That is part of my point, Tim. Even the Greek needed to be explained. How much more does English?

No, Tim, that was not the point of your statement in #44. Your implication was that preachers weren't needed. You said that the Word of God was able to be "perfectly understood" (by implication - without preachers). "Negated" is one of those ENGLISH words that can be used to more carefully describe the point that the teaching was not necessary. See you didn't even need a Greek word!

My implication was that preachers weren't needed if there were such a thing as a perfect translation. What I was saying about "perfectly understood" was referring to a perfect translation. If such a translation existed (which I believe doesn't) then a perfect understanding may be possible. Since there is no perfect translation (again my opinion) then a full understanding is limited.

Now I see where my word choice is running into problems since there is never a full understanding.

I think everything that is going to be said about preservation and inspiration has been said. Maybe we should move on to translation. Since the issue has become that preservation does/does not move to translation, then perhaps it is time to start examining the translation that preserved God's Word. But that of course brings us back to the unicorn thread. That is where I was going with that one. But I retracted that, so if you want I can use another example. I would love to hear your responses to them.

Tim, in several of your previous posts, you said in various ways that God (seemingly deliberately) "limited" the ability of English to be a receptor language. What Greek text is that in?! The examples that you use of God limiting Himself, or being incapable of doing something has to do with violating His character only. There is nothing in God's character that would prevent Him from developing a receptor language that would eventually envelop the whole world with its influence (like maybe English?).

P.S. I earlier asked a question that may have been misunderstood. I was asking if NA and UBS were basically twins. I asked because the NKJV uses the code NU to indicate a single mss family (assumedly).

If that is true, then the question is, did He? I admited back in post #41 that God can do it. I just say that He chose not to (at least up to this point in human history). He chose to limit English. Linguistically, English is unable to do what you are suggesting. That doesn't make it superior or inferior. They are just too different.

Sorry about the NU thing. Yes, the NA27 & the UBS4r are very very similar (not 100% but close).

Should I start a new thread with one of my examples?

I agree that the transition to English is a legitimate next step to the preservation question. One thought on the inadequacies of English to fully explain the Greek (and I assume the Hebrew). What language do you use to explain the deeper meaning of the Greek?

I still think that your statement about preachers doesn't fly. If they needed preachers (which by the way was God's intention - *) to fully understand the original language, why is having the need for a preacher today such a problem? Even if we could all read Biblical Greek as our native tongue, and had a text to read (you still have not identified which one is perfect, only which one you use, which has missing verses, no?), there would still be the need for preachers, would there not?

* Sorry, senior moment - left this part out.
1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:12 PM by Brother Tim.

I have not identified one compilation as perfect since I don't think there is one. The one I use has missing verses. I see. Well perhaps the one you used inserted verses. Interesting concept.

Now we are getting somewhere. There must be a decision on which to trust. Either one has violated the warning not to add, or the other has violated the warning not to remove. One is FALSE, and therefore must be rejected, and the other is TRUE and must be received, OR, they both have added and/or removed and we are in a heap of trouble!

With that in mind, let us refer to a portion of the GNT that is part of the 97% agreed upon text. We can come back to that issue later. But we are moving to translation not Textual Criticism (at least I thought). I just posted a new thread. Go to town! I am waiting to be tag-teamed and attacked from all angles.

This is exactly what I have been trying to point out.

Goes back to that faith thing doesn't it?

GreekTim:

Why do you keep saying this?????? Don't bring God into our perception over a language. Where is scripture concerning God's handling of man's language in the NT?

It is absolutely amazing how we, as humans, try to complicate the daylights out of things, and then it ends up being a intellectual debate between two peoples' learned abilities.

Knowledge is always biased. We always study to follow along our original lines of thinking. It is very rare indeed to let our studies determine our beliefs, it is almost exclusive that our beliefs determine what we study.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 02:10 PM by Jim.

It is a good thing, then, that you and I believe the right thing, eh Jim? Saves time in figuring out what to study.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 01, 2008 02:32 PM by Brother Tim.

You got it!

All of that aside, I feel it is very redundant and takes away from more important things to continually go back and reestablish fundamental things. It is like moving old landmarks to reestablish new. Or like saying, "Even though Jesus Christ was established as our Rock, we need to keep questioning if He truly is the rock. Some things are just "so". That we do not need to keep reassessing the fundamentals of our faith.

Greektim has no basis for his assertions above and beyond that of his own personal study, which I must admit is a very curious and confusing position to be in. His intellect, or his own personal head knowledge, which I disagree with, has commited him to a position outside of faith and grace. It is personal intellectually based. It has not the makings of something guided by the Lord, but a self-driving commitment to a head-knowledge, and it stops there. It would be no different than studying quantum mechanics or electronic calculus, it's just that he chose religion as his head-focus and interest.

If I am wrong Greektim, then explain to me what grace is from God, and why He gives it to us.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Ok, you said this was a fruitless discussion so why are you continuing? You are speaking of redundancy in a place where I have stopped and you have continued. Yet it was you who said that this was fruitless. It is already determined that we are in disagreement and that isn't likely to change. You have pontifically said that my views have no basis beyond myself, my views are very curious and confusing, and my views are outside of faith and grace.

When did grace enter the discussion? We are talking about God's inspiration of His Word and His preservation of His Word. The only related subject of grace to that is that we definitely do not deserve to have God's Word as we do now. God gives grace b/c He is a holy and loving God. I hope that answers your question.