[sword-devel] clean bible or bad phantasy?
Mon, 9 Dec 2002 08:41:08 -0800
I too believe in an in errant scripture. And that I truly have the word of
God. At the same time, I don't think we can know which "original" text is
the absolute correct one ( 1:1 word correspondence with the original letter
penned by by the original authors). Or the translation. I don't believe that
I must have the perfect original text or the perfect translation. And what
I am reacting against is this sort of fear that unless I have all those
things I can't function as Christian. No, I feel more a need for an
obedient perfect heart than I do for perfect texts and translation. In my
way of thinking, people who have to have everything completely "untainted"
by man really reveal unbelief in the all sufficiency of God. This God who is
able to sovereignly bring the promised Messiah via the lineage of a harlot!
I am not a language scholar. I guess what I meant by Christ using the
septuagint is that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John quote Christ and I believe
those quotes are from the septuagint.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:06 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [sword-devel] clean bible or bad phantasy?
> > The scriptures actually address these issues.
> > 1) Christ himself (and the apostles) quoted the septuagint (as
> opposed to
> > the original hebrew) as authoritative.
> Jesus Christ himself never quoted septuagint (except of probably
> rare cases
> when He spoke with Greeks).
> Apostles in The Authoritative Texts really quoted septugiant, but
> 1. They quoted only some fragments of septugiant, not all of it.
> 2. AFAIK (I haven't yet checked, if I mistaken correct me.) the
> quotes from
> septugiant in NT are not literal but sometimes somehow changed.
> This does not
> add authority to septugiant.
> 3. BIBLE NEVER MISTAKES, BUT Paul epistles utterly CONTRADICT (!!) to
> Apostol's Acts speaking in Bible about whether people who was
> with Paul heard
> voice but not seen light or vice verse. But that place when Paul
> speaks the
> preaching it is a quoted (by Luke) speaking, not a direct saying
> of Bible,
> Paul surely messed here. Bible never mistakes (as opposed to man's who
> participated in its writing such as Paul) and never contradicts
> to itself: The
> correct is version of the Paul's epistle (where Paul is
> mistakeless co-author
> with God, while in Acts the co-author is Luke and Paul isn't and
> Paul mistakes
> in preaching). So, you have no foundation to refer to sayings of
> apostles as
> authoritative, even reverse, we all mistaken.
> > 2) Everything WE do is mixed with ourselves, whether it is preaching,
> > giving, singing, or praying. Yet it the scriptures teach us that for
> > Christ's sake, they are accepted. Even when imperfect (and
> they always are)
> > in themselves.
> I don't know this teaching. I believe in ZERO errors of any kinds
> in Bible.
> Victor Porton (firstname.lastname@example.org)