used by the earliest church father's such as Augustine. It means taking something, and make it into a symbol, and or something else. I guess you don't know the definition of the word "allegory" do you. Try this:
"the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence:
I take literally the parts that are meant to be literal, always remembering who the passage was first written to, and the surrounding passage, chapter, and book, and then in terms of which covenant, and then, remembering the Bible is about Jesus. That is proper hermeutics or Bible interpretation.
Mostly, I use the original languages to shine light on things that cannot be translated properly into English. Take the following:
"Jesus is out on the sea with his disciples, the storm comes up, and the disciples wake up Jesus to ask him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?” (NIV). A preacher preached this passage as an open question, one in which the disciples showed no faith in Jesus. But is that right? This certainly is the impression that the NIV gives (as well as all the other major translations). Even the NLT is at fault here, making the disciples faith even harder to see. “Teacher, don’t you care that we’re going to drown?"
KJV also bears the burden of not getting the meaning across.
"And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?" Mark 4:38
In this example in Mark 4:38, which we all know, most translations make the question the disciples asked Jesus about, shows a complete lack of faith, on the part of the disciples
The question is introduced with οὐ, which means the disciples assumed that Jesus did in fact care. They assumed that his answer would be, “Yes, I do care.” That’s what the οὐ is doing
The word may μή and the word ou οὐ , both mean "not" in Greek. One is used when asking a question that has a positive answer. That is οὐ. The other word μή, is asking when expecting a negative answer.
Since the word οὐ. is used, the disciples are expecting a positive reply, not a negative one. In other words, they are saying,
"Jesus, we know how much you love and care for us, but right now we are afraid of drowning in the storm."
As Bill Mounce, my former Greek professor says, when we know and trust Jesus, we can cry out to him, expecting the answer that will come from a loving and caring God. In fact, we can even grow and mature, in the midst of struggles and turmoil, because Jesus is leading and guiding us.
Look, I have no issues with you using the KJV, if you read it, and God speaks to your through it. Because, I know despite all the little errors like above, the message still gets through. No doctrine, like the Trinity, or the deity of Christ, the cross, the resurrection is changed because you read KJV and I read NET.
I do object to you coming on here, and posting a lot of nonsense you read on the internet, when you don't even know the definitions of words, or the difference between doctrine, and lower Biblical criticism. I would suggest you continue to use your preferred version, but do not criticize those of us who have a lot better Biblical background and understanding, because we have studied to show ourselves approved.
"Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately." 2 Tim. 3:15
As far as literally translating the Bible, does that mean you ignore the genre? So, a parable is real and literally happened? Apocalyptic literature just needs to be directly interpreted? Similes and metaphors, are to be interpreted literally, when even the Bible writers knew they were representations?
As for allegories, never use it, never have and never will. This was something commonly used by the earliest church father's such as Augustine. It means taking something, and make it into a symbol, and or something else. I guess you don't know the definition of the word "allegory" do you. Try this:
"the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence:
- a writer known for his use of allegory
- The poem is an allegory of love and jealousy.
I take literally the parts that are meant to be literal, always remembering who the passage was first written to, and the surrounding passage, chapter, and book, and then in terms of which covenant, and then, remembering the Bible is about Jesus. That is proper hermeutics or Bible interpretation.
Mostly, I use the original languages to shine light on things that cannot be translated properly into English. Take the following:
"Jesus is out on the sea with his disciples, the storm comes up, and the disciples wake up Jesus to ask him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?” (NIV). A preacher preached this passage as an open question, one in which the disciples showed no faith in Jesus. But is that right? This certainly is the impression that the NIV gives (as well as all the other major translations). Even the NLT is at fault here, making the disciples faith even harder to see. “Teacher, don’t you care that we’re going to drown?"
KJV also bears the burden of not getting the meaning across.
"And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?" Mark 4:38
In this example in Mark 4:38, which we all know, most translations make the question the disciples asked Jesus about, shows a complete lack of faith, on the part of the disciples
The question is introduced with οὐ, which means the disciples assumed that Jesus did in fact care. They assumed that his answer would be, “Yes, I do care.” That’s what the οὐ is doing
The word may μή and the word ou οὐ , both mean "not" in Greek. One is used when asking a question that has a positive answer. That is οὐ. The other word μή, is asking when expecting a negative answer.
Since the word οὐ. is used, the disciples are expecting a positive reply, not a negative one. In other words, they are saying,
"Jesus, we know how much you love and care for us, but right now we are afraid of drowning in the storm."
As Bill Mounce, my former Greek professor says, when we know and trust Jesus, we can cry out to him, expecting the answer that will come from a loving and caring God. In fact, we can even grow and mature, in the midst of struggles and turmoil, because Jesus is leading and guiding us.
Look, I have no issues with you using the KJV, if you read it, and God speaks to your through it. Because, I know despite all the little errors like above, the message still gets through. No doctrine, like the Trinity, or the deity of Christ, the cross, the resurrection is changed because you read KJV and I read NET.
I do object to you coming on here, and posting a lot of nonsense you read on the internet, when you don't even know the definitions of words, or the difference between doctrine, and lower Biblical criticism. I would suggest you continue to use your preferred version, but do not criticize those of us who have a lot better Biblical background and understanding, because we have studied to show ourselves approved.
"Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately." 2 Tim. 3:15
-
1
- Show all
