Mike wrote: Problems, the issue isn't any ol words vs His Word, but whether his truth and grace can be limited to/by one group of translators' words.
If only it was that simple Mike. There is a vast difference in the texts used by the church of by gone days and the text in vogue now. Once we get past the textual problem we have to contend with translational philosophy - dynamic equivalence vs literal etc.
Why did God bother to give his Word? So that the wisdom of man could have an input into these matters?
Mike wrote: The argument over versions could get some legs under it if words, and not the Holy Spirit, conveyed God's word. Do we understand the difference between printed words and the word of God? If it is said that the saved are predestined to it, then so-called false versions are irrelevant to their salvation or lack of it. It is the Holy Spirit working in a sinner's life that brings him to the point of repentance and conversion. It is nonsense to suppose the Holy Spirit's work is hampered or enhanced by a particular version, as though it were in some fashion superior to him, or an "elect" might get missed if he used the "wrong" version. A Bible needs the Holy Spirit to make it understood. The Holy Spirit doesn't need a special version to help him do it.
Of course the Holy Spirit is essential. But, if any ol words will do, then why did God give us His Word?
Maybe because he meant to communicate truth and grace it, yes?
3/16/13 4:48 AM
