The Bible plainly tells us that witnesses that do not agree with each other are not witnessing truth (Mark 14: 55-56)
Hey
Well, you guys are really well informed, I hope I can keep up with the themes gathered from what appears to be years of inquiry. I got a PM (thanks
) from John here telling me I should take a look at this thread. And I am.
Let me say a few things on that passage you quoted Dave. What does it mean to say something? What does it mean to utter a word and have it be proclaimed as a truth? According to this passage, if people do not agree, then there is something amiss, something that has gone wrong. Does agreement rely on words? Or is agreement something that one does, some inclination of the entire person and some Spiritual discernment?
I'll get to these a tad later.
I've read the arguing back and forth and the assertions and I have to say I love all you guys here (Joe, Conrad, Dave, Rio, John, the other members). Time and time again, you've given me words that make me think, words that inspire, and words that redeem and show me You. But I read this and I am saddened because I see much pain and holding onto ideas and thoughts that separate and detract. Not to insinuate a valuation of words, but there are dynamics at play that want to confirm something, which may prevent receiving a gift or accepting another.
let me illustrate with an example:
One time, as I was discussing an issue, with a Russian friend, in Russian, using the approved translation he preferred (RBU, Moscow publication), I cross-referenced a passage with a KJV copy, a NRV copy, and a pocket copy of the Greek NT I had to look up words and discern original meaning. He saw that I was doing this and thought I was crazy, asking why I would look at other versions, seeing as how they come from academics and from liberals as opposed to the Word. The original translations by our union was approved by the leaders and should be used, as opposed to other versions. I didn't really know what to say. On the one hand, You were here, in these words, speaking to both of us. On the other hand, only one of those compilations seemed to be the right sort of stuff, all the others should be strayed away from since they are Satan's spawn. I didn't know what to say. I do not know what to do in a case like this.
I still don't. Dave, this example deviates from our situation since it dealt with multiple languages and there are cultural overtones that complcate matters: not so our current discussion. In this case, the argument is that the KJV is preferred as infallible in the English and really is God-inspired and that people were translating it with great care and thus couldn't have been in error. God has preserved the Word for generations, and this is what the preservation is. All the other stuff is tainted, and only one beacon lights the way so we may come to know You and have Your Kingdom- KJV.
There are parallels to be made, however. Dave, the biggest problem that comes about with rigid adherence is the biggest strength. It is knowing who the Redeemer is; it is knowing what exactly one has seen, one has heard, one has witnessed, and can testify to to oneself and the world. To know directly that I am Yours, Your child, can bring about what I personally think and feel to be the greatest joy and peace available to mankind. With great power comes great responsibility and the capacity to fall. Who can put Humpty-Dumpty back together again is he falls and breaks? This is why I cannot accept notions of infallibility or an absoluteness of divinely inspired or Spirit-breathed scripture as housed in one sort of version. I can look and trace historical roots to determine which words are accurate and which are not. I can spend many hours diminishing my already dimmed eyesight to learn words in great effort, diligence, and sincerity to come up with a system that works and that is true and accurate to my best knowledge. I think that this is what people who made translations like the KJV did, since I see real strength, real attention, and real healing that comes about by those who read that version. It is personally my preferred version but this does not mean I think it somehow does not come from fallible hands of humans or that it is the preserved Word, ex Deus, and that it alone has preserved the sort of message that was told by the Jew called Jesus of Nazareth and followed by a small group of devotees that has grown into what modern Christianity is.
This situation reminds me of the practice in early churches (100-250 CE) when there were lists of heresies and that each person was classified according to the heresy. We may be in danger of stepping into this here, let us watch ourselves, brothers (and I call you this knowing that you are my brothers, as you have identified yourselves as such in earlier times) so that we do not fall.
Dave, your position has real strength. To know a system one can follow, to be able to claim certainty and to have a codified knowledge others can use as the best system and to be able to preserve this continuity across generations, to pass down ideas and values to progeny makes for a very good thing indeed. Yet it also leads us down the path where the Word and ideas of infallability are made mine, where logical proofs occupy our discourse until we stubbornly cling to our own notions and definitions of things as they are without seeing You. A real danger exists here, since words can bind and claim certainty, while the point is that they are like angels that carry us toward You and allow us to see and explore the bounties that have been prepared.
For this reason, I cannot claim to know that one book is infallible or that it is absolutely something that is inspired and has been preserved for us today. I cannot do this because the moment I say I know something, I'm missing the point since someone will disagree with me. This now brings us to that curious passage you have cited.
I agree with everything. I also agree with nothing. What you say here, all of you, has truth. What has been said carries feeling and thought and I can reach out and understand my world a little better. I agree with it. I look again and I disagree with it, there are logical inconsistencies, facets unexplored, clinging to unreasonable and weaker positions, and words purported as one's own without the knowledge to back it up. Yet I agree, I see and I can understand, despite not having a level of education that can equal the years of study it has taken for you people to know what you know. But if we disagree, then how is that not witnessing the truth? There are no disagreements when we look to You. At that point, disagreements about things like this don't matter, because we no longer are saying. At such a point, we can look and we can say that what we think, what we have read, learned, and written, argued about, strived to know, is true but it is not the truth since it still leads to disagreement. If we disagree, then we are somehow not at truth.
I agree with everything Athanasius has said here. We agree. Are we then witnessing the truth? But wait, now Dave enters and we three no longer agree. It was true before, we had such joy sharing and knowing. What happened? Why do we not know tell the truth? We disagree. There is no truth, yet it is true, what each of us says. You have stumbled upon a gem of a passage, Dave. I still do not think what you say reasonably allows me to see You. It disagrees. We disagree. Since we do, what we say, all of us, is not the truth. There is truth. You are here.
We do need a system, there is something infallible left behind for us. It is not necessarily a book and Word/Logos cannot be a book, since we are made in Your image,
imago Dei. To assert the infallibility of something created puts our restrictions on it, no matter how much we feel or think they are Your directions. A system is necessary, but we cannot start out with a foundation of division, that is not truth. I think that is the real meaning of that passage, not that nitpicking words in revisions of scriptures or writings one thinks matters.
Dave, in another thread I have yet to reply to, you said guys like Griffin are not "good guys" since they write something that I too feel and think has errors. Yet you claim they are not good guys because of this. There are many errors in what I write and think, such is my state. In all of our speech there are errors. Does that make a claim about who we are, based on what we say? We witness then to different things and disagree; that is not truth.
And if one does not take the Bible to be the literal and infallible word of God, I don't see how one can possibly understand what God is saying. That is undoubtably the cause of all this divergent theology, for when one gives up the belief that the Bible is the infallible, verbally inspired word of God one gives up the finality and absolute truth in regards to doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteous that the Bible claims to be.
To know the Absolute is to know Truth. To know truth is to know that when witnesses do not disagree. What does it mean to disagree? Logical semantic values are devoid of emotional content, that is a meta and secondary issue. When I say I still am, I want to make some claim or other. Then I do not love. Then I say I am following and saying what Really Is, but miss the point that what really is, is You. He wanted to gather us like a bird, and we disagree. The spiritual man judges about spiritual things, not the logical. The logical man judges and is judged. What you say is true Dave, but if I take what I read to be your position, then I judge and that disagrees, thus cannot be Truth.
To close, let me say that so many problems exist in the world, and so much pain, that if we spend our time sticking to something we think is right and reading to make sure our positions are sound, it may just blind us. Likewise, if we have no system, our children will suffer since they are young, foolish, and cannot tell what actions lead to what. A proper solution does not lie in proving which side of this debate has the upper hand, since I think we each think our systems are right as it has taken us years and years to come to a solution. A proper solution, rather, begins with the fear of God (the beginning of wisdom) that in turn leads to the God that is love, the God who has died and given us life- You. Claiming and preaching something else except for the resurrected Christ gets us arguing with academics and about academic things learned by years of systematizing. I don't have the learning to argue with academics, they'll probably overpower me with complex examples and historical truisms. I don't think this is the point, though it is necessary since there must be some way to show people. If you claim that words and logical truths combined with semantic values show people, then I wish you well. I think the best way to show people is to lead them to see what things point to so they may taste and know, the system of which may be open to questioning and debate by academics. To say something is does not prevent from another thing from being.
Where witnesses disagree, there cannot be truth. What is this thing that wants to witness and disagree and how does Truth agree with everybody? I'd like to know. We disagree. What we say then cannot be truth.
Cheers !
Facebook
Twitter