Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Those that believe in inerrancy don't know what they are talking about.
|
This sounds very much like the Mormons who "believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly". Correctly? On whose authority.
This use of "inerrancy" sounds very similar to the kind of reasoning by the Mormons. And it is very dangerous. Whether the Lord Jesus spoke in Aramaic and whether it was recorded in Greek is not for you to debate and criticize. There is the matter of faith and the matter of the enlightenment by the Holy Spirit.
"For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).
How about just believing the Word instead of questioning it at every turn? It seems to me some here might already be on the slippery slope of a modern higher criticism, a pernicious kind of new modernism.
The first and best description of the "church" is found in Acts 2 yet the word "ekklesia" or "church" is not even used:
"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."
They remained in their houses and did not go to a central meeting place. This was written by Luke who had the best literary command of Greek of all the New Testament writers. Do you believe it was inspired by God? It describes what we used to call "the church life" yet nowhere does Luke use "ekklesia" (church).
Elsewhere on this forum I picked up a discussion of Witness Lee and his often preferred use of "Jehovah". He was not the first. The translators who had worked on the Revised Version of 1886 disagreed so much on this that the American scholars on that revision committee put out their own version in 1901 (American Standard Version), stating that one of the main reasons happened to be strong disagreement over the use of "Jehovah" or not.