« Did God Condone Slavery? | Main | Never Read a Bible Verse (Video) »

August 14, 2009

Comments

Hey Melinda, I really appreciate what you said here. Christians need to be challenged to go deeper in both prayer and worship just as the Psalmist did.

I have been deliberate in using the word "awesome" to refer ONLY to God. Thanks for the post.

I was thinking about this on the way home from work the other day. I felt a bit rotten to say it, but I think our praise is immeasurably short, perhaps understandably. If we look to the way the angels, in all of thier grandeur approached Jesus (before he came to earth), we can begin to speculate the lack of reverence we are perhaps oblivious to. By Gods amazing grace, we'll get there, but perhaps its a good thing to think about.
The imcompleteness of our praise. Myself, massively included.

One of the reasons I don't like to pray in public or in groups is because I feel on the one hand like my language ought to reflect the awe that I have toward God, but on the other hand I lack the articulate ability to express myself adequately. This need I feel to be poetic and articulate when praising God causes me quite a bit of anxiety sometimes. I'm much more comfortable praying silently where I can express myself more naturally in my own vernacular.

Thats allright too Sam, God hears it all

The casual, edgy, socially conscious God we hear so much of in the church throughout America just might be a god fashioned in our own likeness, patterned after our popular cultural icons more than Holy Scripture.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiments here. While I have no desire to become so liturgical that I can read every word of the worship in a book or church bulletin, much of the arrogant casualness in many churches is demeaning rather than worshipful.

What would you do if the risen Jesus walked into your church service? Whatever your answer....

I suspect we would all fall on the floor in awe and reverance (and maybe even shame) until the second person of the Godhead bid us otherwise.

BTW,if you study worship carefully in Scripture, He really is there -- so we should start acting like it.

==What would you do if the risen Jesus walked into your church service?==

How many would know, today, that it's Him?

After all, there are so many versions, translations and variations, not to mention discussions, opinions, views, arguments, that -- and the Devil is happy with this confusion -- hardly anybody knows Him when they think they see Him:

(Mat 11:3) And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

Even John's disciples didn't know Him?

So, as we stare at all the versions, variations and translations, discussions, opinions and views, whichone IS the Word of God?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not casting doubt cuz, as I see Him, KJV is the Word of God preserved in English, and everything else is ABOUT Him. Others disagree, and, so, there you are.

So, if He is the One and ONLY, how can He be different for each? The problem isn't with Him, rather with this bunch down here, on Earth.

Mr. Incredible,

Loved your movie. Not to go down a rabbit trail too far, but you do know that other manuscripts have come to light since 1611 that have adjusted the general scholarly understanding of various phraseology in the Biblical text, right? If so, I wonder why you hold to that version as authoritative. The Bible itself doesn't say anything about making one translation authoritative.

You asked, "whichone IS the Word of God?"
The Bible is the written word of God - which means literally His written communication to mankind through the human authors. Jesus is the living Word of God, the Logos, or Mind of God. He is God's ultimate personal self-expression. Where the Bible is an inspired anthology of writings from God, Jesus is the Son of God, the exact image of the Father, the Mediator sent from heaven to express God's nature perfectly. Jesus does not equal the Bible in some mystical, trans-dimensional unity. If anything is the tangible existence of Jesus Christ in the world right now, it is you and me - the Church, His body. Though even this is figurative, it is actually related to Jesus where the "word" example is categorically different. (Perhaps you also hold to Transsubstantiation, which would be the literal body of Christ?)

If you're asking which translation is the right one, there are many. Any version that successfully synthesizes any variances in the earliest extant manuscript evidence, and that reproduces the meaning of that synthesized product accurately, is a right translation. This is the science of textual criticism, not the divine ordination of one Master Version.

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Mr. Incredible,
Loved your movie.
------------------------
Not bad, huh.

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
...you do know that other manuscripts have come to light since 1611 that have adjusted the general scholarly understanding of various phraseology in the Biblical text, right?
----------------------------
What manuscripts that disagree with 5600+ with which The Received Text and Hebrew Texts agree with KJV?

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
If so, I wonder why you hold to that version as authoritative.
---------------------------
It squares The Received Text and with 5600+ ancient manuscripts.

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
The Bible itself doesn't say anything about making one translation authoritative.
--------------------------------
Jesus was God on Earth. He was the Word in the flesh. The Word is the Christ.

As John, the Baptist's disciples asked, "Are YOU the One, or should be look for another?"

He said that He is the ONLY Way to the Father.

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
You asked, "whichone IS the Word of God?"
The Bible is the written word of God - which means literally His written communication to mankind through the human authors.
---------------------------
Which "Bible"?

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Jesus is the living Word of God, the Logos, or Mind of God. He is God's ultimate personal self-expression.
-----------------------------
So, Which one is the Christ?

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Jesus does not equal the Bible in some mystical, trans-dimensional unity.
--------------------------
Jesus was the Word in the flesh. So, Which word?

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
If anything is the tangible existence of Jesus Christ in the world right now, it is you and me - the Church, His body. Though even this is figurative, it is actually related to Jesus where the "word" example is categorically different. (Perhaps you also hold to Transsubstantiation, which would be the literal body of Christ?)
---------------------------------
All I know is that the Word of God says that Jesus was the Word in the flesh. How many Words are there?

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
If you're asking which translation is the right one, there are many.
-----------------------------
There are many bibles, books. There is ONLY One Word of God, however. Which one is the representation of the Word?

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
Any version that successfully synthesizes any variances in the earliest extant manuscript evidence, and that reproduces the meaning of that synthesized product accurately, is a right translation.
-----------------------------
They are all different, though. Christ is One, not many.

Posted by: Sage S | August 16, 2009 at 07:40 PM
This is the science of textual criticism, not the divine ordination of one Master Version.
----------------------------------
Christ says he is THE Master Version. Which book is The Christ?

Thanks for this, Melinda.

I know a lot of friends who would appreciate the article and feel less square pegs in round holes, and I'm going to point them to the article.

Mr. Incredible, I agree with Sage. Great movie!

Lemme make sure I understand your point of view. Judging by the responses you gave to Sage, I get the impression that you think Jesus is the Bible. The two are identical. And since there is only one Jesus, there can be only one legitimate Bible. You think it's the KJV. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

But if I'm understanding you correctly, I have a question. Which KJV is Jesus? Is it the KJV on my shelf, the one on your shelf, or some other copy?

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Mr. Incredible...
Judging by the responses you gave to Sage, I get the impression that you think Jesus is the Bible.
-----------------------------
I wrote that He is the Word. The Bible is a book, the physical representation of the spiritual Thing. My question: Which version, translation, variation, discussion, argument, view, opinion IS -- squares with -- the Word? The Devil, in the Garden, who delivered the first, revised version of God's Word, said that HIS version is the Word. Eve believed him. Adam believed her, and look where we're at. So, I want not to know what men say is the Word. I wanna know what the Word says. The many books say different things. They report different things in different ways. If there is ONLY One Way, wuddooIcare about different ways?

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
The two are identical.
-----------------------------
That's not what people are saying. Each person having a different version, translation, etc. than another says his is the Word. The Devil loves the confusion.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
And since there is only one Jesus, there can be only one legitimate Bible.
--------------------------
No, there are many "Bibles," many books. Only One Word. And, yet, there are many variations, versions, translations, and on and on. Which one is the Word?

BTW, neither "Bible," nor, "bible," appears in the Word.

"Book" does, 138 times in the OT, and 37 in the NT. The word, "book," refers to what is physically written. What is physically written is supposed to refer to what is spiritually written. What reference is accurate, squaring with the Word of God?

You might say that God said, "maid." I point out that God said, "virgin." Which is God's Word? I'm not interested in whether, to us, they are the same. I'm interested in what GOD says, and, if He said, "virgin," then "virgin" it is, not "maid."

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
You think it's the KJV. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.
------------------------------
It's KJV.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Which KJV is Jesus?
------------------------------
The only KJV out there.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Is it the KJV on my shelf, the one on your shelf, or some other copy?
----------------------------------
You're fixed on the physical Book. All KJV books say the same things. They all align with the Word. KJV is not one, physical book.

For instance...

Romans 8:1, NASB cuts out half the verse. If God said it, as KJV says, it should be there. So, which is the Word of God: The version that cuts it out, or the one that leaves it in?

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Which KJV is Jesus?
------------------------------
I wrote, "The only KJV out there."

I should be careful to say that KJV isn't "Jesus." Jesus, the Man, died on the Cross and sent the "Comforter," His Spirit. He said that His Words are Spirit. He is The Christ. When a Man, He was The Christ incarnate.

I should also say that KJV is the Word of God -- The Christ -- manifested and preserved in English.

Mr. Incredible, I apparently misunderstood you, and I'm afraid I'm still having difficulty understanding you. I get the impression now that you don't think the KJV is identical to Jesus in the sense that I first thought. Rather, the KJV is an accurate representation of Jesus. Would you please explain that a little more? What do you mean by "representation"? What do you think the Bible means when is says that Jesus is the Word?

I'm just wondering how literally you're taking this. After all, the Bible contains many words, not just one. So if you say there is only one Word involved, then you must mean "Word" in some metaphorical sense.

I get the impression now that you think since there is only one Word, there can be only one accurate representation of that Word. And you think the KJV is that accurate representation.

But strictly speaking, wasn't the Bible original inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Shouldn't the Bible in its original language constitute the one accurate representation of the Word? The KJV is a translation.

If there being only one Word entails that only one translation is accurate, then what about translations in other languages? Does your argument exclude the possibility that the Bible could be accurately translated in other languages besides English? If there WERE accurate translations in other languages, then wouldn't that entail that there are multiple translations of the Bible that are ALL accurate representations of the one Word?

Again, I hope you'll excuse me if it seems like my questions are based on a misunderstanding of your point of view. Do me a favour, though, and give me the idiots version of your point of view. Pretend that I'm an idiot, and explain it to me as clearly as you can with as little use of metaphor as possible.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Mr. Incredible...I get the impression now that you don't think the KJV is identical to Jesus in the sense that I first thought. Rather, the KJV is an accurate representation of Jesus.
------------------------------
KJV is a shadow of the real Thing. KJV is not the real Thing.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
What do you think the Bible means when is says that Jesus is the Word?
----------------------------
What "Bible"?

Anyway...What I think is unimportant.

Jesus was God on Earth. He was "God with us." [Jehova's witnessess believe He was "a god." So, which is it?]

God is a spirit. The Word was/is God. Jesus said His Words are spirit.

When the Devil spoke to Eve what he said are God's Words, were they God's Words, nor not? Did she rely on God's Words, or the Devil's rendition of what he said are God's Words? Do we, today, rely on God's Words, or the Devil's rendition of what the Devil says are God's Words?

Anyway, Jesus was the Word in the flesh. The Word is The Christ. The Word saves.

Now, what if a person, claiming to be homosexual, or a supporter of those who claim to be homosexual, comes along and says that The Homosexual Revised Version Translation says that homosexuality is ok? After all, he would say, it's just another translation.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I'm just wondering how literally you're taking this.
---------------------------
I have stipulated that there is widespread argument about it. THAT's the point. If everybody has a different idea, it's coming from different versions and translations. We should, as the Word says, be of one mind -- the Mind of Christ -- and all on the same page.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
After all, the Bible contains many words, not just one.
-------------------------
Yes, I agree that it took many words to write the book we call, the "Bible."

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
So if you say there is only one Word involved, then you must mean "Word" in some metaphorical sense.
----------------------------------
I mean it in the biblical sense.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I get the impression now that you think since there is only one Word...
---------------------------
I just accept what the Word says. If I say what the Word says, I cannot lie cuz He cannot lie.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
...there can be only one accurate representation of that Word.
----------------------------------
The "Bible" is the physical manifestation of the real Thing. The question is, which version is THE manifestation. It is KJV. Others think it is not. I guess we'll see at some point.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
And you think the KJV is that accurate representation.
-------------------------------
It is the shadow of the real Thing.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
But strictly speaking, wasn't the Bible original inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Shouldn't the Bible in its original language constitute the one accurate representation of the Word? The KJV is a translation.
--------------------------------
As I say, KJV agrees with the Hebrew and the Received Text [Textus Receptus] Greek in the WWWAAAYYY upper ninety percentiles. The Received Text agrees with over 56 hundred manuscripts.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
If there being only one Word entails that only one translation is accurate, then what about translations in other languages?
----------------------------
As I say, KJV is the Word of God, preserved in English.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Does your argument exclude the possibility that the Bible could be accurately translated in other languages besides English?
-----------------------------
"Hath God said...?"

Anywho...

God said, in the Hebrew, "Light be!" It was rewritten, "Let there be light!" No harm, no foul, although, in MY view, "Light be!" is much more urgent, authoritative and dramatic, as I think God was when He commanded it. He wasn't wussy and whiny about it.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM
If there WERE accurate translations in other languages, then wouldn't that entail that there are multiple translations of the Bible that are ALL accurate representations of the one Word?
---------------------------------
If the language used in them adheres to the Hebrew and TR, not to mention 5600+ manuscripts. We'd have to examine them to see. As I say, KJV is the Word of God preserved in English.

BTW, let's be more clear whether we are talking about the "Bible," or the Word of God.

When, and IF, I use the term, "Bible," I mean the Book, the physical manifestation of the real Thing ["My Words are spirit"]. So, I would second-reference the Book as "It." [third person neuter]

When I use "the Word," I mean the real Thing, as expressed in and by KJV. So, I would second-reference the Word as "He/Him." [third person masculine]

I also refer to men's knowledge as "knowledge."

I refer to God's Knowledge as "Knowledge."

> What I think is unimportant.

What you think is very important if I'm going to have a conversation with you about it. But I don't feel like I'm getting straight answers from you to my questions, which is making it impossible for me to get a clear idea of what your point of view is. So I'm just going to drop it. Maybe somebody else who has better reading comprehension than me and knows what you're talking about will pick it back up.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 02:07 PM
...I don't feel like I'm getting straight answers from you to my questionswhich is making it impossible for me to get a clear idea of what your point of view is.
----------------------------
Y'see? This is the problem I posed!

I find that KJV is the Word of God preserved in English. What I write conforms to Him.

You and far too many others are more relaxed about "versions and translations and variations." So was Eve.

So, when I answer you, your thinking goes to what YOU accept and have reinforced in yo'se'f, and, so, therefore, what I write doesn't make sense to you.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 02:07 PM
So I'm just going to drop it.
------------------------------
Well, Sam, you gotta do wutchoo gotta do. Sorry that you be disappointed in what I write.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2009 at 02:07 PM
Maybe somebody else who has better reading comprehension than me [sic] and knows what you're talking about will pick it back up.
------------------------------
Ok, let's open'er up. Please feel free to come back.

Ok, Sam, tell us what's not clear, what's unclear in what I have written.

BTW, The Word of God makes NO mention of the word, "Bible."

Jesus was the Word in the flesh, not the Bible in the flesh.

I am a late comer into this conversation but I am so confused by Mr. Incredible. My apologies if I am a little slow Mr. Incredible, but you confuse me.

I just don't understand what you are putting forward. Are you claiming the KJV is the only accurate English translation of the Word of God? As if the KJV is inspired by the Spirit?

And by the way, who care's if the word of God makes no mention of the word Bible. The word of God makes no mention of the word trinity but it certainly mentions a Father, Son, and Spirit who are all one God. Our use of the word trinity means the same thing.

Well said, Melinda (with kudos to Amy Cannon). Fortunately, we have a wonderful resource for reminding us of the type of language that does a much better job of expressing the grandeur of God than the mere common vernacular in the Great Hymns of the Faith. Unfortunately, those sparkling theological gems have been relegated in most of the church to the role of elderly aunt -someone you know you have to hug now and then, but who you really don't want to spend any time with.

Posted by: David Blain | August 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
...I am so confused by Mr. Incredible.
-----------------------------
I don't have that power.

Posted by: David Blain | August 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
...you confuse me.
----------------------------------
Again, I don't have that power.

Posted by: David Blain | August 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
I just don't understand what you are putting forward.
----------------------------
That's more like it. I understand that you don't receive it.

Posted by: David Blain | August 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
Are you claiming the KJV is the only accurate English translation of the Word of God?
---------------------------
I thought that's pretty clear by my saying that KJV is the Word of God manifested and preserved in English. A lotta people disagree.

Posted by: David Blain | August 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
As if the KJV is inspired by the Spirit?
------------------------------
A lotta people question that. That's my point.

Posted by: David Blain | August 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
And by the way, who care's [sic]if the word [sic] of God makes no mention of the word Bible.
-----------------------------
A lotta people don't care, but so what?

Posted by: David Blain | August 17, 2009 at 04:02 PM
The word [sic] of God makes no mention of the word trinity but it certainly mentions a Father, Son, and Spirit who are all one God. Our use of the word trinity means the same thing.
-----------------------------
However, it's a men-made word, a shortcut, and we have-ta be careful of shortcuts. It refers to the Threesome, though the Threesome is not called that.

BUT, to be accurate, to be using the Words of God, as close as possible, "Trinity" isn't the word to use.

The word, "Bible," is also men-made, and it refers to the Book, Itself. The physical thing we can see. It refers even to any book CLAIMING to be the Word of God. That doesn't mean that it's the Word of God.

Anyway, I'm glad for the reaction to this cuz it proves my point.

Mr. Incredible,
Since Jesus prayed to God the Father, "Thy word is truth," and He also said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," does that mean that whenever anyone tells the truth, they are transmitting Jesus, the Word, and the inspired word, through what they say? Is all truth Jesus, including 2+2=4? Or, when we recite the biblical text, are we transmitting Jesus Himself through our mouths?

Next questions: You wrote, "The Word is The Christ." When David ordered Uriah to be killed in battle, was this the Christ? When Herod slaughtered all the children 2 years and younger in Jerusalem, was that the Christ? When the Pharisees said of Jesus, "This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils," was that the Christ? How about when David writes in the Psalms, "There is no God." Is that phrase also 'the real Thing, as expressed in and by KJV'?

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Mr. Incredible,
Since Jesus prayed to God the Father, "Thy word is truth," and He also said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," does that mean that whenever anyone tells the truth...
-------------------------------
Anyone tells what 'truth"?

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
... they are transmitting Jesus...
----------------------------
"Transmitting Jesus"????? This ain't "StarTrek."

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
... the Word, and the inspired word...
---------------------------
Explain the difference cuz you capitalize one, but not the other. So, in YOUR mind, there must be a difference.

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
... through what they say?
------------------------
If one says what He said/says, they tell the Truth which may, or may not, align with what men say is their truth.

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Is all truth Jesus...
-----------------------------
What does that mean?

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
... including 2+2=4?
------------------------------
Depends on what those numbers represent. It also depends on what the situation is. 2+2 may equal 5, if we agree that they will equal 5 in a given environment. Again, it also depends on what those numbers represent.

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Or, when we recite the biblical text, are we transmitting Jesus Himself through our mouths?
-----------------------------
Again with the "transmitting Jesus"????? What IS that???

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
You wrote, "The Word is The Christ." When David ordered Uriah to be killed in battle, was this the Christ?
-----------------------------
"The various arts and stratagems by which the king tried to cajole Uriah, till at last he resorted to the horrid crime of murder - the cold-blooded cruelty of dispatching the letter by the hands of the gallant but much-wronged soldier himself, the enlistment of Joab to be a partaker of his sin, the heartless affectation of mourning, and the indecent haste of his marriage with Bath-sheba - have left an indelible stain upon the character of David, and exhibit a painfully humiliating proof of the awful lengths to which the best of men may go when they forfeit the restraining grace of God." -- Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
When Herod slaughtered all the children 2 years and younger in Jerusalem, was that the Christ?
------------------------
In other words, "Is The Christ evil?" That's what you mean, eh?

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
When the Pharisees said of Jesus, "This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils," was that the Christ?
-------------------------------
You're having considerable difficulty rightly dividing the Word, huh.

The Word, The Christ, reports what the Pharisees said.

God's counsel, through Christ/the Word, is about the spiritual journey. Not everything printed in the Book is God's ideas; what the Devil says, for instance. God includes what the Devil said in order to prepare us for his attacks, not to be ignorant of his devices.

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
How about when David writes in the Psalms, "There is no God."
---------------------------
Why don't you quote the whole thing?

Was David saying, "There is no God," or did he report that a fool says, "There is no God"?

Posted by: Sage S | August 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Is that phrase also 'the real Thing, as expressed in and by KJV'?
--------------------------------
Again, you fail rightly to divide the Word.

The Word of God distinguishes between a good report and an evil report, between good things and evil things. Just cuz he mentions evil things doesn't mean He condones evil things. He is merely providing effective examples to make His case.

I prefer the ESV over the KJV because I don't speak Old English.

If you want me to believe the KJV is the only English version that can rightly be called the word of God then you are going to have to justify that claim. But that may be a useless endeavor since you are incapable of carrying on a normal discussion. For proof of this re-read your responses to Sage as well as to me.

Adios amigo.

Posted by: David Blain | August 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I prefer the ESV over the KJV because I don't speak Old English.
-------------------------------
Is ESV the Word of God, or about the Word of God?

Posted by: David Blain | August 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
If you want me to believe the KJV is the only English version that can rightly be called the word [sic] of God then you are going to have to justify that claim.
----------------------------
How can I do that? Walk me through what it'll take.

Posted by: David Blain | August 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
But that may be a useless endeavor...
-------------------------
I knew it. No one will be able to convince you.

Posted by: David Blain | August 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
... since you are incapable of carrying on a normal discussion.
------------------------------
Walk us through what this normal discussion would be and how my attempts do not meet your standard.

Posted by: David Blain | August 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
For proof of this re-read your responses to Sage as well as to me.
-------------------------------
What makes that "proof"? You're not telling us what that "proof" is.

Anyway, Sage asked me questions. I answered them. Where's the discussion supposed to be?

Posted by: David Blain | August 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I prefer the ESV over the KJV because I don't speak Old English.
-------------------------------
Thanks. You make my point.

The Word of God is a difficult read. It's supposed to be so that you study, really get into Him.

Some, however, hinder themselves by giving more power to the difficulty:

(Joh 6:60) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Again, which are the "true sayings of God"?

(Rev 19:9) And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

And which are the sayings of men ABOUT the Sayings of God?

The true sayings of God are HIS sayings, not men's sayings about His sayings. Men's sayings may align with His true sayings, but are not His true sayings. God said what HE said. He didn't say what men said.

This also goes to whether the Devil quotes Scripture. If he says what God says, he cannot lie, and that goes for everybody. And, yet, the Devil lies. So, what makes what he says a lie? He mangles Scripture, editing It for his own purpose, as he does in Matthew 4, and delivering HIS OWN VERSION. The unaware are persuaded that what the Devil says is Scripture.

So, God said what He said, and anything He didn't say, He didn't say. Our paraphrase and versions are ours, not His, though they may align with what He said. Aligning is not a crime, but we oughta be careful about what we call "The Word of God." Another way of saying this is "Scripture upon Scripture."

Modern versions of The Word of God leave half of Romans 8:1 off. KJV includes the whole thing. The Received Text includes the whole thing.

Which is The Word of God? Did God say the whole thing, or not?

Mr. Incredible,

I will try one last time. What is the relationship between Jesus and the Received Text? Are they different forms of the same Real Thing? What, to the best of your ability (knowing that you do not speak infallibly for God), are God's thoughts about the relationship between the two?

Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Mr. Incredible,
What is the relationship between Jesus and the Received Text?
------------------------
Jesus was God on Earth, as a man. He was the Word of God -- the Christ -- in the flesh. After He died on the Cross, He was no longer in the flesh. Yet, He was still the Word, still the Christ.

The Received Text is the most accurate presentation of the New Testament of the Word of God. KJV is based on TR, not the Westcott-Hort Greek which is corrupt.

The Received Text is the Word, the Christ, in printed form, so that we can read what God says. The Physical book is not the Word, rather the Bible. The Word of God is in the supernatural, and only those who receive Him, get Him.

Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Are they different forms of the same Real Thing?
-----------------------------
The Word of God is the Christ, not Jesus cuz Jesus, although He was the Word in the flesh, was no longer in the flesh after the Cross; and, after, what, forty days, the Risen Christ went back to the Father.

As I say, the physical book is not Him. The book is in the physical for us to read as THE guide as to what is in the supernatural where the REAL Word of God is today.

Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM
What, to the best of your ability (knowing that you do not speak infallibly for God)...
--------------------------
How do you know?

Posted by: Sage S | August 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM
... are God's thoughts about the relationship between the two?
-----------------------------
God says that His people are destroyed for lack of Knowledge [capitalized to indicate HIS Knowledge, not men's]. He says that we shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set us free. So, Truth won't set us free until we know Him; after all, He is the way, the Truth and the life.

Hebrews 4:2 says that you cannot have faith without the Word, and that you cannot have the Word without faith. Faith takes Knowledge. So, faith sets you free cuz Knowledge sets you free cuz the Truth -- Christ -- sets you free cuz He's the Truth.

The comments to this entry are closed.