<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8382812700944261936', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

11.08.2005

What Bible is the pure Word of God? the one you most don't want to read...



From a comment:

I'm afraid this one--

"What is the real version of the Bible? The one you most don't want to read, pilgrim."

--doesn't work for me. The one I most don't want to read is the Good News Bible, with the New American Bible a close runner up. And what's that one for people who only have a vocabulary of fifty words? Maybe that's the Good News...

I knew I'd get that response when I wrote that. What I meant was this: people want to play with the Bible and affect to be biblical scholars and say "this word here of course really means" and "this, of course, is a mistranslation" and "of course this rendering is very misleading" and so on. This is the play of vanity. They're not reading the Bible in a way that their vanity, worldly pride, and self-will are passive, but very active. They are filtering everything they read through vanity. Their motivation is to dictate to the Word of God what it means, rather than to take it in at its level.

All these issues come into play in the rejection of the King James Version. Vanity disdains taking the Bible as a whole, and as pure. There is also shallowness involved of course (the comic book readers who just don't know how language communicates, and who just don't know about things like form and unity and containment and so on in a work).

Think about this: when you hold in your hand the complete thing; the complete, pure Old and New Testaments, you approach it differently. When you hold in your hands a construct stitched together by ridiculous men, using their 'newly discovered "better" manuscripts' (which is another issue), full of holes, full of renderings that vary from rank dumb ('correcting' the text, like the devil's words repeated in the New Testament, the commonest mistake of rank amateur and dumb translators) to dictating to God "what He means", i.e. vain in the most typical human ways; but just the holes and lack of understanding of figures used by God to communicate, the dumb paraphrases, etc., etc., this gives warrant for the vain to approach God's Word in a vain 'correcting' manner rather than in a manner where they are approaching something that is higher than them.

The vain want the Word of God to be at their level. They don't want to have to approach the Word of God as something that is above them. The King James Version assaults the vain in this sense.

Besides all this there is this aspect of it all: the vain reader of God's Word has no interest in the whole of the Word of God. The vain reader only has interest in the parts. It's with the parts that vanity can manipulate and have its way. The serious reader, the reader that is meeting God's Word at it's level, is passive to God's Word in the way one has to be passive, subjecting oneself to God's Word and not subjecting God's Word to one's self-will and demands; this is the approach that one who is serious and who desires to take in the whole of God's word has.

The King James Version is the complete Word of God, pure and undefiled. Vanity knows this, and vanity for this reason disdains to read the King James Version. Says it's for "hicks" and people who "don't know scholarship" and so on...

What Bible is the pure Word of God, pilgrims? The one you most don't want to read.

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I breaks my heart all that cat hair on a
Bible.

Owning 49 cats what where you thinking?

November 8, 2005 at 9:03 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

You've cross-posted to your ex-wife's blog once again, anonymous...

November 8, 2005 at 9:12 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Well, something like that. The main thing is vanity wants the Word of God to be at its - vanity's - level where it can dictate what it says and means and so on. A reader who is serious about engaging the Word of God at it's - the Word of God's - level rather than bringing it down to his own level is more interested in engaging the translation - and manuscripts - that have come down through time and been vetted by time and presents itself boldly in time and history as THE version, complete and pure and contained.

The new versions based on the corrupt manuscripts that have been fiddled with endlessly by vain scholars ever since are just what vanity and worldly pride and self-will needs to take control and make of the Word of God something that is in their domain, that they control.

All that plus the points I hit on in the post itself...

November 8, 2005 at 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff isn't real. He is CT.

Please stop your cats from pissing on your Bible. That is just plain wrong.

November 8, 2005 at 9:51 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Your other blog host, Dave Armstrong, knows who Jeff is. But, carry on...

November 8, 2005 at 10:34 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

On the Septuagint, that is an interesting point.

That the Holy Spirit has Jesus quoting the Septuagint is warrant in and of itself for the ability of translations to be inspired. Discernment is just needed to to identify an inspired translation like the King James Version.

A side issue on your observation is the use of lexicons as if they are authoritative. They're not. We rely on the Holy Spirit to give us the pure Word of God.

But you example is on-the-mark with what I'm saying.

The fact is: a person who takes the King James Version, a translation based on manuscripts preserved through time, and a translation built on the refining work of 6 other layers of English translation ("refined seven times") and recognizes it as the Word of God is a person who has a very different approach to the Word of God than the person who who sees his Bible as a continual work in progress, and correct mostly, but incorrect in some places, and awaiting further archaeological discovery, and so on and so on. That person does not have the necessary passive, God-centered approach to the Word of God. He has an active, man-centered approach. ('Passive' is not a bad word, by the way. Passive means you accept God's Word at its level and don't demand it come down to your level.)

Vanity, worldly pride, and self-will will justify themselves a thousand different ways, and of course they will say that they are actually being more respectful to God's Word by diligently discerning what it really meant to say, etc., etc., but that is vanity speaking.

A serious reader of God's Word doesn't worry about being called a hick or anti-intellectual because they accept the KJV as the pure, complete Word of God in English. It's a treasure to have it, and to value that treasure requires one not be under the tyranny of one's vanity, worldly pride, and self will when approaching and engaging the Word of God...

November 8, 2005 at 10:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop posting as Jeff CT your not fooling anyone.

Your cats smell better than you.

November 9, 2005 at 11:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff is her multi colored CAT. C.T. loves her pussy!

November 9, 2005 at 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no Jeff.

November 9, 2005 at 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ct is not gay people. What woman would have her? Indeed what mentally stable individual of etiher sex would even think about it?

November 9, 2005 at 5:11 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home