why you think what you do about the Bible...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I thought the following was very profound...

“There are at least 14 Factors that influence what one comes up with in the Bible:

1. Your views regarding the inspiration of Scripture.

2. Whether you would favor a literal or figurative interpretation of a

given passage.

3. Your knowledge and awareness of other “related” Scriptures dealing with the same issue, including the immediate context and the broader context of the entire body of Scripture.

4. Your knowledge and understanding of the background and

motivation of the writer.

5. The way in which a given interpretation fits into your over-all

theological belief system.

6. Your level of understanding of the original language in which the

text was written.

7. The various interpretations and commentaries to which you have already been exposed.

8. The ways in which you process information. Some of you tend to

emphasize reason and logic, while others depend more on personal

experiences and intuition.

9. The degree to which you are willing to accept logical inconsistencies as part of your belief system.

10. Your willingness to change your views in the light of new

information.

11. The degree to which you are satisfied with your current views.

12. The amount of time you are willing to devote to your theological

study and inquiry.

13. The unwillingness to consider alternative interpretations that diverge from your religious tradition.

14. Your overall view of God that has been conditioned by many different life experiences and relationships.

Based on the above variables, does it surprise anyone that there are many different ways the Bible is interpreted? This is especially problematic because many people view the Bible as something to be “right about.”

The only absolute truth is God or truth itself, and our best interpretations of the Bible are only an approximation of it. God was God and Truth was Truth before there was a Bible and will continue to be after the Bible is no more. The Bible is not a theological landing strip for a particular belief system about God, but a spiritual launching pad setting us free to explore and enjoy ever-deepening and ever-widening dimensions of life, love, peace, goodness, beauty, and freedom.

Once I realized that the point of the Bible wasn’t to create a belief system ABOUT God the Bible became an invaluable resource for my journey WITH God.”

- Jim Palmer, Notes From (over) The Edge

[Kevin H]

AMEN!!!! Excellent! This is very true. There is the Holy Spirit to guide us to keep us from getting very off track, but the Spirit does not force our will but works with the above situation.

We deal with everything with the objective evidence and our subjective interpretation and understanding of the evidence.

This is why I understand Mrs. White to have been critical for us wanting to call ourselves "The Church of God" freeing that name to other churches which sadly have not considered this point. I am very uncomfortable when I see churches call themselves "Full Gospel" as the only full gospel was Jesus himself. Once you move on to the 12 disciples, you have 12 interpretations and slants on the gospel. And this is among the 12 full time disciples, much less the 70 apostles that were part time and the others who had experienced the ministry of Jesus and witnessed the resurrection.

Mrs. White and Stephen Haskell had a lot of animated discussions over what inspiration did and did not do to her. (The church tended to side with Haskell on this argument).

None of us hear the exact same sermon when we listen to a sermon. None of us read the same message in any book we read, as we all add to the words our subjective experience and the points listed above.

[ClubV12]

I see these fourteen points primarily deal with how we interpret scripture. An issue the Church is wrestling with today.

No scripture is of a private interpretation, therefore, the counsel of the brethren is paramount in reaching correct understanding. People have so many different ways of seeing things this can be a good, or a bad thing. We much choose our counselors carefully, but we must choose them.

HOW does the Holy Spirit guide us? One way is through the counsel of the brethren! That may be someone you talk to in the parking lot, in a bible study or it may come from the Church Board. The Holy Spirit uses many channels to bring us light. Will we recognize it as light or dismiss it as the ramblings of one we "judge" not worthy to counsel us?

[Gibs]

The Bible and by far the truest translation the KJV is given by the Holy Spirit of God.

Now when that same Spirit, the Spirit of Truth is in you, it then is His Holy Word to you!

It is the only solid ground for man to take his stand on. It is the immoveable ROCK!

Any and all writings must be brought to it to be ironed out as too much truth if any is in them.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So why do I think what I do about the Bible?

Because I can trust in it, it is of LOVE, it is the TRUTH and it is of the only ONE who is GOOD and sets forth absolute JUSTICE.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gerr]

The Bible and by far the truest translation the KJV is given by the Holy Spirit of God.

That's tantamount to saying there has been no progress in knowledge since the 17th century!

[ClubV12]

Ellen White herself embraced several different versions of the bible and used those verses in her books on occasion.

While we need to exercise some common sense with some versions, we shouldn't just throw them all out in favor of one.

[Gibs]

If you look well enough you will find the True Bible must come from the "Received" texts of the old testament and the only texts of the new found not to be corrupt.

The KJV stands above them all as all the rest stream from corrupt texts in either the old testament or the new testament or both.

Here is a confession of Dr. Frank Logsdon,

"I must under God renounce every attachment the "New American Standard Version". I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...I am in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's terribly wrong, terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it.

When questions first began to reach me at first I was quite offended..I used to laugh with others...However, However in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right with the "New American Standard Version". I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I cannot refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many.. Are we so naïve that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?

Upon investigation I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troubles times....I don't want any thing to do with it.

The finest leaders we have today.. haven't gone into it(the new versions use of a corrupted Greek text),just as I hadn't gone into it.. that's how easily one can be deceived. I'm going to talk to him, Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible institute, about these things.

You can say the "Authorized Version" KJV is absolute correct. How correct? 100% correct! I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the "Authorized Version. If you must stand against everyone else, Stand!

Words of Dr. Frank Logsdon, Co-founder of the NASB

If you have any other version it is of your best interest to give it the heave, never to deceive anyone no more. Any error at all leavens the whole of it!

Defend your version all you want, I choose the one that proves out better than all the rest!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Johann]

Ellen White herself embraced several different versions of the bible and used those verses in her books on occasion.

While we need to exercise some common sense with some versions, we shouldn't just throw them all out in favor of one.

Amen! I am in full agreement with the way you express your opinion here.

[Johann]

If the King James Version is the only version through which God speaks to man, then there would only be true Christians in the English speaking world. Then there is no possibility for all of the millions and millions of people who do not understand English.

In my country we have modern versions as our standard Bibles, and I know of no point in the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church where we have any more problems than there is with the KJV.

If the founder of a Bible translation regrets some items in his own production, could that be because he sees that, after all, he'd have to be a Seventh-day Adventist if he should follow the way God had him word his own translation?

[ClubV12]

If we were really honest, we would acknowledge the KJV is not 100% error free. God allowed this, perhaps as hooks upon which some can hang their doubts.

The classic example that I'm sure most are familiar with is the verse where Christ tells the thief he will be in paradise that very day. Simple mistake with the placement of the comma, but a serious mistake never the less. There are other mistakes with added words not in the original text. Where some chapters end and begin were not well thought out.

Luke and Acts were essentially the same book at one point, like Part 1 and Part 2. At some point they became two separate books instead. Daniel 11 more accurately should have included the first four verses of chapter 12.

The list of "problems" with the KJV is a long one, never the less, it is a work God has blessed and approved.

Johann makes an interesting observation. I bet one could have a field day with "mistakes" in the various language editions of the KJV. I KNOW thats a serious problem with Ellen Whites work being translated! But He is in control of it all.

Myself I prefer the New International Version, in many cases, but not all, it more accurately reflects the original text BETTER than the KJV.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

The Bible is not a theological landing strip for a particular belief system about God, but a spiritual launching pad setting us free to explore and enjoy ever-deepening and ever-widening dimensions of life, love, peace, goodness, beauty, and freedom.

Awesome!

The 14 factors are a good outline on how to study the Bible.

[Johann]

There were no chapters nor verses in the original. These came centuries later, and were introduced just to make it easier to find a certain section.

I recall Dr. Siegfried Horn jokingly saying that the person must have been riding a camel, and that was the reason the chapters or verses were misplaced.

Whatever, these are useful tools for the Bible student, used with common sense, realizing these were never a part of the original.

[ClubV12]

Consider the SIZE and complexity of what King James men undertook. Wow, what a massive undertaking at a time when everything was done by hand. Not a computer could be found.

As an arm chair quarterback with perfect hindsight vision, easy enough for me to declare they got this or that wrong. They did a fabulous job.

[Kevin H]

At the time of the KJV there were different Protestant Bibles and Catholic Bibles. The KJV was designed to be a compromise Bible between Protestants and Catholics.

Also the comments from the person talking about the NASB is from Moody Bible Institute, which speaks volumes. While Moody himself was not a Fundamentalists, and supporters of dispensationalist traditions, most of those close to him and supported him were Fundamentalists and he left his work to them. From what I understand it is harder to support the Rapture and dispensationalism from the NASB, which can explain at least part of his concern.

When I met HMS Richards, I had just bought a copy of the New American Standard Bible, he told me it was a wonderful Bible. He said that he was also a big fan of the American Standard Bible, and that it shows the Adventist understanding easier than other translations.

[Gail]

Great discussion!

[Bird's Eye View]

I might also add, beware of any Bibles connected to Cyrus Scofield.(The Scofield Reference Bible, etc....)

One of the biggest hoaxes and conspiracies ever!!!

[Johann]

He said that he was also a big fan of the American Standard Bible, and that it shows the Adventist understanding easier than other translations.

I was told the same by my College Bible teachings instructor, who should have had an idea because he was teaching SDA Bible Doctrines.

[ClubV12]

Dare I say how much I like the Clear Word?

Well I do, so there. I like to listen to it while I'm driving my car, "easy listening". And I actually like the challenge of coming across some verse or section where I think, "Now that doesn't right". Then when I get home I look up the section in a couple of different versions to study it out.

Whatever it is, if it drives you (was that a pun?) to the word, it's OK.

[Johann]

Consider the SIZE and complexity of what King James men undertook. Wow, what a massive undertaking at a time when everything was done by hand. Not a computer could be found.

So true. Also considering what the Bible Societies tell us that the king gave the translators orders not to let the new wording be in conflict with the established teachings of the Church of England, in particular where it deals with the ideals of the priesthood.

[phkrause]

Dare I say how much I like the Clear Word?

Well I do, so there. I like to listen to it while I'm driving my car, "easy listening". And I actually like the challenge of coming across some verse or section where I think, "Now that doesn't right". Then when I get home I look up the section in a couple of different versions to study it out.

Whatever it is, if it drives you (was that a pun?) to the word, it's OK.

So do I. :)

[Gibs]

For sure the Word of God cannot be copyrighted, only the translation is and each translation is changed so much from the others that the copyright hasn't expired or may be sued.

I rather imagine the copyright of the KJV has expired many yrs. ago and it solidly is found to be the best translation, once understanding the old English language used. It definitely is from the best of the manuscripts.

For my see of all the versions out there it is another way men have found to merchandise the Word of God for their own aggrandizement as lots of money is made in this industry.

The TRUE Word should be published and spread with the publisher able to pay all expenses and make a reasonable living and also for all employees.

Also realize Satan knows where best to work, at the head of things, and he does, getting his foot in the door at get go that men get into, especially to destroy the truth.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Kevin H]

Gibs: another issue is even with the manuscripts, there was a lot more guess work as to what the words meant. For example right now there are a lot of Christmas pageants. One key ingredient is the Inn and the Innkeeper. This comes from the translators guessing as to the meaning of the word "Kataluma."

While they knew it was not the word for "Inn" they reasoned "Mary and Joseph were out of town, looking for a place to stay, what else could it be? This must be another word for Inn that we are not aware of." and so the translations of the text reads "There was no room for them in the Inn."

Over about the past 20-30 years scholars have learned what a Kataluma is. It is NOT an Inn. The Christmas movies and plays are wrong. There was no Inn in the story of the birth of Jesus. There was no innkeeper in the story.

Last I heard, (and this is a good 10 years old or so, thus it may be less now) there were still about 3,000 words in the Bible that translators don't know how to translate. There were a lot more in the 1600s.

[Gibs]

2646. kataluma

kataluma kataluma kat-al'-oo-mah

from 2647; properly, a dissolution (breaking up of a journey), i.e. (by implication) a lodging-place:-- guestchamber, inn.

See Greek 2647

It is also known that it was the feast of tabernacles going on explains why they had to lodge in the manger. The shepherds hadn't brought their flocks in yet as the weather is not so bad at the time of the feast.

The text upholds it and remember, the Word was given by The Spirit of God!

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Lu 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Lu 2:8 ¶ And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

Lu 2:9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

Lu 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

Lu 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Lu 2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

Lu 2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Lu 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

I am sure God saw to it that His Word was as He wanted it in the most used and best of the earliest translations, and the earliest ones are right on with the KJV in most cases but harder to understand than the old English of the KJV.

My stand is, the KJV is the best out there bar none!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Kevin H]

There you showed the issue. The quote you have came from the earlier partial knowledge of the word. They had some information then had to guess from what they knew. "Inn" is a good guess from what they had to go by. Although it was a good guess, it was wrong.

There was NO Inn, there was NO innkeeper in Luke 2. The author of Luke would be surprised that we translated Kataluma that way.

But they also had words that they did not have this much information to guess on.

[Gail]

If Joseph was going to Bethlehem because that is where his family was located, wouldn't he lodge with... Family?