Comments on: Are we ignorant?

By: Omegaman 2.0

Omegaman 2.0 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:35:03 +0000

Just going to comment here on CABs comment, just tomake sure that I am not misunderstood by ant who failed to read my blog on ignorance.

CAB said:
“Amen on the assumption that Catholics aren’t saved.”

Someone reading that might think that I assume that Catholics are not save. My comment was to the effact that many assume Catholics are not saved, but that I hold that it is your faith in the work of God (by Jesus dieing on the cross)on your behalf that is the indicator of your salvation, not denominational affiliations.

By: CAB

CAB — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:01:32 +0000

I can see you spent prayer time and more before posting, Great message. I agree. We should all compare what we do in our homes, (TV programs we watch) before we criticize anyone for their choices.
Amen on the assumption that Catholics aren’t saved. I think some may be suprised who they see in heaven on that gloriuous day

By: AnotherTraveler

AnotherTraveler — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:53:53 +0000

Are We Ignorant?

Yes

By: Donna Ps25

Donna Ps25 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:49:51 +0000

I haven’t had time to really read your points on ignorance yet, but I will say I loved the story about your sparkling cider and being a stumbling block. After all the years of chatting w/ you, I don’t believe I heard it before.

By: Jim

Jim — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:40:01 +0000

Ignorance is not bliss. I think you and I are on the same page, or at least facing pages. I offer a couple of responses.

Regarding modern Bible versions - God meant his word to be read and understood by all men, not just the intelligentsia. All versions prior to the KJV were written in the common language of the day. The Latin Vulgate version even includes a form of the word vulgar in its very name.

For those not familiar with the term vulgar, here are the first two definitions from my dictionary. Note that the most accurate or most important definitions are listed first in most any dictionary. Subsequent definitions in this entry describe the better known understanding among people today.

Quote:
vul-gar (vulgr)adj. 1. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common. 2. Abbr. vulg. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people; vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
———————————————————
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
End quote.

God caused some very early versions to be translated by what we would call non-believers. He often uses this sort of people to accomplish His will.

Have you ever read Shakespeare? It is written in the same English as the KJV. Both Shakespeare’s plays and the KJV were written for the common man. However, that English is almost a foreign language to me and to most English-speaking people today. Personally, I like the NCV. When seriously studying the Scriptures, I read several modern translations. Why, you may ask. Because all versions/translations have had flaws, including the venerated KJV.

When offering a Bible to a non-believer or a new believer, I give them a version they can understand; I don’t ask them to learn a foreign language in order that they might discover the truths in God’s wonderful Word.

Young Earth vs. New Earth - You might want to check Ken Ham’s article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp I like his presentation on the subject.

One misunderstanding I find much to often is the purpose of Scripture. It is so often used and interpreted in ways God never intended. The sole purpose of Scripture is to reveal God’s relationship with man. It is nothing more, nor anything less.

Finally, when presented with a statement of supposed fact, my immediate response is, “Show me the Scripture that supports your opinion.”

Your brother and His,
Jim