We just keep on adding to this topic don't we? Well, it's my turn to say "I am leaving the church". I haven't been satisfied there at all for some time now. But, this last week I was actually sitting in a pew during the service and I didn't agree with what the pastor said (I haven't for months, but I also haven't sat in a pew for months). So, I wrote him an email telling him so. I gave him a chapter from FH (three doors) and told him not to take kp's word for it, but to do like I did and look scripture up and use something to take a closer look at the Greek and Hebrew words (like strong's). Well he wrote back to me saying:
Quote:You can parse words and make them say many things. As I have told you before that while I may not be a Biblical language scholar, I do seriously question the validity of the sources you use. I would suggest that you read from some more recognized theological scholars. Most of the study I do recognizes and draws from much older works that the “Textus Resptus” that you speak of and most of the new translations actually use much older transcripts than did King James’ translators.
I told him not to listen to kp, but to check the scripture that kp uses for himself. So, it sounds to me like he questions the use of scripture. Why would I want to listen to "more recognized theological scholars". I don't listen to men, I listen to Yahuweh. Sure, I value what kp and Yada have to say, but even they tell us not to listen to them, but look at scripture for ourselves. The "more recognized theological scholars" don't even say that. A pastor that would tell me to listen to men over Yahuweh is not somebody I want to even see anymore, let alone listen to. So, I will not be going back there.
He normally reads from the NLT, which sounds pretty, but seems way off to me, and they add alot of extra stuff (just comparing Luke 24 this week had "Jesus" added in nearly every verse). So, I jumped online trying to find what sources they use, from their website (my bolding):
Quote:The translators of the Old Testament used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as their standard text. They used the edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977) with its up-to-date textual apparatus, a revision of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, 1937). The translators also compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on textual problems.
The translators of the New Testament used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty- seventh edition, 1993). These two editions, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent the best in modern textual scholarship.
So, the main old testament text is the masorietic (which we all know about), and they even used a "modern" edition from 1977, which is revised from a 1937 edition. The new testament is based off of a 1993 bible and another 1993 edition. WOW!! talk about old!!! I haven't checked every translation, but I am sure that most of them use similar sources instead of the oldest manuscripts.
Hopefully my wife will understand and appriatiate my decision. She is in charge of the nursery at the church, though, so she may feel obligated to continue attending. Your prayers to Yahuweh for us would be appriciated.
