how do we know when we interpretate correctly?

by evangelist 26 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Adonai438
    Adonai438

    SimWitness:
    “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
    (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NWT)

    “ I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and that anointing is real, not counterfeit--- just as it has taught you, remain in him” (1 John 2:26-27 NIV)

    Respectfully dungbeetle:
    Knowing of good people that have samegender relationships is not an authority on whether it is biblically right or wrong. I too know many Homosexuals and in general they are all nice, kind, good hearted, decent people. If one doesn't care what the Bible says on the subject then there is no point in discussing what it says. If one does care about what the Bible says on the subject then it is worthwile.
    As to the Bible in english, if you are intelligent & interested enough to pursue the original language texts then you should also be intelligent and interested enough to realize/or find out for yourself the english translations that are accurate. The majority are very accurate to the original languages and I too know a bit about them. By no means fluent but somewhat knowledgable and own many original language Bibles and know people fluent in the biblical languages. Don't assume that to read english means someone is ignorant or being misled And technically, yes, Jesu does speaka da englis. He is all knowing according to the Bible. He did not speak english while on earth because that was not the language of the people.

    JA
    While I do not usually agree with you you make a good point. You do need to either take the Bible for what it says the way it was written or reject it. I do not recomend rejecting it but we cannot change what it says and teaches to suit our prefferences. Incidentally while I consider myself a strongminded and independant woman I also recognize the authority of the Bible in matters of authority. It doesn't mean women are less important or intelligent or competant it simply means that women are not allowed to be head pastors. While I don't believe there should be division in the church over this minor issue I do believe it is wrong and unscriptural for women to hold that authority. The Bible praises women and also goes to the extent to name the other church offices where women do/did/can serve which include deaconess. The head pastor is always refered to as a man. So if the Bible saw fit to mention women in other leadership positions but did not for head pastor I think this is also support for women not having that authority over a man.Me 2 cent

    Hi again evangelist:

    M'r:16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
    I think if you read the words it explains it. A bit of background helps: In NT times baptism was immediate-- they didn't wait or go through a membership class or anything to be baptised. They were saved and they were baptised immediately. In recent times in the churches desire to be sure people know what they are putting their faith in they often times have a baptism class first. In some churches they hold these infrequently so people end up waiting for the next one. This is a smart practise to want to teach the new in faith but maybe not the biblical formula. What I am saying is in the NT times there was probably not this question of being saved--"believing" but not getting a chance to be baptised. Take into account the account of Philip and the Ethiopian. Philip speaks to the Ethiopian about Christ, The Ethiopian understands and believes, and says "look, there is water, why should I not be baptised" and they go down on the spot and do it. It's a symbol of faith but not our faith
    Look at the verse again "M'r:16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
    It doesn't include the baptised portion when it mentions who is damned. Maybe it has to do with the grammer of the KJV but I think this shows that its 'Believething' (is that a word?) that is saving. I understand where the question comes from but I think the text explains what it means and when taken into account with the cultural context shows salvation by faith/believing.
  • Carmel
    Carmel

    Jesus gave examples of how to understand "scripture" which I presume was most of the old testament. Muhammed clarified many of the misunderstandings of how first and second century christians had interpreted the writings of Paul and the stories of Jesus. Neither of them approved of a successor who had the right of interpretation until their "return" arrived. Guess noone has the authority to interpret for us until Muhammed's replacement.

    carmel

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    I guess some people have been told the Bible says 'this and 'that' and they're happy with that and don't want to hear any more about it.

    That is fine.

    But my days of just believing the 'bible say this and that, and means this and that' are long over. I've been finding that the Bible doesn't say what people say it says and Josph A and Radar just confirmed that for me. I don't make a correlation between soft clothing and anti-homosexuality. But if someone wants to do that, then that's fine with me, that they do that for themselves.

  • JosephAlward
    JosephAlward

    Dungbeetle writes,

    I don't make a correlation between soft clothing and anti-homosexuality.

    I don't make that correlation, either; nor does anyone else on this list, Dungbeetle. I think you are intentionally trying to misrepresent the skeptical position on this forum, to have the skeptic argue a position that is much weaker than the actual one. This is called "creating a straw man," which is a dummy any fool can knock down; this is dishonest.

    My argument that Paul said that “effeminate” men are not going to heaven is not based in the least on the use of the word malakos to mean "soft." It's instead based one-hundred percent on the fact that the Perseus Project cites overwhelmingly the use of malakos for "effeminate," and on the fact that all of the translators of all of the different Bible versions have Paul denying heaven to homosexuals.

    I mentioned the soft clothes only to help explain how in the world malakos clothes could be consistent with a malakos man, which is translated as "effeminate" in the 1 Corinthians passage. I suggested that perhaps effeminate men were thought of as being "soft" of skin, and that's how that word came to be associated with homosexuals. I wasn't arguing that the word malakos in Paul's verse had to be translated as "effeminate" just because it means "soft" somewhere else, and I think you know that. My argument is based on the fact that the adjective malakos as applied to men means "effeminate," and there is ample proof of this, which you have conveniently ignored.

    The principal word used for "effeminate" in Greek is malakos. To confirm this, go to the site at

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek

    and enter the word "effeminate." You will find that the overwhelming most common Greek word used to represent "effeminate" is malakos.

    Dungbeetle, if you want to rebut the argument that the Bible teaches that effeminate men will not go to heaven, then you should go to the site I listed above, discover for yourself the truth of what I’ve said, then come back to the forum and explain why you still don’t believe the translation is correct.

    After you've done that, then you should explain to the forum how it could be that you’re right, and the translations listed below are all wrong?

    King James Version

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [(1 Corinthians 6:9)
    American Standard Version

    Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
    Revised Standard Version

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,
    New American Standard Bible

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
    New International Version

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
    Dungbeetle, if you still believe that Paul did not say that homosexuals would not go to heaven, would you please explain why you believe you know more than the translators of all of these different Bible versions?

    Joseph F. Alward
    "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

    http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

  • simwitness
    simwitness

    JA...

    Thank you for clarifying the translation.

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    Nope, JA..you're the one throwing straw men around, with a long established history on this board of it. I'm not here to argue interpretation, especially about homosexulaity and the 1st Century Christian Congregation. That has been done already in several threads on this board, and by trained and experienced scholars whose level of competence I cannot ever approach..(nursing scholl was h**l enough thanks, no more 'advanced learning' for me!!).

    I made my point and I'm sticking to it. Again, JA you helped me make my point. This is still about letting other people tell YOU what the Bible SAYS. I don't believe people need that. I believe in personal empowerment and for people to make their own decisions about what they THINK someone 2000 years ago may have MEANT.

    There are some very good points on this thread...THINK FOR YOURSELF is one of them; Don't rely on just one interpretation of the Bible, feel free to explore around and find a couple of other ones that you like; don't be afraid to check out the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic; feel free to use interlinear Bibles. Nobody is too 'dumb' for this, and personally I find it rewarding and enjoyable, and I highly recomend it.

    As far as coming back and 'defending my beliefs' I'm going to do this for what reason? I have no history of that, on this board or any other. What do my beliefs have to do with anything? Who cares what I BELIEVE?

  • revdrjohnson
    revdrjohnson

    Dungbeetle asked:

    Now, can anyone find a Greek Septuagent anywhere online by any chance?
    GoTo

    http://unbound.biola.edu/

    Click pulldown on the top left side of the page and scroll down

    Keep the Faith
    RAY

    http://xjw-central.com/

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit