Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,516
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
|
Most Online732 Jan 15th, 2023
|
|
|
Re: 1 Cor. 6:9-11
Pilgrim
Yesterday at 06:02 PM
What I actually wrote did not narrow your insistence that Webster's Dictionary eliminated a reference to: " any and all forms of homosexuality and/or sexual deviation (transgenderism, sexual identity, etc. etc., ad nauseam". Thus HOMOSEXUALITY and and all other forms of sexual sins ARE referenced in all of the texts you posted. Moulten and Milligan The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament is a far more reliable source to determine definitions of NT words vs. Webster's Dictionary. Secondly, historical records of translations of the New Testament contradict your understanding and source material. Interpretations of these texts that teach about sexual aberrations of all forms by notable and reliable men, commentaries, sermons and articles contradict what you are seemingly suggesting. What is true that many (most?) modern "translations" do in fact distort what the NT actually teaches about these sexual abominations and on that basis alone they should be avoided without thought. They are glaring examples of the result of using the infamous but unfortunately predominate use of a Dynamic Equivalence method of translation. Much of what you wrote above has already been presented here by those who are ensnared by these sexual sins and used to justify their disgusting beliefs and lifestyles and attempts to distort the clear biblical teaching on these matters. Webster's dictionary is often a favorite "proof" that homosexuality is not condemned by God in the Bible. And the hermeneutical gymnastics used are nothing short of insulting and laughable, albeit it is an affront to human logic and God's Word.
4
73
Read More
|
|
|
Re: Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7
Pilgrim
Yesterday at 03:07 PM
The controversy over 1 John 5:7 will continue to the end of time. There are good arguments for its inclusion or exclusion on both sides. In my view, it doesn't matter since the doctrine of the trinity does not depend upon this one isolated passage but rather its perspicuity obvious and thus the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture throughout the OT and NT. I take the same perspective in regard to the endless debates on the TR and other textual evidences (p.s. The KJV Only argument is specious on its face and not worthy of anyone's serious consideration). NOT ONE doctrine is omitted from either source materials but they are in full agreement. What people should be far more concerned is what TRANSLATION method is used for non-original languages. There are two schools of thought; Formal Equivalence and Dynamic :Equivalence. The Formal Equivalence is incontrovertibly the one which is faithful to the Scripture itself, i.e., every jot and tittle is important and must be faithfully translated as much as it is possible to each particular language. The Dynamic Equivalence method holds that the "meaning" of a text is most important. Even the average person if the/she ponders this statement non-critically can see clearly that a "meaning" is only derived from the individual words and the grammar with which it was originally written.
1
16
Read More
|
|
|
0 members (),
60
guests, and
9
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|