It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by NOTurTypical
TextI don't think you should have the MSG on that list, it's not a translation it's a paraphrase. But u have the right idea. Also to add the corrupt versions instead of saying "Joseph" with have "the boy's father." Joseph was not the father of Jesus, it attacks the virgin birth and by extension the deity of Christ. The corrupted versions also either totally delete the last 12 verses of Mark, or call their authenticity into question in the footnotes.
Originally posted by Seede
reply to post by NOTurTypical
TextI don't think you should have the MSG on that list, it's not a translation it's a paraphrase. But u have the right idea. Also to add the corrupt versions instead of saying "Joseph" with have "the boy's father." Joseph was not the father of Jesus, it attacks the virgin birth and by extension the deity of Christ. The corrupted versions also either totally delete the last 12 verses of Mark, or call their authenticity into question in the footnotes.
NOTurTypical
Yes I believe you are correct on all accounts. I did not realize the misinformation concerning Joseph and glad to have that shown to me. Thanks a lot. Will also add the last 12 verses of Mark into my notes which I also forgot about. Glad to have you inform me of this. Getting near on ninety and really have forgotten a lot. Thanks and God Bless
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Look up the definition, I meant objective.
A KEY PRINCIPLE
Think about this! Is the meaning of a Biblical passage objective or subjective? In other words, is it possible for someone to understand what the original author meant by the words he wrote, or is the meaning of any passage totally dependent upon what the reader thinks the words mean?
Your response to this issue will largely determine the approach you take to the study of the Scriptures. If you believe that the meaning of a Biblical passage is objective, that the original author had a particular meaning in mind when he penned the words, then your approach to Scripture will need to be objective as well. You will want to look carefully at the text, pay close attention to what is there, compare the passage with other related passages, and then seek to reach conclusions about its meaning. If however, you believe that the meaning of Scripture is subjective, that the passage can mean whatever you think that it means, then your approach to Scripture will be subjective.
Your approach to the Scriptures depends upon what you believe about the Bible. Many people today believe that the Bible is one holy book among many, the work of human authors who recorded what they thought about God. Holding to this view, the Bible would be a subjective record of human thoughts about God. It would possess no intrinsic authority, other than what an individual would give to it. The reader would then be the authority, dictating to the Bible what he or she chooses for it to mean.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical
No, objective would be a reading that tries to understand or translate as close to the intended meaning as possible, which means using context to figure out if it's actually intended to be literal or not.
There's a difference.
Objective approach to scripture is the literal approach, being mindful of culture, history, and context.
I think you missed what I was saying. In those days, almost nothing was literal. Stories were told in parable, and lessons taught in metaphor. Even the Bible admits that it is full of shadowy sayings and hidden truths. It is told in riddles. Why? So we can think for ourselves, and figure out what it means.
Unfortunately, that gives us the opportunity to twist everything around in our own minds and dump all the answers of life and whatever comes after right on top of religion
There's a reason Christianity has begun to fail this world. And yes, it has. For every Christian, there's three people who will argue with that Christian and ridicule or question his/her beliefs. Now is the time for true spirituality, not religion. Religion is ruled by man, and spirituality is ruled by nature. Who do you trust more? Man, or nature?
Now is the time for true spirituality, not religion. Religion is ruled by man, and spirituality is ruled by nature. Who do you trust more? Man, or nature?
You say one thing, God says something else. Who do we trust you (Satan) or Him (Yahweh)?
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
That's where I got my quote from.
"... unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."