R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
kcjones
()
Date: May 31, 2007 08:38PM
Thanks Liberty. My bride is in my prayers every single day day. What are your thoughts on us reading Proverbs together (without a tape)? Would it help?
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
SpiritualLiberty
()
Date: June 02, 2007 07:23AM
That would be great, KC, if you could spend some time reading the Bible with your wife. Speaking from personal experience (and from what I’ve seen in the lives of many others), one thing that Thieme listeners really lack is consistent Bible reading. After all, Thieme’s whole doctrinal system discourages the people from reading the Bible. I think that starting some Bible reading (and Proverbs is definitely a good place to start) would be beneficial to your wife, and would also set a good example for the children as they're growing up. I will be praying that the Lord opens the door for this.
Liberty
Liberty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: June 04, 2007 04:59AM
To the Forum:
Thieme's "Absolute Truth" 1973 Blood of Christ"
Per Dr. Custer's critique of Thieme
Truthtesty: It took Thieme at least 7 years to correct his medical information. Thieme mistakenly used the acronym EEC for EEG. The error was finally corrected in 1979 manual. Remember now this is "Bible Doctrine" being taught here. In Thieme's words - "Absolute Truth = Word of God = Thieme's Bible Doctrine"
Thieme is saying the "the criterion" for human life is the "impulse in the brain" and that the EEG is proof and is a medical indicator of the soul being located in the brain.
Perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain why someone can have no brain wave activity yet still be alive (flat EEG)?
THE EEG IN DETERMINATION OF BRAIN DEATH
[www.google.com]
Perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain why anethestized rats have EEG brain waive activity?
basal forebrain neurons recorded in association with the electroencephalogram in anesthetized rats.
[jn.physiology.org]
Truthtesty: Or perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain why fetus' have EEG brainwave activity before birth?
Investigating the relationship between fetus EEG, respiratory, and blood pressure signals during maturation using wavelet transform. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
No one knows where the soul is. Thieme cannot prove that the soul of life is not partially in the literal blood. No one can. This was Thieme's best attempt at trying to prove his fallacious theory that human life is not in the literal blood, in support of his other fallacious theory that the "Blood of Christ" (figure of speech) specifically does not refer to the literal blood of God.
In contrast Dr. Chafer (Thieme's teacher therefore in Thieme's eyes, Thieme's doctrinal authority) says
I am also showing that Thieme rebelled against Dr. Chafer's authority and RE-VERSION-ED what Dr. Chafer taught Thieme. Now I do not subscribe to the (human) teacher's authority, but I am showing Thieme's hypocrasy. Thieme permits himself to RE-VERSION his teacher's teachings (Dr. Chafer), but Thieme would have you feel guilty called a REVERSIONIST (by your "positive" mind and by all the "positive believers" around you) if you tried to change your beliefs (think outside the box) on Thieme's teachings.
Truthtesty
Thieme's "Absolute Truth" 1973 Blood of Christ"
Quote
"Remember that the souLis.. located in the cranium, and therefore, the heartbeat is not the true issue as to whether a person is alive or dead. The criterion is the impulse in the brain. Medically speaking, it's the "EEC"5 versus the "EKG."6 "EEC" is the true test for death. One's heart beat can stop and the soul can still be in the body. Once the "EEC" registers negative, the soul has vacated the body and the person is dead."
Per Dr. Custer's critique of Thieme
Quote
Let us now examine some of these minor doctrinal aberrations. The soul resides in the head. He makes no attempt to prove this; he just states it ("Angelic Conflict," p. 38 ). In other works he goes into detail, claiming that the right lobe is the mind, the left lobe is the heart, the kidneys are the emotions, and the bladder is the old sin nature ("The Ten Commandments," p. 54). How one would prove any of this by Scripture (or by any other means) is difficult to perceive.
Truthtesty: It took Thieme at least 7 years to correct his medical information. Thieme mistakenly used the acronym EEC for EEG. The error was finally corrected in 1979 manual. Remember now this is "Bible Doctrine" being taught here. In Thieme's words - "Absolute Truth = Word of God = Thieme's Bible Doctrine"
Thieme is saying the "the criterion" for human life is the "impulse in the brain" and that the EEG is proof and is a medical indicator of the soul being located in the brain.
Perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain why someone can have no brain wave activity yet still be alive (flat EEG)?
THE EEG IN DETERMINATION OF BRAIN DEATH
[www.google.com]
Perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain why anethestized rats have EEG brain waive activity?
basal forebrain neurons recorded in association with the electroencephalogram in anesthetized rats.
[jn.physiology.org]
Truthtesty: Or perhaps Thieme with his "Absolute Truth" would like to explain why fetus' have EEG brainwave activity before birth?
Investigating the relationship between fetus EEG, respiratory, and blood pressure signals during maturation using wavelet transform. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
No one knows where the soul is. Thieme cannot prove that the soul of life is not partially in the literal blood. No one can. This was Thieme's best attempt at trying to prove his fallacious theory that human life is not in the literal blood, in support of his other fallacious theory that the "Blood of Christ" (figure of speech) specifically does not refer to the literal blood of God.
In contrast Dr. Chafer (Thieme's teacher therefore in Thieme's eyes, Thieme's doctrinal authority) says
Quote
"Those who have attained by His grace to the courts of glory are identified, not by their works, their sufferings, or their personal merit, but they are described as those whose robes have been washed in the [b:8d03620fa3]blood of the Lamb[/b:8d03620fa3]. This is a figure calculated to represent purification as high as heaven in quality. It is termed a [b:8d03620fa3]figure of speech[/b:8d03620fa3], [u:8d03620fa3]but it is not meaningless [/u:8d03620fa3]on that account; and so there is limitless reality in it. [b:8d03620fa3]It may be understood only as Christ’s blood is seen to be the one divinely provided means whereby the soul and spirit of man may be purified. Cleansing so depends upon the blood of Christ that it may be said to be accomplished directly by that blood (cf. 1 John 1:7[/b:8d03620fa3])"
I am also showing that Thieme rebelled against Dr. Chafer's authority and RE-VERSION-ED what Dr. Chafer taught Thieme. Now I do not subscribe to the (human) teacher's authority, but I am showing Thieme's hypocrasy. Thieme permits himself to RE-VERSION his teacher's teachings (Dr. Chafer), but Thieme would have you feel guilty called a REVERSIONIST (by your "positive" mind and by all the "positive believers" around you) if you tried to change your beliefs (think outside the box) on Thieme's teachings.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: June 04, 2007 05:15AM
To the Forum:
Dr. Chafer Quotes
Truthtesty
Dr. Chafer Quotes
Quote
"The challenge of this inexhaustible thesis is yet further extended when it is remembered that the theanthropic Person who suffered and died is none other than “God manifest in the flesh.” It was God who suffered and it was the blood of God that was shed (Acts 20:28 ).
Quote
The gā˒al individual must also be able to redeem. The price, whatever it might be in any case, was paid by the one who redeemed. This requirement was imperative in the type as it is in the antitype. Christ alone could pay the price of redemption—the blood of a holy, undefiled, and spotless Lamb. The blood of a man, especially of a fallen race, would not suffice. It must be the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28 )
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: June 09, 2007 02:48PM
To the Forum:
Just letting people know, the [u:a94282d5c2]A. M. Stibbs[/u:a94282d5c2] reference is free on the internet.
Per Dr. Wall's dissertation:
...Obviously such is not the case; both cross and blood of Christ are synecdoches for the same thing, Christ's suffering and violent death. [b:a94282d5c2]29[/b:a94282d5c2]
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the term blood of Christ is used solely of Christ's spiritual death as Thieme suggests; since New Testament figurative usage of blood includes physical death. In the New Testament the term refers to the total event of death by violent means. In Matthew 23:3 5, Jesus speaks of the "blood of righteous Abel" and "the blood of Zechariah." Obviously death by violent means is in view not spiritual death. Blood is used because the normal violent taking of life in those days was by blood-letting with the sword, spear or other weapon. As such, blood is used as a synecdoche that includes physical blood, not a "representative analogy" that excludes it. To be fair with Thieme's position, it should be pointed out that Thieme sees only the phrase blood of Christ as a representative analogy, not the other uses of blood. Nevertheless, the use of blood in other contexts demonstrates that the use of synecdoche was prevalent with at least the word blood and that any use of the term would automatically arouse a picture of physical death by violent means in the mind of the reader. Other uses of blood as synecdoches for the total event of death by violent means include Matthew 23:30; Luke II: 50, 5 1; 13: 1; Acts 18:6; 22:20; Romans 3:15; Hebrews 12:4; Revelation 6: 1 0; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; and 19:2. There are also a few non-theological references to Christ's physical death by violent means where blood is used. In Matthew 27:4, 24 and 25, the term is on the lips of Judas, Pilate and the mob, and could not refer to Christ's spiritual death. The same is true of Acts 5:28. New Testament usage of the term makes Thieme's interpretation highly doubtful. In a later section the relationship of the physical death and spiritual death of Christ to the atonement will be considered. At that point it will be shown that Thieme's view of the term blood of Christ is not only doubtful linguistically but also impossible theologically.
[b:a94282d5c2]29[/b:a94282d5c2] See also Leon Morris's study of the blood in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), pp. 108-124; and [b:a94282d5c2][u:a94282d5c2]A.M. Stibbs'[/u:a94282d5c2] little volume, The Meaning of the Word "Blood" in Scripture (London: The Tyndale Press,1947), pp. 17-20. [www.theologicalstudies.org.uk][/b:a94282d5c2]
Also, although Dr. Wall did not mention it, a Journal of Theological Studies article by Leon Morris "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM ‘BLOOD’", can be obtained at [tinyurl.com]
Truthtesty
Just letting people know, the [u:a94282d5c2]A. M. Stibbs[/u:a94282d5c2] reference is free on the internet.
Per Dr. Wall's dissertation:
...Obviously such is not the case; both cross and blood of Christ are synecdoches for the same thing, Christ's suffering and violent death. [b:a94282d5c2]29[/b:a94282d5c2]
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the term blood of Christ is used solely of Christ's spiritual death as Thieme suggests; since New Testament figurative usage of blood includes physical death. In the New Testament the term refers to the total event of death by violent means. In Matthew 23:3 5, Jesus speaks of the "blood of righteous Abel" and "the blood of Zechariah." Obviously death by violent means is in view not spiritual death. Blood is used because the normal violent taking of life in those days was by blood-letting with the sword, spear or other weapon. As such, blood is used as a synecdoche that includes physical blood, not a "representative analogy" that excludes it. To be fair with Thieme's position, it should be pointed out that Thieme sees only the phrase blood of Christ as a representative analogy, not the other uses of blood. Nevertheless, the use of blood in other contexts demonstrates that the use of synecdoche was prevalent with at least the word blood and that any use of the term would automatically arouse a picture of physical death by violent means in the mind of the reader. Other uses of blood as synecdoches for the total event of death by violent means include Matthew 23:30; Luke II: 50, 5 1; 13: 1; Acts 18:6; 22:20; Romans 3:15; Hebrews 12:4; Revelation 6: 1 0; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; and 19:2. There are also a few non-theological references to Christ's physical death by violent means where blood is used. In Matthew 27:4, 24 and 25, the term is on the lips of Judas, Pilate and the mob, and could not refer to Christ's spiritual death. The same is true of Acts 5:28. New Testament usage of the term makes Thieme's interpretation highly doubtful. In a later section the relationship of the physical death and spiritual death of Christ to the atonement will be considered. At that point it will be shown that Thieme's view of the term blood of Christ is not only doubtful linguistically but also impossible theologically.
[b:a94282d5c2]29[/b:a94282d5c2] See also Leon Morris's study of the blood in his book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), pp. 108-124; and [b:a94282d5c2][u:a94282d5c2]A.M. Stibbs'[/u:a94282d5c2] little volume, The Meaning of the Word "Blood" in Scripture (London: The Tyndale Press,1947), pp. 17-20. [www.theologicalstudies.org.uk][/b:a94282d5c2]
Also, although Dr. Wall did not mention it, a Journal of Theological Studies article by Leon Morris "THE BIBLICAL USE OF THE TERM ‘BLOOD’", can be obtained at [tinyurl.com]
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
Truthtesty
()
Date: June 11, 2007 10:59AM
To the Forum:
Thieme states in his faulty booklet "Blood of Christ"
Truthtesty: There's actually much more involved than Thieme's brief summary.
On pages 22 and 23 of [b:c82706b26d]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [/b:c82706b26d]by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Walter Bauer, the lexicon references many authors, documents and greek scriptural references.
blood
[b:c82706b26d]Note under the section "b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:"[/b:c82706b26d]
[u:c82706b26d]1Cl 55[/u:c82706b26d] refers to 1st Clement 55.
[b:c82706b26d]Note under the section "b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:"[/b:c82706b26d]
Within the lengthy paragraph is a reference
[b:c82706b26d][u:c82706b26d]C. F. Devine[/u:c82706b26d] is the author[/b:c82706b26d]
[u:c82706b26d]The Blood of God[/u:c82706b26d] is the title
[b:c82706b26d][u:c82706b26d]CBQ[/u:c82706b26d] is an acronym for Catholic Biblical Quaterly[/b:c82706b26d]
[u:c82706b26d]9 [/u:c82706b26d]is the volume
[u:c82706b26d]'47[/u:c82706b26d] is the year
[u:c82706b26d]381-408[/u:c82706b26d] are the page numbers
[u:c82706b26d]s.[/u:c82706b26d]is see
If you live in the Houston area you can do an LSC request at [antioch.rice.edu]
The information necessary for this request:
LSC Retrieval Request
Name: JohnDoe
Email Address: JohnDoe@whatever.com
Call Number: BS410 .C3 v.9
Author: C. F. Devine
Title: Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Volume: 9
Year/Month: 1947
Pages: 381-408
Truthtesty: My point here is to show that Bauer (Ardnt and Gingrich were Alt authors) obviously had no problem whatsoever referencing [u:c82706b26d][b:c82706b26d]Biblical Truth[/b:c82706b26d] [/u:c82706b26d][b:c82706b26d]EVEN IF THE AUTHOR WAS CATHOLIC![/b:c82706b26d]
You can use [www.worldcat.org] or other Worldcat databases to find a library near you that has "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [/b]by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Walter Bauer". Also, DTS uses this lexicon and others.
Most Librarians can help you find articles and books through ILL - Interlibrary loans.
Truthtesty
Thieme states in his faulty booklet "Blood of Christ"
Quote
"While the word "blood" usually refers to literal blood, there is also another usage. [b:c82706b26d]Arndt and Gingrich[/b:c82706b26d], famous German linguistic scholars, were the first ones to get a breakthrough on "haima." On page 22 of their Greek Lexicon, there is a dissertation on how they discovered it. They conclude: " 'Haima' refers to literal human blood on the one hand; but on the other hand, it refers to blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice.
Truthtesty: There's actually much more involved than Thieme's brief summary.
On pages 22 and 23 of [b:c82706b26d]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [/b:c82706b26d]by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Walter Bauer, the lexicon references many authors, documents and greek scriptural references.
blood
Quote
αιμα
1. lit.---a. of human blood J 19:34 etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
b. of blood of animals Hb 9:7,18,25 etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
2. fig---a. as the seat of life (Lev 17:11, Wsd 7:2, Jos., Ant 1, 102) etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
[b:c82706b26d]b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:[/b:c82706b26d] etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
3. of the (apocalyptic) red color, whose appearance in heaven indicates disaster etc...
(then lengthy paragraph - including scriptural references, authors, and references to individual author's writings)
[b:c82706b26d]Note under the section "b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:"[/b:c82706b26d]
[u:c82706b26d]1Cl 55[/u:c82706b26d] refers to 1st Clement 55.
[b:c82706b26d]Note under the section "b. blood and life as an expiatory sacrifice 1Cl 55:"[/b:c82706b26d]
Within the lengthy paragraph is a reference
Quote
[b:c82706b26d]"Described as bringing about fellowship Acts 20:28 (on αι. τον ιδιον s. CFDevine, The Blood of God: CBQ 9, '47, 381-408)"[/b:c82706b26d]
[b:c82706b26d][u:c82706b26d]C. F. Devine[/u:c82706b26d] is the author[/b:c82706b26d]
[u:c82706b26d]The Blood of God[/u:c82706b26d] is the title
[b:c82706b26d][u:c82706b26d]CBQ[/u:c82706b26d] is an acronym for Catholic Biblical Quaterly[/b:c82706b26d]
[u:c82706b26d]9 [/u:c82706b26d]is the volume
[u:c82706b26d]'47[/u:c82706b26d] is the year
[u:c82706b26d]381-408[/u:c82706b26d] are the page numbers
[u:c82706b26d]s.[/u:c82706b26d]is see
If you live in the Houston area you can do an LSC request at [antioch.rice.edu]
The information necessary for this request:
LSC Retrieval Request
Name: JohnDoe
Email Address: JohnDoe@whatever.com
Call Number: BS410 .C3 v.9
Author: C. F. Devine
Title: Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Volume: 9
Year/Month: 1947
Pages: 381-408
Truthtesty: My point here is to show that Bauer (Ardnt and Gingrich were Alt authors) obviously had no problem whatsoever referencing [u:c82706b26d][b:c82706b26d]Biblical Truth[/b:c82706b26d] [/u:c82706b26d][b:c82706b26d]EVEN IF THE AUTHOR WAS CATHOLIC![/b:c82706b26d]
You can use [www.worldcat.org] or other Worldcat databases to find a library near you that has "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [/b]by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Walter Bauer". Also, DTS uses this lexicon and others.
Most Librarians can help you find articles and books through ILL - Interlibrary loans.
Truthtesty
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
SpiritualLiberty
()
Date: June 13, 2007 09:42AM
The Thieme followers have been quiet for a while now, and it would appear they’re going to leave a lot of challenging questions unanswered. I’m still waiting for answers on the issues of “rebound,” “loser believers,” and “right pastor,” but it looks like those answers may never come. Whether it’s finding excuses to leave, getting oneself banned, or just disappearing from the forum, all of them appear to have given up in the middle of the debate. Assuming ephesians is still checking the posts, there is one more issue I’ll challenge him with…[/color:3fd84706c4]
ephesians,
Back on 02/01, when we were still getting into the “rebound” issue, I said, “I will respond to your comments on the koine Greek and other issues in a future post.” And I am following through on this statement. I am wondering if you will ever follow through on your statements? On 02/14, [i:3fd84706c4]“I do want to address several of your comments, especially regarding the concept of rebound as derived [b:3fd84706c4]from an overall study of the NT, [u:3fd84706c4]not just 1 John 1:9[/u:3fd84706c4][/b:3fd84706c4], but please give me some time on this.” [/i:3fd84706c4]And on 03/30, [i:3fd84706c4]“I'm not [b:3fd84706c4]avoiding [/b:3fd84706c4]your questions, by the way, I'm trying to [b:3fd84706c4]start at building block one[/b:3fd84706c4].” [/i:3fd84706c4]…?? There is no reason for using other posters as an excuse for abandoning the debate, ephesians. And if you really do have such an aversion to the forum, you can still use email.
[i:3fd84706c4]I totally agree with several of your concepts, notably that great movements and reformations of thought have been brought about by people simply reading their Bibles in whatever language is native to them (or whatever they could get their hands on). [b:3fd84706c4]It is not the contention of Thieme that you must go to him[/b:3fd84706c4], or the Greek, or whatever, to be saved, or [b:3fd84706c4]to learn basic spiritual mechanics[/b:3fd84706c4].[/i:3fd84706c4] [01/28]
Thieme is dogmatic that you need his doctrinal system and the original languages to learn the spiritual life and avoid the fate of the “loser.” This has been a major emphasis of his teaching for decades, which he has repeated countless times. It is contradictory to teach this so dogmatically and so often, and then turn around and make an attempt to honor the Christians of the Reformation, who don’t even come close to meeting your own criteria for a “winner.” He can’t have it both ways.
[i:3fd84706c4]And, I believe, it's not learning intricacies of Church Age (mystery) doctrine that provoke great change in history, it's the simple things.[/i:3fd84706c4]
Thieme and other “doctrinal” pastors are adamant that a believer who doesn’t know the “mystery doctrine of the Church-age” [i:3fd84706c4]has no impact on history[/i:3fd84706c4]. Thieme and his followers are dogmatically clear that anyone who doesn’t know the mystery doctrine taught from the “original languages” is a “loser” believer. They simply can’t have it both ways. Think about what you’re saying here, ephesians—you’re basically saying that God didn’t care if 16th-century Christians knew the “mystery doctrine” or not, since He never made the “original languages” available to them.
Much of Thieme’s teaching on the “mystery doctrine,” by the way, is nothing more than his own personal speculations.*
[i:3fd84706c4]Anyone can readily read John 3:16, or whatever other salvation verse you wish to come up with, and be saved. Anyone can read 1 John 1:9 in the English and get the concept.[/i:3fd84706c4]
The vast majority of Christians throughout history, including the time of the Reformation, did not practice this constant, moment-by-moment confession of “rebound.” Obviously, they did [i:3fd84706c4]not [/i:3fd84706c4]“get the concept” of Thieme’s “rebound” doctrine at all. And, as I already demonstrated, under Thieme’s “rebound” doctrine, confessing your sins once a day or once a week doesn’t cut it. If you’re not continually rebounding, almost everything you do will be meaningless to God, you will be a “loser,” and you will have no impact on history.
[i:3fd84706c4]Right there you have the basic spiritual life, and it's enough to get along…[/i:3fd84706c4]
What do you mean by “get along”? Does God want His people to just “get along”? Especially when facing some of the greatest persecutions of history?
[i:3fd84706c4]…and to move mountains and historically change things.[/i:3fd84706c4]
You can “move mountains” and change history when you’re just “getting along”? You can “move mountains” and change history when you fit Thieme’s own description of a “loser”?
[i:3fd84706c4]I [b:3fd84706c4]don't [u:3fd84706c4]think[/u:3fd84706c4] [/b:3fd84706c4]Thieme would disagree [/i:3fd84706c4][b:3fd84706c4][?][/b:3fd84706c4][i:3fd84706c4], and as you know, he has extensively gone on about the greatness of the Reformation and all those men you mentioned (especially see PPOG series, 1984) with full acknowledgment that it was certain men reading their own Bibles and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church which brought about spiritual uptrends.[/i:3fd84706c4]
“Spiritual uptrends”? From people who, according to Thieme’s own definition, are losers under discipline who cannot glorify God?
____________________
* The idea of “invisible heroes” unique to the Church Age has no basis in Scripture. And neither does the doctrine of Gentile client nations. There have always been famous believers and unknown believers before and after the Cross, who served the Lord very faithfully. There were famous Israelites like Moses, Samuel, and David, and there were also thousands of common Israelites who loved the Lord, and who prayed, served, and studied the OT Scriptures faithfully. The common (“invisible”) believer could have a personal relationship with the Lord and love Him with all his heart, just as Jeremiah and Daniel did. And in the Church Age, there have been many famous Christians whose testimony the Lord has preserved throughout history, like William Tyndale, John Bunyan, and Hudson Taylor, and the martyrs throughout the centuries, like John Huss, James Bainham, Anne Askew, and so many more. Whether or not God decides to make the testimony of one of His children “visible” and famous to the whole world and future generations, is a matter of His will for each individual believer, OT or NT. Regarding the idea of “Gentile client nations,” there is no such thing anywhere in Scripture. To call the Roman Empire a “client nation to God” is absurd. Pagan Rome persecuted Christians terribly for centuries, culminating in the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church by the Roman Emperor Constantine. I don’t recall Thieme ever even mentioning what the client nations would have been during the Dark Ages. And for the Reformation period, how do we know? Was it Germany? The Netherlands? England? Sweden? Anyone with even a basic knowledge of church history can see that Thieme’s “client nation” doctrine doesn’t work (not to mention the fact that it’s never mentioned in the Bible).[/size:3fd84706c4]
ephesians,
Back on 02/01, when we were still getting into the “rebound” issue, I said, “I will respond to your comments on the koine Greek and other issues in a future post.” And I am following through on this statement. I am wondering if you will ever follow through on your statements? On 02/14, [i:3fd84706c4]“I do want to address several of your comments, especially regarding the concept of rebound as derived [b:3fd84706c4]from an overall study of the NT, [u:3fd84706c4]not just 1 John 1:9[/u:3fd84706c4][/b:3fd84706c4], but please give me some time on this.” [/i:3fd84706c4]And on 03/30, [i:3fd84706c4]“I'm not [b:3fd84706c4]avoiding [/b:3fd84706c4]your questions, by the way, I'm trying to [b:3fd84706c4]start at building block one[/b:3fd84706c4].” [/i:3fd84706c4]…?? There is no reason for using other posters as an excuse for abandoning the debate, ephesians. And if you really do have such an aversion to the forum, you can still use email.
[i:3fd84706c4]I totally agree with several of your concepts, notably that great movements and reformations of thought have been brought about by people simply reading their Bibles in whatever language is native to them (or whatever they could get their hands on). [b:3fd84706c4]It is not the contention of Thieme that you must go to him[/b:3fd84706c4], or the Greek, or whatever, to be saved, or [b:3fd84706c4]to learn basic spiritual mechanics[/b:3fd84706c4].[/i:3fd84706c4] [01/28]
Thieme is dogmatic that you need his doctrinal system and the original languages to learn the spiritual life and avoid the fate of the “loser.” This has been a major emphasis of his teaching for decades, which he has repeated countless times. It is contradictory to teach this so dogmatically and so often, and then turn around and make an attempt to honor the Christians of the Reformation, who don’t even come close to meeting your own criteria for a “winner.” He can’t have it both ways.
[i:3fd84706c4]And, I believe, it's not learning intricacies of Church Age (mystery) doctrine that provoke great change in history, it's the simple things.[/i:3fd84706c4]
Thieme and other “doctrinal” pastors are adamant that a believer who doesn’t know the “mystery doctrine of the Church-age” [i:3fd84706c4]has no impact on history[/i:3fd84706c4]. Thieme and his followers are dogmatically clear that anyone who doesn’t know the mystery doctrine taught from the “original languages” is a “loser” believer. They simply can’t have it both ways. Think about what you’re saying here, ephesians—you’re basically saying that God didn’t care if 16th-century Christians knew the “mystery doctrine” or not, since He never made the “original languages” available to them.
Much of Thieme’s teaching on the “mystery doctrine,” by the way, is nothing more than his own personal speculations.*
[i:3fd84706c4]Anyone can readily read John 3:16, or whatever other salvation verse you wish to come up with, and be saved. Anyone can read 1 John 1:9 in the English and get the concept.[/i:3fd84706c4]
The vast majority of Christians throughout history, including the time of the Reformation, did not practice this constant, moment-by-moment confession of “rebound.” Obviously, they did [i:3fd84706c4]not [/i:3fd84706c4]“get the concept” of Thieme’s “rebound” doctrine at all. And, as I already demonstrated, under Thieme’s “rebound” doctrine, confessing your sins once a day or once a week doesn’t cut it. If you’re not continually rebounding, almost everything you do will be meaningless to God, you will be a “loser,” and you will have no impact on history.
[i:3fd84706c4]Right there you have the basic spiritual life, and it's enough to get along…[/i:3fd84706c4]
What do you mean by “get along”? Does God want His people to just “get along”? Especially when facing some of the greatest persecutions of history?
[i:3fd84706c4]…and to move mountains and historically change things.[/i:3fd84706c4]
You can “move mountains” and change history when you’re just “getting along”? You can “move mountains” and change history when you fit Thieme’s own description of a “loser”?
[i:3fd84706c4]I [b:3fd84706c4]don't [u:3fd84706c4]think[/u:3fd84706c4] [/b:3fd84706c4]Thieme would disagree [/i:3fd84706c4][b:3fd84706c4][?][/b:3fd84706c4][i:3fd84706c4], and as you know, he has extensively gone on about the greatness of the Reformation and all those men you mentioned (especially see PPOG series, 1984) with full acknowledgment that it was certain men reading their own Bibles and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church which brought about spiritual uptrends.[/i:3fd84706c4]
“Spiritual uptrends”? From people who, according to Thieme’s own definition, are losers under discipline who cannot glorify God?
____________________
* The idea of “invisible heroes” unique to the Church Age has no basis in Scripture. And neither does the doctrine of Gentile client nations. There have always been famous believers and unknown believers before and after the Cross, who served the Lord very faithfully. There were famous Israelites like Moses, Samuel, and David, and there were also thousands of common Israelites who loved the Lord, and who prayed, served, and studied the OT Scriptures faithfully. The common (“invisible”) believer could have a personal relationship with the Lord and love Him with all his heart, just as Jeremiah and Daniel did. And in the Church Age, there have been many famous Christians whose testimony the Lord has preserved throughout history, like William Tyndale, John Bunyan, and Hudson Taylor, and the martyrs throughout the centuries, like John Huss, James Bainham, Anne Askew, and so many more. Whether or not God decides to make the testimony of one of His children “visible” and famous to the whole world and future generations, is a matter of His will for each individual believer, OT or NT. Regarding the idea of “Gentile client nations,” there is no such thing anywhere in Scripture. To call the Roman Empire a “client nation to God” is absurd. Pagan Rome persecuted Christians terribly for centuries, culminating in the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church by the Roman Emperor Constantine. I don’t recall Thieme ever even mentioning what the client nations would have been during the Dark Ages. And for the Reformation period, how do we know? Was it Germany? The Netherlands? England? Sweden? Anyone with even a basic knowledge of church history can see that Thieme’s “client nation” doctrine doesn’t work (not to mention the fact that it’s never mentioned in the Bible).[/size:3fd84706c4]
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
SpiritualLiberty
()
Date: June 13, 2007 09:49AM
[i:d67bad71bf]Thieme might not have agreed with every teaching of Zwingli or Calvin, et al, but nor does he insist on their illegitimacy or diminish their movement because they did not adhere to his interpretation of the Bible in the Greek.[/i:d67bad71bf]
Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Luther, and every Reformer fit Thieme’s description of a “loser.” They never had a doctrinal system anything like Thieme’s. It’s not just that “Thieme might not have agreed with every teaching of Zwingli or Calvin”; there are numerous doctrines where they would totally disagree. They even held on to many old Romanist traditions that they never realized were wrong. According to Thieme’s own doctrine, every one of them were “losers,” in spite of the tremendous opposition they faced, and the great faith and courage that many of them had.
The pastor at my former church was at least a little more consistent, when he simply said the Reformers were “loser believers,” which is the only logical conclusion if you accept Thieme’s doctrines. Thieme and his followers are dogmatic that 99.9% of Christians in [i:d67bad71bf]every generation [/i:d67bad71bf]are “losers.” In fact, I believe Thieme even taught that the early martyrs under Roman persecution were not glorifying God, but “dying the sin unto death” (please correct me if I’m wrong). But of course, this is the only logical conclusion under his “winner & loser” doctrine.
[i:d67bad71bf][b:d67bad71bf]Is there really a difference between the two?[/b:d67bad71bf] Both men are saved; both men use "rebound", even though man #1 has never heard of this concept. Both men, are living full spiritual lives, both men's lives are having historical impact.[/i:d67bad71bf]
Good question, ephesians. If there’s no real difference between the two, then obviously they don’t need the Greek. The only difference between them would be that one of them is wasting countless hours with the Greek Game and useless technicality, and the other is making better use of his time.
[i:d67bad71bf]So...I hardly disagree with you regarding the concept that men of the past took a Bible in their own language, were saved, learned spiritual principles, and had impact...some of it truly great.[/i:d67bad71bf]
These statements contradict many years of teaching from Thieme. You cannot adhere to Thieme’s rigid, dogmatic teaching that the “original languages” and “advanced mystery doctrine” are absolutely necessary to avoid the miserable fate of the loser, and then say that people who never had this kind of teaching had great impact.
[i:d67bad71bf]So that leaves us with Thieme's (or any other person espousing [b:d67bad71bf]the importance of Greek exegesis[/b:d67bad71bf]) role, and [b:d67bad71bf]advanced Church Age doctrine[/b:d67bad71bf].[/i:d67bad71bf]
So it was impossible for 99% of God’s people throughout history (who never saw any “Greek exegesis”) to learn “advanced Church Age doctrine”?
[i:d67bad71bf]Regarding the Judgment Seat, the deduction can be made that the person of lesser opportunity that made the most of what he had comes out ahead of the lazy Berachah student.[/i:d67bad71bf]
God actually gives some of His beloved children “lesser opportunity” to know His Word?
In Thieme’s system, there is no such thing as “lesser opportunity.” There is no allowance for those who do not study the “mystery doctrine” from the “original languages.” He simply can’t have it both ways.
[i:d67bad71bf]It comes down to an issue of using what you have.[/i:d67bad71bf]
Thieme is dogmatic that [i:d67bad71bf]all [/i:d67bad71bf]believers are given the [i:d67bad71bf]same [/i:d67bad71bf]assets (the so-called “portfolio of invisible assets”). And if you don’t know the mystery doctrine from the original languages, you will be a loser. When will you ever stop trying to dodge the issues, ephesians? You cannot get around the fact that, under Thieme’s system, God has failed His people.
[i:d67bad71bf]As a student of Thieme's, I feel that [b:d67bad71bf]more is expected of me[/b:d67bad71bf]…[/i:d67bad71bf]
More is expected of you than 16th-century Christians? They had to face some of the worst attacks, mistreatment, torture, and persecution in history. If ever Christians needed [i:d67bad71bf]all the counsel of God [/i:d67bad71bf]to sustain them, it was them. How can you say, “more is expected of me,” when you’ve never faced anything like what they faced? How could a just and fair God, who loves every one of His children dearly, withhold His complete Word from them but give it to you?
[i:d67bad71bf]...because I have access to [b:d67bad71bf]so much information [/b:d67bad71bf]that might [b:d67bad71bf]not have been available[/b:d67bad71bf] to people in the past.[/i:d67bad71bf]
Again, how could a just and loving God withhold “so much information” from His children who were suffering so greatly?
Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Luther, and every Reformer fit Thieme’s description of a “loser.” They never had a doctrinal system anything like Thieme’s. It’s not just that “Thieme might not have agreed with every teaching of Zwingli or Calvin”; there are numerous doctrines where they would totally disagree. They even held on to many old Romanist traditions that they never realized were wrong. According to Thieme’s own doctrine, every one of them were “losers,” in spite of the tremendous opposition they faced, and the great faith and courage that many of them had.
The pastor at my former church was at least a little more consistent, when he simply said the Reformers were “loser believers,” which is the only logical conclusion if you accept Thieme’s doctrines. Thieme and his followers are dogmatic that 99.9% of Christians in [i:d67bad71bf]every generation [/i:d67bad71bf]are “losers.” In fact, I believe Thieme even taught that the early martyrs under Roman persecution were not glorifying God, but “dying the sin unto death” (please correct me if I’m wrong). But of course, this is the only logical conclusion under his “winner & loser” doctrine.
[i:d67bad71bf][b:d67bad71bf]Is there really a difference between the two?[/b:d67bad71bf] Both men are saved; both men use "rebound", even though man #1 has never heard of this concept. Both men, are living full spiritual lives, both men's lives are having historical impact.[/i:d67bad71bf]
Good question, ephesians. If there’s no real difference between the two, then obviously they don’t need the Greek. The only difference between them would be that one of them is wasting countless hours with the Greek Game and useless technicality, and the other is making better use of his time.
[i:d67bad71bf]So...I hardly disagree with you regarding the concept that men of the past took a Bible in their own language, were saved, learned spiritual principles, and had impact...some of it truly great.[/i:d67bad71bf]
These statements contradict many years of teaching from Thieme. You cannot adhere to Thieme’s rigid, dogmatic teaching that the “original languages” and “advanced mystery doctrine” are absolutely necessary to avoid the miserable fate of the loser, and then say that people who never had this kind of teaching had great impact.
[i:d67bad71bf]So that leaves us with Thieme's (or any other person espousing [b:d67bad71bf]the importance of Greek exegesis[/b:d67bad71bf]) role, and [b:d67bad71bf]advanced Church Age doctrine[/b:d67bad71bf].[/i:d67bad71bf]
So it was impossible for 99% of God’s people throughout history (who never saw any “Greek exegesis”) to learn “advanced Church Age doctrine”?
[i:d67bad71bf]Regarding the Judgment Seat, the deduction can be made that the person of lesser opportunity that made the most of what he had comes out ahead of the lazy Berachah student.[/i:d67bad71bf]
God actually gives some of His beloved children “lesser opportunity” to know His Word?
In Thieme’s system, there is no such thing as “lesser opportunity.” There is no allowance for those who do not study the “mystery doctrine” from the “original languages.” He simply can’t have it both ways.
[i:d67bad71bf]It comes down to an issue of using what you have.[/i:d67bad71bf]
Thieme is dogmatic that [i:d67bad71bf]all [/i:d67bad71bf]believers are given the [i:d67bad71bf]same [/i:d67bad71bf]assets (the so-called “portfolio of invisible assets”). And if you don’t know the mystery doctrine from the original languages, you will be a loser. When will you ever stop trying to dodge the issues, ephesians? You cannot get around the fact that, under Thieme’s system, God has failed His people.
[i:d67bad71bf]As a student of Thieme's, I feel that [b:d67bad71bf]more is expected of me[/b:d67bad71bf]…[/i:d67bad71bf]
More is expected of you than 16th-century Christians? They had to face some of the worst attacks, mistreatment, torture, and persecution in history. If ever Christians needed [i:d67bad71bf]all the counsel of God [/i:d67bad71bf]to sustain them, it was them. How can you say, “more is expected of me,” when you’ve never faced anything like what they faced? How could a just and fair God, who loves every one of His children dearly, withhold His complete Word from them but give it to you?
[i:d67bad71bf]...because I have access to [b:d67bad71bf]so much information [/b:d67bad71bf]that might [b:d67bad71bf]not have been available[/b:d67bad71bf] to people in the past.[/i:d67bad71bf]
Again, how could a just and loving God withhold “so much information” from His children who were suffering so greatly?
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
SpiritualLiberty
()
Date: June 13, 2007 09:54AM
[i:f8d6daa9f7]What we have in translation is just that, [b:f8d6daa9f7]somebody else's interpretation [/b:f8d6daa9f7]of what they thought whatever manuscript they were translating from meant.[/i:f8d6daa9f7]
Then how can you trust Thieme’s translations? It has already been exposed how flawed his “corrected” translations are. There are Greek scholars with far more education than Thieme who disagree with his “exegesis.” Some of Thieme’s “corrected” translations are so [i:f8d6daa9f7]incorrect [/i:f8d6daa9f7]that all it takes is a little common sense to see through his Greek Game. For example, two of the biggest issues raised by Thieme and his followers in their so-called “exegesis” are the [u:f8d6daa9f7]present tense of verbs[/u:f8d6daa9f7] and the [u:f8d6daa9f7]translation of [i:f8d6daa9f7]agapao [/i:f8d6daa9f7]and [i:f8d6daa9f7]phileo[/i:f8d6daa9f7][/u:f8d6daa9f7]. And I have already demonstrated how inaccurate this “exegesis” really is, just by showing the simple, straightforward usage of these words in their context. Even if you did need Greek exegesis, you’re going to the wrong place to get it.
Thieme’s endless “corrected translations” were really quite useless. A simple, clear, straightforward translation in plain English was never good enough. He wasted countless hours with technical dissertations which never revealed any truth that couldn’t be easily found in a King James Bible. His rigid technical approach to verb tenses only resulted in further inaccuracy in his “corrected” translations and doctrinal teaching. Whether one is reading Greek or English, the present tense does not automatically denote ongoing action (as anyone with the most basic understanding of translation could tell you). Whether it’s an ongoing action (e.g., Gal 5:16) or a momentary action taking place in the present (e.g., John 3:16), is obvious from the [i:f8d6daa9f7]context [/i:f8d6daa9f7]to any reader with the least bit of common sense. It also obvious from the context if a verb in the imperative mood is an authoritative command, a wise exhortation or advice, a tentative suggestion, or a request or plea. (Contrary to Thieme’s statements, no believer ever gave God orders.) As far as the “first-class condition” is concerned, whether it’s a positive, predetermined “if,” an open, undetermined “if,” or a rhetorical question, is also perfectly obvious to any diligent Christian reading his English Bible.
We could fill a book with Thieme’s pointless “corrections.” “Abide in God’s love” had to be changed to “reside in the sphere of God’s love” (regardless of whether “sphere” is even in the “original”). A simple scriptural challenge about backsliding because of pride and hardness of the heart had to be changed to “reversionism” from “residence in the arrogance complex” and “scar tissue of the soul.” How does this tell us [i:f8d6daa9f7]anything [/i:f8d6daa9f7]that wasn’t perfectly obvious in the plain, straightforward vocabulary of the Bible itself? What possible reason could there be to reword these things with technical mumbo-jumbo that no one else understands? Could you please explain exactly how this has helped you so “immensely”?
These are terms that would only be meaningless and confusing to millions of other Christians—terms that do not improve at all upon the Biblical vocabulary known by nearly all Christians the world over. Yet Thieme and his followers have the audacity to claim that their “technicality” is [i:f8d6daa9f7]necessary [/i:f8d6daa9f7]to understand the “mystery doctrine” and be a “winner believer.”
Thieme’s technical vocabulary often found its way into his so-called “corrected” translations. He was not content to impose his technical mumbo-jumbo on the people—he also had to impose it on the Word of God. He continually wasted his own time and the people’s time, rambling on with this pointless technicality, and never showing them anything that wasn’t already perfectly obvious in plain English.
[i:f8d6daa9f7]As far as Thieme's use of specialized vocabulary, again, this has helped me immensely.[/i:f8d6daa9f7] [02/01]
How exactly does this help anyone? Why do we have to spend so much time and effort learning a whole new vocabulary before we actually get to the content of the Scriptures? With all the obstacles and distractions we face on a daily basis, why add another unnecessary requirement? All it really does is waste our time, when we could actually be studying [i:f8d6daa9f7]the Scriptures [/i:f8d6daa9f7](rather than a man’s technical jargon), and diligently comparing [i:f8d6daa9f7]scriptures[/i:f8d6daa9f7], rather than useless technical terms.
Then how can you trust Thieme’s translations? It has already been exposed how flawed his “corrected” translations are. There are Greek scholars with far more education than Thieme who disagree with his “exegesis.” Some of Thieme’s “corrected” translations are so [i:f8d6daa9f7]incorrect [/i:f8d6daa9f7]that all it takes is a little common sense to see through his Greek Game. For example, two of the biggest issues raised by Thieme and his followers in their so-called “exegesis” are the [u:f8d6daa9f7]present tense of verbs[/u:f8d6daa9f7] and the [u:f8d6daa9f7]translation of [i:f8d6daa9f7]agapao [/i:f8d6daa9f7]and [i:f8d6daa9f7]phileo[/i:f8d6daa9f7][/u:f8d6daa9f7]. And I have already demonstrated how inaccurate this “exegesis” really is, just by showing the simple, straightforward usage of these words in their context. Even if you did need Greek exegesis, you’re going to the wrong place to get it.
Thieme’s endless “corrected translations” were really quite useless. A simple, clear, straightforward translation in plain English was never good enough. He wasted countless hours with technical dissertations which never revealed any truth that couldn’t be easily found in a King James Bible. His rigid technical approach to verb tenses only resulted in further inaccuracy in his “corrected” translations and doctrinal teaching. Whether one is reading Greek or English, the present tense does not automatically denote ongoing action (as anyone with the most basic understanding of translation could tell you). Whether it’s an ongoing action (e.g., Gal 5:16) or a momentary action taking place in the present (e.g., John 3:16), is obvious from the [i:f8d6daa9f7]context [/i:f8d6daa9f7]to any reader with the least bit of common sense. It also obvious from the context if a verb in the imperative mood is an authoritative command, a wise exhortation or advice, a tentative suggestion, or a request or plea. (Contrary to Thieme’s statements, no believer ever gave God orders.) As far as the “first-class condition” is concerned, whether it’s a positive, predetermined “if,” an open, undetermined “if,” or a rhetorical question, is also perfectly obvious to any diligent Christian reading his English Bible.
We could fill a book with Thieme’s pointless “corrections.” “Abide in God’s love” had to be changed to “reside in the sphere of God’s love” (regardless of whether “sphere” is even in the “original”). A simple scriptural challenge about backsliding because of pride and hardness of the heart had to be changed to “reversionism” from “residence in the arrogance complex” and “scar tissue of the soul.” How does this tell us [i:f8d6daa9f7]anything [/i:f8d6daa9f7]that wasn’t perfectly obvious in the plain, straightforward vocabulary of the Bible itself? What possible reason could there be to reword these things with technical mumbo-jumbo that no one else understands? Could you please explain exactly how this has helped you so “immensely”?
These are terms that would only be meaningless and confusing to millions of other Christians—terms that do not improve at all upon the Biblical vocabulary known by nearly all Christians the world over. Yet Thieme and his followers have the audacity to claim that their “technicality” is [i:f8d6daa9f7]necessary [/i:f8d6daa9f7]to understand the “mystery doctrine” and be a “winner believer.”
Thieme’s technical vocabulary often found its way into his so-called “corrected” translations. He was not content to impose his technical mumbo-jumbo on the people—he also had to impose it on the Word of God. He continually wasted his own time and the people’s time, rambling on with this pointless technicality, and never showing them anything that wasn’t already perfectly obvious in plain English.
[i:f8d6daa9f7]As far as Thieme's use of specialized vocabulary, again, this has helped me immensely.[/i:f8d6daa9f7] [02/01]
How exactly does this help anyone? Why do we have to spend so much time and effort learning a whole new vocabulary before we actually get to the content of the Scriptures? With all the obstacles and distractions we face on a daily basis, why add another unnecessary requirement? All it really does is waste our time, when we could actually be studying [i:f8d6daa9f7]the Scriptures [/i:f8d6daa9f7](rather than a man’s technical jargon), and diligently comparing [i:f8d6daa9f7]scriptures[/i:f8d6daa9f7], rather than useless technical terms.
R.B. Thieme Jr.
Posted by:
SpiritualLiberty
()
Date: June 13, 2007 10:03AM
[i:1b100cb8cf]to quote textual critic Bruce Metzger…[/i:1b100cb8cf]
Bruce Metzger is a liberal apostate Bible critic, and anything he says is meaningless to me. He denies the authority and accuracy of many books of the Bible, including Genesis, Jonah, Job, the Gospel of John, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, James, and 1 & 2 Peter. If you would like documentation of this, I would be happy to provide it.
By the way, how do you know that Mr. Metzger is even “in fellowship” when he’s making statements like this or doing his Greek “exegesis”? Because if he’s not continually “rebounding,” he does not have the ministry of the Spirit, and he can’t possibly be serving God, remember?
[i:1b100cb8cf]to quote textual critic Bruce Metzger:
Since not all nuances can be transferred from one language to another, one must choose which to render and which not. The theory that a translation can convey all the qualities of the original is wishful thinking or a deluded fancy. Translation involves, as one of the translators of the New Swedish Bible Project put it, the art of making the right sacrifice. In short, except on a purely practical level [b:1b100cb8cf]translation is never entirely satisfactory[/b:1b100cb8cf].[/i:1b100cb8cf] [01/28]
Again, show me one verse of Scripture that says God’s Word can only be found in the original language. What about the translations found in the Bible itself? The Gospels written in Greek [i:1b100cb8cf]translate [/i:1b100cb8cf]all the words spoken by Christ, His disciples, and those around them in Aramaic. Every Greek NT quote of a Hebrew OT scripture is a [i:1b100cb8cf]translation[/i:1b100cb8cf]. Moses [i:1b100cb8cf]translated [/i:1b100cb8cf]his dialogue with Pharaoh (in Egyptian) into Hebrew when he recorded it. There are passages even in the “original Hebrew” and “original Greek” that are not written in their “original” language. Yet Mr. Metzger, the apostate Bible critic, would have us believe that “translation is never entirely satisfactory.” In that case, there are passages in the “original language” itself that can never be “entirely satisfactory.” After all, the Greek of the Gospels couldn’t possibly convey every “nuance” of the words spoken in Aramaic, could it? The Greek quotes of OT passages couldn’t possibly convey every “nuance” of the Hebrew words, could they? Moses couldn’t possibly have conveyed every “nuance” of his confrontations with Pharaoh, could he?
It is not necessary to explore every possible “nuance” of each word in a sentence to understand what is being said. The apostles were simple men who wrote in plain, straightforward language because they had a message of eternal importance for the human race, which they would never have hidden in mysterious “nuances.” The context determines the usage of the word; that is why we can learn the meanings of many words just by seeing the way they are used in a sentence. Metzger has now placed all common Christians at a level where they cannot truly understand God’s Word. And he has elevated himself to a level where they have to depend on him and the educated elite to tell them what it means.
[i:1b100cb8cf]Even Martin Luther states:
"In the measure that we love the Gospel, so let us place strong
emphasis on the languages. For it is not without reason that God
wrote the Scriptures in the two languages Hebrew and Greek.
That language which God did not despise but rather chose above all
others for the final revelation of His Word is the language
which we also should honor above all others. *It is a sin and shame
that we do not learn this language of our Book*, especially since
God has now provided us people and books, and gives us all kinds of
things which both help us with this task and at the same time
stimulates us to do this." (Luther, 1524)[/i:1b100cb8cf]
At the time in which he said this, Luther could hardly have meant that every teacher in every church should know the original languages. He did not tell all the people they should be learning Greek; he translated the Bible into German so they could read it [i:1b100cb8cf]in their own language[/i:1b100cb8cf]. Luther lived at the time of Roman Catholic domination, under the power of a “church” that said the Bible could only exist in Latin and the common people did not have the right to read it. His controversies and debates were with Romanist theologians like Johann Eck. And his purpose for trying to revive the study of the original languages was so that the Bible could be translated into [i:1b100cb8cf]the language of the common people[/i:1b100cb8cf], not so that the common people would learn koine Greek themselves. In Luther’s day, it was only a tiny, highly-educated minority that had access to Greek and Hebrew. Don’t you think Luther knew this?
[i:1b100cb8cf]I could [b:1b100cb8cf]fill this page [/b:1b100cb8cf]with examples of how, unless you had a lexicon, [b:1b100cb8cf]you would have [u:1b100cb8cf]no idea[/u:1b100cb8cf] what was being stated[/b:1b100cb8cf].[/i:1b100cb8cf]
So 99% of God’s people throughout history had [i:1b100cb8cf]no idea [/i:1b100cb8cf]what was being stated in numerous passages of Scripture? Because God failed to make Greek and Hebrew available to them? What does this say about the sovereignty of God?
Go ahead and “fill the page” with your examples, ephesians. And I will show you how every passage can be understood perfectly well in plain English.
[i:1b100cb8cf]Is anyone without understanding what the Koine (specifically pleroma) means in Ephesians 1:23 going to [b:1b100cb8cf]understand in the [u:1b100cb8cf]slightest bit[/u:1b100cb8cf] [/b:1b100cb8cf]what that passage is really telling us? I could go on and on.[/i:1b100cb8cf]
So all the untold thousands of saints throughout Church history who never knew koine Greek didn’t have the “slightest bit” of understanding of this passage? Are you serious?
[u:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Ephesians 1[/b:1b100cb8cf][/u:1b100cb8cf]
[b:1b100cb8cf]18 [/b:1b100cb8cf]The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what [b:1b100cb8cf]the riches of the glory of his [u:1b100cb8cf]inheritance[/u:1b100cb8cf] in the saints[/b:1b100cb8cf],
[b:1b100cb8cf]19 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
[b:1b100cb8cf]20 [/b:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Which he wrought [u:1b100cb8cf]in Christ[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf], when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
[b:1b100cb8cf]21 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
[b:1b100cb8cf]22 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
[b:1b100cb8cf]23 [/b:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Which is [u:1b100cb8cf]his body[/u:1b100cb8cf], the [u:1b100cb8cf]fulness of him[/u:1b100cb8cf] that filleth all in all[/b:1b100cb8cf].
This is one of many passages describing God’s great eternal purpose in Jesus Christ…the divine solution for the sins of the human race; the Gospel of salvation proclaimed to Jew and Gentile; every believer complete in Christ; Christ as the Head of the Body; and of course our Lord’s complete victory over sin, death, and Satan and the fallen angels—all of which will be ultimately fulfilled “in the dispensation of the fulness of times”:
[u:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Ephesians 1[/b:1b100cb8cf][/u:1b100cb8cf]
[b:1b100cb8cf]7 [/b:1b100cb8cf]In whom we have redemption through his blood, [b:1b100cb8cf]the [u:1b100cb8cf]forgiveness[/u:1b100cb8cf] of sins[/b:1b100cb8cf], according to the riches of his grace;
[b:1b100cb8cf]8 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
[b:1b100cb8cf]9 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
[b:1b100cb8cf]10 [/b:1b100cb8cf]That [b:1b100cb8cf]in the dispensation of the fulness of times [/b:1b100cb8cf]he might gather together in one [b:1b100cb8cf]all things in Christ[/b:1b100cb8cf], both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
[b:1b100cb8cf]11 [/b:1b100cb8cf]In whom also we [b:1b100cb8cf][u:1b100cb8cf]have obtained[/u:1b100cb8cf] an [u:1b100cb8cf]inheritance[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf], being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Here we have God’s eternal purpose in Christ, as well as the complete forgiveness of our sins [i:1b100cb8cf]already accomplished[/i:1b100cb8cf], and our [i:1b100cb8cf]guaranteed inheritance[/i:1b100cb8cf], in one of your favorite chapters to quote, Ephesians 1.
Paul gives another great dissertation in Colossians on Jesus Christ as the Head of the Body and the ultimate fulness and completion of God’s eternal purpose:
[u:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Colossians 1[/b:1b100cb8cf][/u:1b100cb8cf]
[b:1b100cb8cf]15 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[b:1b100cb8cf]16 [/b:1b100cb8cf]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[b:1b100cb8cf]17 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
[b:1b100cb8cf]18 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And [b:1b100cb8cf]he is the [u:1b100cb8cf]head of the body[/u:1b100cb8cf], the church[/b:1b100cb8cf]: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
[b:1b100cb8cf]19 [/b:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]For it pleased the Father that [u:1b100cb8cf]in him should all fulness dwell[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf];
[b:1b100cb8cf]20 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Jesus Christ is the fulness of God’s eternal purpose. The Church is His “body” and His “fulness,” and as His people, we are “complete in Him.”
[b:1b100cb8cf]Col 2:9-10 [/b:1b100cb8cf]For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And [b:1b100cb8cf]ye are [u:1b100cb8cf]complete in him[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf], which is the head of all principality and power:
In verses 13-15, Paul again describes our Lord’s great victory over the kingdom of darkness, also reminding us again of the complete forgiveness of our sins.
[b:1b100cb8cf]Col 2:13-15[/b:1b100cb8cf] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, [b:1b100cb8cf]having [u:1b100cb8cf]forgiven[/u:1b100cb8cf] you [u:1b100cb8cf]all[/u:1b100cb8cf] trespasses[/b:1b100cb8cf]; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And [b:1b100cb8cf]having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it[/b:1b100cb8cf].
Our Lord’s victory over sin would certainly not be complete if He had left our forgiveness incomplete. (I am still wondering how a perfect, holy, just God can partially forgive?)
The Biblical descriptions of God’s eternal purpose fulfilled in Christ, including our Lord’s glorious victory, the Church as His fulness, and Christ as the fulness of every believer, are proclaimed clearly in plain English. The NT, especially in Paul’s epistles, abounds with passages declaring the great divine purpose fulfilled in the Person of Christ, and it is far more profitable to keep searching and reading the Scriptures than to slice and dice Greek words and waste our time rewording things with a man’s needless technicality. All of these great Biblical principles can be learned and understood by diligently reading and comparing these passages, rather than wasting our time chasing “nuances.”
[i:1b100cb8cf]I could go on and on.[/i:1b100cb8cf]
Please do. I would love to see you “fill the page” with your examples.
Bruce Metzger is a liberal apostate Bible critic, and anything he says is meaningless to me. He denies the authority and accuracy of many books of the Bible, including Genesis, Jonah, Job, the Gospel of John, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, James, and 1 & 2 Peter. If you would like documentation of this, I would be happy to provide it.
By the way, how do you know that Mr. Metzger is even “in fellowship” when he’s making statements like this or doing his Greek “exegesis”? Because if he’s not continually “rebounding,” he does not have the ministry of the Spirit, and he can’t possibly be serving God, remember?
[i:1b100cb8cf]to quote textual critic Bruce Metzger:
Since not all nuances can be transferred from one language to another, one must choose which to render and which not. The theory that a translation can convey all the qualities of the original is wishful thinking or a deluded fancy. Translation involves, as one of the translators of the New Swedish Bible Project put it, the art of making the right sacrifice. In short, except on a purely practical level [b:1b100cb8cf]translation is never entirely satisfactory[/b:1b100cb8cf].[/i:1b100cb8cf] [01/28]
Again, show me one verse of Scripture that says God’s Word can only be found in the original language. What about the translations found in the Bible itself? The Gospels written in Greek [i:1b100cb8cf]translate [/i:1b100cb8cf]all the words spoken by Christ, His disciples, and those around them in Aramaic. Every Greek NT quote of a Hebrew OT scripture is a [i:1b100cb8cf]translation[/i:1b100cb8cf]. Moses [i:1b100cb8cf]translated [/i:1b100cb8cf]his dialogue with Pharaoh (in Egyptian) into Hebrew when he recorded it. There are passages even in the “original Hebrew” and “original Greek” that are not written in their “original” language. Yet Mr. Metzger, the apostate Bible critic, would have us believe that “translation is never entirely satisfactory.” In that case, there are passages in the “original language” itself that can never be “entirely satisfactory.” After all, the Greek of the Gospels couldn’t possibly convey every “nuance” of the words spoken in Aramaic, could it? The Greek quotes of OT passages couldn’t possibly convey every “nuance” of the Hebrew words, could they? Moses couldn’t possibly have conveyed every “nuance” of his confrontations with Pharaoh, could he?
It is not necessary to explore every possible “nuance” of each word in a sentence to understand what is being said. The apostles were simple men who wrote in plain, straightforward language because they had a message of eternal importance for the human race, which they would never have hidden in mysterious “nuances.” The context determines the usage of the word; that is why we can learn the meanings of many words just by seeing the way they are used in a sentence. Metzger has now placed all common Christians at a level where they cannot truly understand God’s Word. And he has elevated himself to a level where they have to depend on him and the educated elite to tell them what it means.
[i:1b100cb8cf]Even Martin Luther states:
"In the measure that we love the Gospel, so let us place strong
emphasis on the languages. For it is not without reason that God
wrote the Scriptures in the two languages Hebrew and Greek.
That language which God did not despise but rather chose above all
others for the final revelation of His Word is the language
which we also should honor above all others. *It is a sin and shame
that we do not learn this language of our Book*, especially since
God has now provided us people and books, and gives us all kinds of
things which both help us with this task and at the same time
stimulates us to do this." (Luther, 1524)[/i:1b100cb8cf]
At the time in which he said this, Luther could hardly have meant that every teacher in every church should know the original languages. He did not tell all the people they should be learning Greek; he translated the Bible into German so they could read it [i:1b100cb8cf]in their own language[/i:1b100cb8cf]. Luther lived at the time of Roman Catholic domination, under the power of a “church” that said the Bible could only exist in Latin and the common people did not have the right to read it. His controversies and debates were with Romanist theologians like Johann Eck. And his purpose for trying to revive the study of the original languages was so that the Bible could be translated into [i:1b100cb8cf]the language of the common people[/i:1b100cb8cf], not so that the common people would learn koine Greek themselves. In Luther’s day, it was only a tiny, highly-educated minority that had access to Greek and Hebrew. Don’t you think Luther knew this?
[i:1b100cb8cf]I could [b:1b100cb8cf]fill this page [/b:1b100cb8cf]with examples of how, unless you had a lexicon, [b:1b100cb8cf]you would have [u:1b100cb8cf]no idea[/u:1b100cb8cf] what was being stated[/b:1b100cb8cf].[/i:1b100cb8cf]
So 99% of God’s people throughout history had [i:1b100cb8cf]no idea [/i:1b100cb8cf]what was being stated in numerous passages of Scripture? Because God failed to make Greek and Hebrew available to them? What does this say about the sovereignty of God?
Go ahead and “fill the page” with your examples, ephesians. And I will show you how every passage can be understood perfectly well in plain English.
[i:1b100cb8cf]Is anyone without understanding what the Koine (specifically pleroma) means in Ephesians 1:23 going to [b:1b100cb8cf]understand in the [u:1b100cb8cf]slightest bit[/u:1b100cb8cf] [/b:1b100cb8cf]what that passage is really telling us? I could go on and on.[/i:1b100cb8cf]
So all the untold thousands of saints throughout Church history who never knew koine Greek didn’t have the “slightest bit” of understanding of this passage? Are you serious?
[u:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Ephesians 1[/b:1b100cb8cf][/u:1b100cb8cf]
[b:1b100cb8cf]18 [/b:1b100cb8cf]The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what [b:1b100cb8cf]the riches of the glory of his [u:1b100cb8cf]inheritance[/u:1b100cb8cf] in the saints[/b:1b100cb8cf],
[b:1b100cb8cf]19 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
[b:1b100cb8cf]20 [/b:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Which he wrought [u:1b100cb8cf]in Christ[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf], when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
[b:1b100cb8cf]21 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
[b:1b100cb8cf]22 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
[b:1b100cb8cf]23 [/b:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Which is [u:1b100cb8cf]his body[/u:1b100cb8cf], the [u:1b100cb8cf]fulness of him[/u:1b100cb8cf] that filleth all in all[/b:1b100cb8cf].
This is one of many passages describing God’s great eternal purpose in Jesus Christ…the divine solution for the sins of the human race; the Gospel of salvation proclaimed to Jew and Gentile; every believer complete in Christ; Christ as the Head of the Body; and of course our Lord’s complete victory over sin, death, and Satan and the fallen angels—all of which will be ultimately fulfilled “in the dispensation of the fulness of times”:
[u:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Ephesians 1[/b:1b100cb8cf][/u:1b100cb8cf]
[b:1b100cb8cf]7 [/b:1b100cb8cf]In whom we have redemption through his blood, [b:1b100cb8cf]the [u:1b100cb8cf]forgiveness[/u:1b100cb8cf] of sins[/b:1b100cb8cf], according to the riches of his grace;
[b:1b100cb8cf]8 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
[b:1b100cb8cf]9 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
[b:1b100cb8cf]10 [/b:1b100cb8cf]That [b:1b100cb8cf]in the dispensation of the fulness of times [/b:1b100cb8cf]he might gather together in one [b:1b100cb8cf]all things in Christ[/b:1b100cb8cf], both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
[b:1b100cb8cf]11 [/b:1b100cb8cf]In whom also we [b:1b100cb8cf][u:1b100cb8cf]have obtained[/u:1b100cb8cf] an [u:1b100cb8cf]inheritance[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf], being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Here we have God’s eternal purpose in Christ, as well as the complete forgiveness of our sins [i:1b100cb8cf]already accomplished[/i:1b100cb8cf], and our [i:1b100cb8cf]guaranteed inheritance[/i:1b100cb8cf], in one of your favorite chapters to quote, Ephesians 1.
Paul gives another great dissertation in Colossians on Jesus Christ as the Head of the Body and the ultimate fulness and completion of God’s eternal purpose:
[u:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]Colossians 1[/b:1b100cb8cf][/u:1b100cb8cf]
[b:1b100cb8cf]15 [/b:1b100cb8cf]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[b:1b100cb8cf]16 [/b:1b100cb8cf]For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[b:1b100cb8cf]17 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
[b:1b100cb8cf]18 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And [b:1b100cb8cf]he is the [u:1b100cb8cf]head of the body[/u:1b100cb8cf], the church[/b:1b100cb8cf]: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
[b:1b100cb8cf]19 [/b:1b100cb8cf][b:1b100cb8cf]For it pleased the Father that [u:1b100cb8cf]in him should all fulness dwell[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf];
[b:1b100cb8cf]20 [/b:1b100cb8cf]And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Jesus Christ is the fulness of God’s eternal purpose. The Church is His “body” and His “fulness,” and as His people, we are “complete in Him.”
[b:1b100cb8cf]Col 2:9-10 [/b:1b100cb8cf]For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And [b:1b100cb8cf]ye are [u:1b100cb8cf]complete in him[/u:1b100cb8cf][/b:1b100cb8cf], which is the head of all principality and power:
In verses 13-15, Paul again describes our Lord’s great victory over the kingdom of darkness, also reminding us again of the complete forgiveness of our sins.
[b:1b100cb8cf]Col 2:13-15[/b:1b100cb8cf] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, [b:1b100cb8cf]having [u:1b100cb8cf]forgiven[/u:1b100cb8cf] you [u:1b100cb8cf]all[/u:1b100cb8cf] trespasses[/b:1b100cb8cf]; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And [b:1b100cb8cf]having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it[/b:1b100cb8cf].
Our Lord’s victory over sin would certainly not be complete if He had left our forgiveness incomplete. (I am still wondering how a perfect, holy, just God can partially forgive?)
The Biblical descriptions of God’s eternal purpose fulfilled in Christ, including our Lord’s glorious victory, the Church as His fulness, and Christ as the fulness of every believer, are proclaimed clearly in plain English. The NT, especially in Paul’s epistles, abounds with passages declaring the great divine purpose fulfilled in the Person of Christ, and it is far more profitable to keep searching and reading the Scriptures than to slice and dice Greek words and waste our time rewording things with a man’s needless technicality. All of these great Biblical principles can be learned and understood by diligently reading and comparing these passages, rather than wasting our time chasing “nuances.”
[i:1b100cb8cf]I could go on and on.[/i:1b100cb8cf]
Please do. I would love to see you “fill the page” with your examples.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.