What EXACTLY is 'The Sinner's Prayer'?greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread |
I see this referred to periodically and I don't know exactly the wording which some find so offensive.Please edify me.
-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000
The following is from the web page of the Southern Baptist Convention that Scott refereed to in another thread...Are you ready to accept the gift of eternal life that Jesus is offering you right now? If it is your sincere desire to ask Jesus to come into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior, then talk to God from your heart through the Sinner's Prayer:
"Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to purchase a place in Heaven for me. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life."
If you have trusted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, please let us know. We want to rejoice in what God has done in your life and help you to grow spiritually.
If you have questions or concerns you would like help with, please call or write and let us know. We're here to help you understand the love that Jesus is offering you for free, no matter who or where you are. E-mail us at plan@sbc.net, call 615-244-2355, or write to us at:
Southern Baptist Convention 901 Commerce Street Nashville, TN 37203
...This is just an example of the sinner's prayer. Many erroneously use this or something similar to this when trying to converting sinners to Christ.
What is so offensive is that this prayer leaves out Baptism, which is included in the salvation process. See Acts 2:38.
Many are falsely lead to believe they are saved after repeating something similar to the above.
-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000
If this creates a tangent on the nature of the Trinity or the like, let's try to move it to another thread, but another thing offensive to some about many versions of the Sinner's Prayer is that it is usually prayed to Jesus, the Son. There is no scripture for praying to Jesus, only to the Father. Jesus is our mediator, our high priest, whose shed blood allows us to approach the Father. Jesus came so we may have relationship with the Father, that we may know the Father.If anyone can find in scripture (reliable translation or Greek) an example of prayer to Jesus (as opposed to through Jesus as our mediator) or instructions in scripture on praying to Jesus, I will humblely accept correction on this matter.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
Thank you both for your responses.Mark, I agree that we should pray to the Father, in the Name of Jesus, His Son, through the agency of the Holy Spirit. I DO hear many people praying to Jesus, but I don't think they are doing it out of disobedience; I'll leave their edification to the Spirit. (And encourage their reading of the Scriptures).
I am going to copy and paste the inclusion in the back pages of the Gideons New Testament (I've discovered that each different kind of Bible has different inclusions) so that you can tell me what is offensive about it:
My Decision to Receive Christ as My Savior
Confessing to God that I am a sinner, and believing that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins on the cross and was raised for my justification, I do now receive and confess Him as my personal Savior.
______________________________________________________________________ Name
______________________________________________________________________ Date
Respectfully,
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
Mark, may I humbly correct you?Read John chapters 14-16. Several times Jesus says to ask (pray) in his name. But once, in John 14:14, he says, "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." He is obviously talking about prayer here.
Also, in Acts we have an example of a person praying specifically to Jesus. In Acts 7:59, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Not, "Father, receive my spirit in Jesus' name.")
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
John,The John passage you refer to is apostolic. It is not a general teaching on prayer. The Apostles had a very unique relationship with Jesus.
And the Acts passage, Stephen sees Jesus before him in a vision, so it is only proper he would speak to Jesus rather than ignore Him and speak to the Father. Again, not a general teaching on prayer.
But neither of these have anything to do with the "sinners prayer" (which I know you were not specifically dealing with).
I am still waiting for someone to show me anywhere in the Scriptures where it says to "pray and ask Jesus into your heart" (outside of the back of a Gideon Bible, that is). It's a manmade doctrine for a manmade salvation.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
C9rrection, Scott:Nowhere in the Gideon's Bible does it say to 'pray Jesus into your heart'. It says:
My Decision to Receive Christ as My Savior
Confessing to God that I am a sinner, and believing that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins on the cross and was raised for my justification, I do now receive and confess Him as my personal Savior.
______________________________________________________________________ Name
______________________________________________________________________ Date
Jesus and God DO talk about the heart quite a bit, though. As in 'God looks on the heart, not on the outward appearance'. Also, 'I will put my laws into their hearts', and, 'Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts...'
In the Strong's Concordance there are almost two full pages of references to the heart.
In Him, and He in my heart,
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
Correction, Scott:Nowhere in the Gideon's Bible does it say to 'pray Jesus into your heart'. It says:
My Decision to Receive Christ as My Savior
Confessing to God that I am a sinner, and believing that the Lord Jesus Christ died for my sins on the cross and was raised for my justification, I do now receive and confess Him as my personal Savior.
______________________________________________________________________ Name
______________________________________________________________________ Date
Jesus and God DO talk about the heart quite a bit, though. As in 'God looks on the heart, not on the outward appearance'. Also, 'I will put my laws into their hearts', and, 'Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts...'
In the Strong's Concordance there are almost two full pages of references to the heart.
In Him, and He in my heart,
(Hope this doesn't post twice). ~ Tried to get it back to correct the spelling error.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
This is another tradition which has this overwhelming acceptance and use but has no scriptural basis. I always found it interesting that when reading the histories from the turn of the last century (1800s) the "sinner's prayer" didnt exist. In Finney's and others revivals, those who were saved were encouraged to get on their knees pleading for God's mercy. They stayed there (on their knees penitent) until God answered their prayers and granted them salvation.I am not positive of the origin, but my guess is that this is a product of the mass evangelisms of the 20th century. Like most things, it probably started as a genuine practice meant to meet certain needs, but degenerated into a formula (like the whole "altar call" idea, which is a whole different subject).
I think this is another area where our culture has dangerously crept in. Could you imagine having people in the front of the church all night, maybe for days, on their knees pleading for God's mercy on their souls? That's what happened in the 1800s. That's what happened at Cane Ridge, if what I read was an accurate account. But see, we are too modern today, and have schedules to keep. So make it quick, easy and painless. I can't imagine anyone missing one, two, three days of work because they want to be right with God. Our culture won't allow it, and few would be willing to pay the price (possibly getting fired) to ensure that they have an eternal destiny with Christ.
Tony Campolo once said that the American culture is Satanic. That statement sounds shocking, until you think about it. Who has the most to gain by a schedule-driven, over-worked culture? Satan does. By keeping everyone harried, there is no time to consider the true state of the soul, and there will be no possibility of taking the time that is needed to seek God and find true salvation.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
John,Thank you for pointing out those scriptures. As I wrote my original comments, I had to question myself if I was writing something that had been told me only and I hadn't yet verified that or if I had independently verified what I had been told. Thus my asking for correction if I was wrong. I was pretty confident I had checked it out, but don't recall reviewing those passages you pointed out for application to us today. I will certainly weigh them, though my initial reaction is to believe Scott is right about the Acts passage, Stephen's prayer was with a vision of Jesus involved, so I wouldn't use that as proof it is ok for us today, unless you have a habit of seeing visions of Jesus.
Thank you again.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
Well, not lately anyway. :-) I was not using those verses to support the Sinner's Prayer per se, just to point out that prayer to Jesus was acceptable. He is for me, as He was for Thomas, "my Lord and my God."I am not at all sure I accept the viewpoint that those passages were meant only for the apostles, either. For the apostles foremost, but not for the apostles solely. Otherwise other parts of that passage just make no sense.
As for me, I spend a lot of time on-line in chat rooms, and have lead some to faith in Christ via that medium. I have used (gasp) a "Sinner's Prayer" variant, because it is the best way I can tell that the other person has passed through three of the required covenantal terms: belief, repentance, and confession, and walk them through it. A public (ok ... virtually public) prayer takes care of that rather neatly. However, I make sure I tell the person they need to get into a local church and be immersed, because one thing that has yet to be invented is a virtual baptistery.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
John,Do you tell them they are saved after this prayer? Why do you tell them they need to be baptized?
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
Online discussions bring with them their own unique sets of problems. If you know of a better way of handling walking someone through a conversion in an online discussion, by all means let me know. I'm all ears (to quote H. Ross Perot).
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
Yes, John,Each circumstance requires its own solution. That is why, when a person is alone in a hotel/motel room, with perhaps a less than happy life and comes upon a Gideon Bible, it is like a lifeline sometimes.
There have been many testimonies of potential suicides which have been prevented just by the reading of this little New Testament.
The Billy Graham crusades also direct people to Bible-teaching churches, and I imagine direct people to baptism. The Apostle Paul was baptized several days after he was saved. We were baptized three years after we were saved. God looks on the heart.
Any and all methods to get out the Gospel are needed.
'The fields are white already to harvest, but the laborers are few'... The Gideons give God's word where people can't go. In the 101 years since their inception, hundreds of thousands have accepted Christ. Millions have received the Bibles. People kibitzing from the sidelines will not get the job done.
-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000
The Apostle Paul was baptized several days after he was saved? Thats not what MY Bible says. The Apostle Paul was baptized several days after he encountered the risen Christ ... but that is not the same thing. I know a lot of people who have encountered Christ, and are not saved.
-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000
the apostle Paul was instructed several days after his encounter with Jesus to "be baptized and wash his sins away". how is it that a person is "saved" without the removal of his sin? he was told to go into the city and there he would be told what he MUST do, not go and put on a public display of what had already taken place in his heart.
-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000
OK Connie. It doesn't use the words "Pray Jesus into your heart" but the implication is certainly there. What it does say to do is, according to your post, receive Him, without telling you how to do so, and sign your name. Where is THAT in the Scriptures?As to your original post, what I find offensive is presenting manmade doctrines as though they were of God and telling people that because they have done what men have said, they have forgiveness of sin. I find leading others astray to be extremely offensive. It's hard to soft-soap Gal 1:6-10 and 2 Cor 11:3-15. Jesus Himself didn't speak too kindly of those who taught, as doctrines, the precepts of men, did He?
I admit there have been times that I have met someone who had obeyed the Gideon Bible (or some tract with the same kind of thing in it) and it shortened the distance we had to cover bring them to Biblical salvation. However, I just want to weep when I think of all those who follow after this made-up theology, and think they are hunky-dorey, and will never come to a knowledge of the truth because they thought their search was over, thanks to that prayer or signature.
Also, Connie, you were not a Christian until God declared you one, no matter what you felt. I'm not trying to be harsh, honest. But the Bible is clear about what a person is to do in order to have salvation.
-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000
Well said, robert. :)
-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000
I think this whole "pray for Jesus to come into your heart" stuff comes from a faulty interpretation of Revelation 3:20: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." The "faith only" crowd interprets this as Jesus standing at our "heart's door" and knocking to come into our life. But that is far from the context of the passage! Jesus is speaking to the CHURCH in Laodicea; i.e., baptized believers. These people had grown spiritually lukewarm, so much so that Jesus wasn't even in their church anymore. Here he was, outside the door of their church, knocking to get back in! (How pathetic, and how like so many churches today!) The verse has NOTHING AT ALL to do with individual salvation, and to use it that way is pulling it out of context and creating a false doctrine around it.
-- Anonymous, June 28, 2000
Even the Great Baptizer, John, implied that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is more important than water baptism. Verse after verse refers to this.I believe that salvation by baptism is that 'other Gospel' which is condemned. The verses in Galatians 1 even mention it's by grace.
When a person's feet are turned in the opposite direction from the way he was going, in response to God's intervention, THAT is the starting point. From the instant of Paul's saying: 'Who are You, Lord?', he started obeying. So did I. I know whom I've believed, and I know when I did it: Three years before I was immersed a second time. In obedience to His saying, 'Be baptized'.
Nothing you say can change what I know happened in my own life. The Holy Spirit took up residence in my inner being and has not left me since (when I first believed). Scripture supports my experience.
These verses just following are not in support of that, because while I typed somewhat today, I also had a very busy day ~ including going out to dinner with my husband to celebrate our 47th Anniversary ~ a fun thing!
I Peter 3:8-17: NASB
8: To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted and humble in spirit;
9: Not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.
10: For, LET HIM WHO MEANS TO LOVE LIFE AND SEE GOOD DAYS REFRAIN HIS TONGUE FROM EVIL AND HIS LIPS FROM SPEAKING GUILE.
11: AND LET HIM TURN AWAY FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD;; LET HIM SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT.
12: FOR THE EYES OF THE LORD ARE UPON THE RIGHTEOUS, AND HIS EARS ATTEND TO THEIR PRAYER , BUT THE FACE OF THE LORD IS AGAINST THOSE WHO DO EVIL.
13: And who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?
14: But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, [Capitalized in the NASB] 15: But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is within you,yet with gentleness and reverence;
16: And keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
17: For it is better, if God should will it so, that you will suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
I Peter 3:21: AMPLIFIED
And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], {Repeat: BAPTISM SAVES YOU FROM INWARD QUESTIONINGS AND FEARS}
not by the removing of outward body filth (bathing), but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience [inward cleanness and peace] before God, [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours]
{Repeat: [BECAUSE YOU ARE DEMONSTRATING WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE YOURS]}
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I Peter 3:21: NIV
And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also, not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience before God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand - - with angels, authorities and powers in submission to Him.
{Repeat: IT SAVES YOU BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.}
I Peter 3:21: NASB
And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:14-21: AMPLIFIED
14: But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them: You Jews and all you residents of Jerusalem, let this be [explained] to you so that you will know and understand ; listen closely to what I have to say.
15: For these men are not drunk, as you imagine, for it is [only] the third hour [about nine o'clock] of the day.
16: But [instead], this is [the beginning of] what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:
17: And it shall come to pass in the last days, God declares , that I will pour out My Spirit upon all mankind, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy - - telling forth the divine counsels - - and your young men shall see visions (that is, divinely granted appearances), and your old men shall dream [divinely suggested] dreams.
18: Yes, and on my menservants also and on My maidservants in those days i will pour out of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy - - telling forth the divine counsels and predicting future events pertaining espaecially to God's kingdom.
19: And I will show wonders in the sky above and signs on the earth beneath, blood and fire and smoking vapor;
20: The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the obvious day of the Lord comes, that notable and conspicuous and renowned [day].
21: And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord - - that is, invoking ,adoring, and worshipping the Lord (Christ) - - shall be saved.
{Repeat: 16: But [instead], this is [the beginning of] what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:} Since we are in the end-times (it hasn't ended yet, has it?) this still applies.
{Repeat: 21: And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord - - that is, invoking, adoring, and worshipping the Lord (Christ) - - shall be saved. SHALL BE SAVED
I wrote these out because of this one verse, but the passage addresses all kinds of questions discussed on this forum ~ when the Lord will return, for example, and the time period when the gifts of the Spirit would be poured out and operative.
In verse 21, there is no mention of baptism, only calling on the name of the Lord. (Christ).
John 10:9: NASB
I am the door; if anyone enters through me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
I AM THE DOOR; IF ANYONE ENTERS THROUGH ME, HE SHALL BE SAVED, AND SHALL GO IN AND OUT AND FIND PASTURE.
Acts 2:21 NASB
AND IT SHALL BE, THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD* SHALL BE SAVED . {AMPLIFIED says: * 'that is, invoking, adoring, and worshipping the Lord (Christ)', not just saying 'Lord, Lord...'
Acts 15:8-13: NASB
8: And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did also to us;
9: And He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. CLEANSING THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH.
10: Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11: But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.
Romans 10:9,10 NASB
9: That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;
10: For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
{Those two verses bear repeating:
9: That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved;
10: For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.}
11: For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." {Emphasis is in NASB}
12: For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him.
13: for WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.
Then it goes into those well-known verses about the beautiful feet of those who bear the glad tidings of good things...
Luke 7:48-50: NASB
48: And He said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven".
49: And those who were reclining at the table with Him
began to say to themselves, "Who is this man who even forgives sins?"
50: And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace".
Luke 8:12: NASB
And those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts,
so that they may not believe and be saved.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
I have the feeling that this is not going to look wonderfully formatted when this 'unforgiving' transformation from e-mail to post occurs. Sorry. I like nice neat paragraphs, which makes for more readable material.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
H-m-m!! Not as bad as I thought.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
Here we go again with "salvation by baptism." This mischaracterization of our position is really getting tired.Connie, you wrote ... "And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], {Repeat: BAPTISM SAVES YOU FROM INWARD QUESTIONINGS AND FEARS}" ... etc.
There is far too much in your last post for me to tackle in my limited time (perhaps someone else will take up the task). But Connie, the bracketed statements in the Amplified Bible are INTERPOLATIONS by the people who put it together, who happened to believe a certain way and wove their viewpoint into it. They are not in the actual text, so if you are basing your viewpoint on those texts, you are NOT basing your viewpoint on scripture, but on the doctrines of men.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
Yes, the mischaracterization does indeed get tiresome and I am too tired to deal with it tonight. So later.And Connie, I cannot disagree with you more strongly, but I still want to wish you and your husband a happy anniversary. 47 years is more than a couple of years - congratulations. My wife and I will celebrate 20 this November.
To anyone interested - Central Christian Church in Fort Lauderdale (where I am) has a new web address. It is www.CCCflorida.org.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
H-m-m. 3:00 A.M. That's what I get for taking a nap.The following is from the other forum I visit, and I posted it here back in April but it is relevant now. I went back looking for what the Amplified says of itself. (So that I don't have to type the whole thing out again). Can't find that.
********************************************************************** **************
From that other forum, from 'evan': eschnei Junior Member Posts: 21 Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-15- 2000 06:15 PM -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ---------- GTE/HIVE I am a student of Ancient Greek at the University of Oklahoma. I am learning what is called attic Greek (like what Homer and Plato wrote in.) This is one of the more complex forms of Greek. I only say this because Koine (or common) Greek is probably the easiest form of Greek to translate. I would in no way consider myself an expert (seeing that this is only my second semester) but I think I can help you.
First I will write the verse John 3:7 in Greek (or in transliterated Greek,) and then I will show the root of each word; finally I will give you a translation that I come up with.
"May thaumasays hoti aypon soy, Day humas gennaythaynigh anohthen."
May - means "don't"
thaumasays - is from thaumahoh, meaning to be amazed - in the text it means "(understood you) be amazed."
hoti - means "that"
aypon - is a past tense of the word legoh which mean "to say or speak" - in the text it means "I said"
soy - is a form of sue which means "you" - in the text it specifically means "to you"
Day - means "it is necessary" or "he/she must"
humas - is a form of humays which means "you" - in the text it means "for you"
gennaythaynigh - is a passive infinitive of the word gennaoh which means "to be born" - in the text it means "to be born"
anohthen - means "from on high" or "from above."
So literally the verse translates (this is the "evan" translation) - "Don't be surprised that I said to you, It is necessary for you to be born from above."
Make of this what you will, but the word "anohthen" or "from above" is pretty specific.....what else could it mean besides born of God - which is Salvation.
I hope this was helpful, In Christ, evan
-- Connie (hive@gte.net), April 17, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Also from evan: eschnei Junior Member Posts: 21 Registered: Apr 2000 posted 04-16- 2000 02:42 PM -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- ---------- There has been some talk in this post that John 3:5 is talking about baptism. John 3:5 says, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and of spirit."
Where do you get that born of water means baptized??? Why would he have not just said baptized of water and spirit, if that is what he meant??? The word for baptize in the Greek is "bapteezoh," the word used in the text is "gennahoh," meaning to be born.
OK, so if to be born of water doesn't mean to be baptized, what does it mean?
Let's look of the very next chapter of John (4), in which Jesus is talking to the Samaritan women at the well. Interestingly, Jesus is also talking to this woman about water, and he says in verses 13- 14, "Jesus answered, 'everyone who drinks of this water (meaning the water of the well,) will be thirsty again, (14) but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eteranl life."
This sounds like Jesus is describing what it is to be "born of water" for the water he speaks of "wells up to eternal life." Certainly in chapter 3, Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus about salvation, so it only makes sense that when he says "born of water and of spirit," he is speaking of salvation and not baptism.
In Christ, evan
I repeat what evan said:
Where do you get that born of water means baptized??? Why would he have not just said baptized of water and spirit, if that is what he meant??? The word for baptize in the Greek is "bapteezoh," the word used in the text is "gennahoh," meaning to be born.
The above two posts are not my words.
-- Connie (hive@gte.net), April 17, 2000.
To repeat:
Where do you get that born of water means baptized??? Why would he have not just said baptized of water and spirit, if that is what he meant??? The word for baptize in the Greek is "bapteezoh," the word used in the text is "gennahoh," meaning to be born.
To repeat:
gennaythaynigh - is a passive infinitive of the word gennaoh which means "to be born" - in the text it means "to be born"
This writer is using the 'phonic' pronunciation of 'baptizo', so I suppose he is using a similar pronunciation for 'gennahoh'.
Respectfully,
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
Also, John,Above, I typed out three versions of I Peter 3:21 ~ the NASB, the AMPLIFIED, and the NIV. I didn't include the KJV, because I figured it is the most familiar. All of them say something similar. I don't quite agree with your definition of the Amplified, but of course, one DOES have to take the brackets, parentheses, and italics into account.
That is why I wanted to show what the Amplified says of itself. It says they are justified interpretations, and that we can't get a complete sense of the meaning in word-for-word translations because of the limitations of the English.
Tomorrow. (Or later today).
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
Thank you, Scott, for your kind wishes.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
I was thinking about this today and I have to ask a question. For all of you who dislike the "sinner's prayer" for whatever reason: Just what do you do to have a person make a commitment to Christ?This isnt a challenge, but I am curious. I have been guilty of using a form of a "sinner's prayer" (see my web page) because it seemed to be the most efficient and effective way of procuring a verbal, pubic statement of commitment. Verbal assent in my thinking is essential, because the individual must vocally reinforce what they have internally decided because otherwise it is only mental exercise (I think this is what Paul was getting at when he said "If you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus"). I don't believe that the "sinner's prayer" is a magic cure all that gets you saved. But it does have some utility value once the person has already been convicted of sin and need to turn to God for salvation.
I am really interested in hearing your responses.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
Dr. Jon:Most often, I've heard the evangelist/preacher/witnesser/etc. ask the enw believer to speak some form of Peter's confession -- "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God." Some have them repeat the words, some have them say the words or phrase in "their own words", some have them add a phrase expressing their repentence or submission to His will, etc. Where I attend, the preacher asks the entire congregation present to speak the words with the new believer, as a public gropup affirmation of submission.
Of course, the arguments you'll get here are not that the "sinner's prayer" be spoken, or that any form of spoken expression be used -- we all do that. The argument is whether the spoken expression is the end of the new believer's responsibility in the acceptance of salvation by faith. But then, you know where we stand on that.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
John,I would like to point out that in most of the references I made above, I used the NASB, which I understand is considered to be one of the best translatians by present-day scholars. One of the exceptions is the Acts 2:14-21, because I felt that it was clearer. It was really a selfish reason I had in using that one; I didn't want to be typing all night.
I can't agree that The Amplified is 'interpolating' because that implies falsification. The translators sincerely believed that the true meanings of the passages could not be fully understood without those clarifying words. There were a large number of expert Greek scholars involved in that project, so it isn't as though a very few did the translating.
There will necessarily be many Evangelicals doing Bible interpretations, because they are devoted to finding out what the Scriptures really say. Goodness. 'Evangelical' is used like a curse word around here. Euangelion ~ evangelist or evangelical, or some form of that word. Paul to Timothy: 'Do the work of an evangelist'.
Dr. Jon,
Yes, some thing is required when we are not face-to-face with a potential believer. Even when we are.
Respectfully,
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
Connie;Interpolation does not imply falsification, although that is one possible meaning according to Websters. I merely used the word to mean "to alter ... (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter; to insert (words) into a text." And why, as you mentioned before, do we have to take the bracketed statements into account, if they are the opinions of men? You wrote, "The translators sincerely believed that the true meanings of the passages could not be fully understood without those clarifying words." What are we, a bunch of illiterate dolts that we cannot read and understand for ourselves what the plain teaching of Scripture is without these men adding their opinions into the text to "clarify"? (If you ask me, it does not clarify at all; if anything, it muddles and even changes somewhat the meaning.) To me, this comes dangerously close to the warning in Revelation regarding adding to or taking away from what has been written. Were I a Bible translator I would fear to tread on that ground.
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
Dear John,I agree that any reasonably intelligent person can readily understand the English. (Even some not so intelligent). It is the Greek and Hebrew texts from which we get ALL of our translations that they and I are referring to. These have nuances not readily translated into English. Most translations are 'word-for-word', because of the fear of 'adding to' the intent of God. But this cheats the English reader of the intended meaning by leaving out ('taking away from') certain justified clarifying words.
This reminds me of Dr. Kenneth Wuest's excellent study booklets, among which are: 'Untranslatable Riches from the Greek New Testament'; 'Golden Nuggets of the Greek New Testament'; 'Bypaths in the Greek New Testament'; 'Treasures From the Greek New Testament', etc., ~ there were 16 or so and I had all of them. My son, Tim, thinks they are perhaps in boxes in our attic over the garage, so when he has time, he will look for them.
Respectfully,
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
I still say that the whole "pray to ask Jesus into your heart" phenomenon is largely based on the improper interpretation of Revelation 3:20. I am reminded of the famous painting with Jesus knocking on a door, where the shadows and ivy framing the door make it look heart-shaped. (If the roots of the doctrine are bad, how much more the fruits?)
-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000
I shouldn't be writing today -- too much else to do. There's a lot I'd like to comment on, so I'll try to fit in some time next week. Meanwhile, a couple of quick comments.REGARDING THE "SINNER'S PRAYER" -- There are a lot of versions of the so-called "sinner's prayer". Most, if not all, have some good content, e.g. a recognition of God's power and holiness, a recognition of personal sinfulness and unworthiness before God, a recognition that only God can save, etc. Where they go wrong is to refer (either in the introduction or usually in the prayer itself) to the act of saying the prayer as being synonymous with "receiving Jesus" as one's "personal saviour", being "saved" by Jesus, etc. Many versions then go on to give assurance of salvation -- now you have done this, you are saved! This is in direct contradiction to the many scriptures that speak of the moment of baptism as being the moment when our sins are washed away, when we are buried with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life, when we "put on" Christ, when we are "saved", and when we receive the Holy Spirit to dwell in us.
This "sinner's prayer" pre-supposes a Biblical situation and question -- that when confronted with the fact of their unworthiness before God, people will ask, in effect, as the Jews did on the day of Pentecost, "what must we do?" But then it gives an answer that is never given in Scripture -- "Pray this prayer and ask Jesus into your heart."
What's wrong with using Peter's answer to those who asked him -- "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."? (NOTE: This is from the original edition of the NIV, as the translation team rendered it, and before the wording was changed, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS, or so I've been told, to make it more acceptable to "Faith Only" churches.)
What do you do when you are communicating with someone by long distance, e.g. by e-mail or through a web page, and unable to baptise him/her personally? Saul/Paul was told to "go into the city and there it will be told to you what you must do." That's one option -- refer the person to a church where another Christian can talk to the person face-to-face.
Another option would be to have the person pray a "form" of the "sinner's prayer", but without the unscriptural elements, e.g. "I recognise that I am a sinner and that only you, Oh God, can save. I put my faith and trust in you today. I commit myself to following you in all things hereafter, and I commit myself to obeying you in baptism as soon as I am able." Or perhaps a "generic" version, that might be acceptable to both "faith only" and "baptism required" points of view, would be everything up to the second "I commit myself", i.e. "I recognise that I am a sinner and that only you, Oh God, can save. I put my faith and trust in you today. I commit myself to following you in all things hereafter." -- but leaving out any false assurance that the person is now fully "saved." This could then be followed by the standard advice to get involved in a local church -- or a local Church of Christ, Christian Church, etc., if CC/CoC peopls are afraid that the person might end up in a (horrors!) Baptist Church or something like that.
By the way, a lot of these prayers and a lot of the evangelistic outlines in use (including some used in RM churches) talk about "receiving Jesus" or "accepting Jesus as your personal saviour" (I must confess that I have even used expressions like this myself, since they are so common.) But can anyone tell me where they are found in the Bible? They do seem to be "shorthand" for some Biblical concepts, but they also seem misleading at times -- as when used in these prayers.
REGARDING "INTERPOLATIONS" -- Connie, what would you think of the integrity of a "translator" of the Bible who, every time salvation by faith was mentioned in the New Testament, insisted on adding "as demonstated by immersion", or "when followed by immersion", or something like that? That wouldn't be very honest, would it? Yet that is IDENTICAL to what is done when translators with a "Faith Only" bias insist on "explaining away" the passages that refer to baptism (immersion) as a requirement for salvation. They should let the Bible speak for itself, but they are so afraid that someone might (horror of horrors!!) believe that baptism is actually required, that they add their explanations about why (they think) it is not. Fortunately, only a few translations actually do this in the text (as opposed to footnotes, etc.), but the Amplified and the Living Bible are notorious for adding "explanations" rather than letting the Bible speak for itself.
With regard to the Amplified "translation" -- According to their own explanation, additional aspects of the meaning, alternative ways of translating some words, etc., are expressed within round parentheses "( )" or set off by dashes "-- --". Those may be confusing sometimes, but in most cases they are probably reasonably legitimate.
But when you are trying to "prove" something from the scriptures, I'd suggest you leave out all the material enclosed in square brackets "[ ]". According to their explanation, "Brackets contain justified clarifying words or comments, whether implied or not, which are not expressed in the immediate original text." I repeat, "WHICH ARE NOT EXPRESSED IN THE ... ORIGINAL TEXT." These comments really are "interpolations". The translators feel they are "justified" -- because they don't think we can figure it out for ourselves from the actual text -- but the fact is that they themselves admit that those words were not there in the original. And anyone who does not happen to accept the particular pre-conceptions of this group of translators can plainly see that many of these comments reflect their denominational/theological bias.
REGARDING I PETER 3:21 (and some of the other things you and others have emphasised about God being the one who saves) -- I think you still don't understand our position. Yes, we believe that we are saved "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ", but notice that the full sentence says, "IT SAVES US BY the Resurrection of Jesus Christ." What is the "IT"? The beginning of the verse says, "this water" (the waters of the flood) "symbolizes baptism that now saves you also."
By the way, while this verse says that we are saved by the RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ, other scriptures say we are saved by his DEATH. But this only goes to show that we can't take one verse in isolation to tell us the whole story.
Verses that tell us God's part need to be balanced by the other passages that tell us of human responsibility and the "mechanisms" God has chosen for us to "accept" the salvation he gives (rather than substituting our own new mechanisms like the "sinner's prayer"). Verses that tell us that we are saved by faith need to be balanced by the other verses that show us certain required expressions of our faith, i.e. repentance and immersion.
On a completely unrelated subject: Connie, regarding your trouble with formatting, it might help if you keep two things in mind. (1) unless you are familiar with HTML (hyper-text markup language), and put in the appropriate HTML codes, everything you send will be re-formatted, so it's no use trying to set up tables and columns or anything like that. (2) If you put TWO "carriage returns" or "enters" between your paragraphs, it will (normally, anyway) keep them as separate paragraphs. But if you only use one, it will probably run them together into one long paragraph.
Well, this has turned out to be MUCH longer than I planned or hoped. I still haven't said everything I'd like to, so there may be more next week, if I can afford the time, but I'd better stop for now.
-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000
Benjamin (and Connie);Regarding your comments on interpolation: It occurred to me that this is eerily similar to what the Jehovah's Witnesses have done with their New World Translation. Every place in the Bible where a doctrine contrary to theirs is supported, they have interpolated into the text their own ideas to make it seem the Bible actually "meant" the opposite. For instance, the JWs believe that Jesus was the first created thing, and that he went on to create everything else. So in Colossians 1:16-17 their translation reads something like, "For by him all things [other] were created ... all [other] things were created by him and for him. He is before all [other] things ..." As you said, Benjamin, anyone who does not happen to accept the particular pre-conceptions of this group of [pseudo]translators can plainly see that many of these comments reflect their ... theological bias. (Sorry for my own interpolation LOL!)
-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000
We all agree, it seems, that in the 'signature' languages, the Bible is the 'inerrant, infallible, inspired' word of God.We all seem to want to obey what God wants us to understand and do.
I ask that those who have the ability to translate WORD-FOR-WORD the difficult passages which we disagree on ~ Acts 2: 38, for example, and John 3:3-8, I think, will do what evan from the other forum has done above.
We cannot get away from the denominational bias of translators ~ from the translators under the auspices of King James and the Church of England to the Evangelical translators of the Amplified and the NIV.
The Church of England kept some of what the Catholic Church taught and the Evangelical translators, because of SO MANY verses which show no mention of baptism in relation to salvation, justification, sanctification, etc., hew to the 'faith only' (gasp!) ~ with other attendent steps of obedience ~ position. (Repentance, confession, immersion, etc.)
Benjamin has some of the knowledge we need and he is in your camp. But I believe he will be psychologically honest in any interpretaion he gives. He DOES have a lifetime of trusted (to him) indoctrination, as I have 42 years of trusted evangelical bent, but I was interested in an older thread where he identified himself as 'The Iconoclast' and recognizes how denominational bent (which I know you don't believe yours is) affects our interpretation. I sincerely believe that God looks on the heart, not in the baptismal pool, for His own. (But if He does, I have nothing to fear ~ I jumped in there TWICE!)
I believe He doesn't hold against us, IF WE BELIEVE IN THE CAPABILITY OF CHRIST'S SHED BLOOD, DEATH AND RESURRECTION TO SAVE US, whatever our man-interpreted 'take' on what the Scriptures say, is. I know that C/C, CoC people DO BELIEVE it is of paramount importance. God will have to sort it out. I trust Him to do it.
In the meantime, I know Benjamin is coming upon a very busy time for him with his responsibilies at his place of assembly, so it will probably be next week before we hear from him. (But you never know).
I would like to know, Benjamin, where you got that information in your 4th paragraph above about the wording of the NIV being changed to accommodate 'Faith only' churches. I should think there would have been a tremendous 'hue and cry' from the original translating committee.
And I don't doubt your word one bit; I just wondered where that information came from. Also, the Amplified is not a paraphrase, as the 'Living Bible' is, from anything I have ever heard. It is a true translation. My husband liked the 'Phillips Translation' when he was a new Christian (along with the KJV) and that IS a paraphrase. I can't find our copy of that; it is probably up in the attic with my other books.
I wish that as many as have access to the texts which all of the translators used could post here the word-for-word translations from those. Everything I have heard is that they are VERY CLOSE in the way they render certain passages.
A side question, but related: Have you all seen different present day languages side-by-side and noticed how some take up a lot of room and others are very efficient?
You just CANNOT translate Greek accurately with the same number of words which you use in English. It can't be done. There has been man-made facility introduced to simply make the words readable and understandable. And more important, to make the THOUGHTS AND INTENTS OF GOD understandable.
It is the same with the breaking into chapters and verses. And it is so with the red-lettering of Jesus' words, which can in no way alter God's intent and meaning. He IS God.
God used man to bring His message of salvation to us all.
Praise Him for doing so!!!
Prayerfully and Respectfully submitted,
-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000
This thread is taking an interesting turn. Its one that in my experience is the ultimate end point of all these conversations.The thread has now turned to bible source documents. In a past thread, I stated:
>>Understanding of the history of the biblical translations is important, especially to those who claim scripture only as their basis for what they believe.<<
In that same paragraph I continued:
>>The translation process is vitally important. And yes, every translation team (to include KJV) approached it with presuppositions. This is important to understand while using these translations.<<
And then I continued:
>>The problem with our English translations is the fact that it is a translation. From everything I have studied, the English translations are no more than about 98% accurate when compared to the original languages anyway. The important part to remember is that these "flaws" are the most part meaningless, having to do with the spelling of names and punctuations. NO IMPORTANT DOCTRINE OR CONCEPT IS LOST IN THE TRANSLATION PROCESS.<<
I then issued a warning:
>>Unfortunately what these debates actually lead to is the loss of confidence by the average churchgoer in the trustworthiness of Scripture as being the Word of God. Once this confidence is shaken, so is their faith. If the Bible isn't true, then we have no hope. [T]he scruptural records are totally reliable. Be very careful when you start to take the road that questions reliability of translation. Unless it shows absolute error (like for the New World Translation, which does have deliberate mis-translation), you run the risk of damaging your people's faith.<<
This thread is treading on that danger line. If I didn't know what I know, my conclusion could only be that there is no authority in the Bible, because every translation has been tampered with in some way. You all said so yourselves.
Connie: "The translators sincerely believed that the true meanings of the passages could not be fully understood without those clarifying words."
"It is the Greek and Hebrew texts from which we get ALL of our translations that they and I are referring to. These have nuances not readily translated into English. Most translations are 'word-for- word', because of the fear of 'adding to' the intent of God. But this cheats the English reader of the intended meaning by leaving out ('taking away from') certain justified clarifying words."
"We cannot get away from the denominational bias of translators ~ from the translators under the auspices of King James and the Church of England to the Evangelical translators of the Amplified and the NIV."
"You just CANNOT translate Greek accurately with the same number of words which you use in English. It can't be done. There has been man- made facility introduced to simply make the words readable and understandable."
Benjamin: "(NOTE: This is from the original edition of the NIV, as the translation team rendered it, and before the wording was changed, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS, or so I've been told, to make it more acceptable to "Faith Only" churches.)"
"...the Amplified and the Living Bible are notorious for adding "explanations" rather than letting the Bible speak for itself."
"The translators feel they are "justified" -- because they don't think we can figure it out for ourselves from the actual text -- but the fact is that they themselves admit that those words were not there in the original. And anyone who does not happen to accept the particular pre-conceptions of this group of translators can plainly see that many of these comments reflect their denominational/theological bias."
What you all have just told me is that I as an individual can NEVER know what is contained in the Word of God. Since the passage in dispute is in Greek, and I cannot read Greek as a native tongue, then I am in a world of hurt. Why? Because the English language translations are unreliable. The text has been tampered with by denominational and sectarian translators to conform to their particular biases. Not only that, the work of the translators has been tampered with without thier knowledge by some shadow editor somewhere to conform to yet another bias. And besides, Greek cannot be accurately translated into English because of the inaccuracies of the English language. It can't be done.
End result? WE ARE ALL LOST. You just said so: we cannot know the truth, unless we learn Greek or have some 'educated' person inform us of what the truth is. And they will only tell us what they in their superior intelligence want us to know.
If things are this confused here, think of how confused it is in the pews. While we split hairs over words, the true meaning is lost. I cannot accept that Christianity is so difficult that in order to be saved a person has to go through these mental gymnastics. Someone else said it better:
John:: What are we, a bunch of illiterate dolts that we cannot read and understand for ourselves what the plain teaching of Scripture is without these men adding their opinions into the text to "clarify"?
The scripture says what it says. Period. May God forgive us for our intellectualism. We have taken faith that was supposed to be simple enough for a child to believe and made it into a course in engineering.
-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000
Mea Culpa, Dr. Jon.I remember when you made that case a couple of months ago, and I was concerned that it might be so. But my faith has been strengthened by delving into what the Scriptures actually say. Besides that ~ HUMOR ALERT! ~ no one who posts here is average. ;-) ;-)
We all depend on what men have translated. What is the matter with getting the most accurate interpretation?
It doesn't lessen my faith in God ~ only in fallible man.
I think that what you say is probably true for the AVERAGE person in the pew.
But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, no matter what some fallible man has purposely misrepresented. But I don't believe any of the translators have PURPOSELY misrepresented anything, except in the case of the cults.
They sincerely believed what they wrote. The problem is that sometimes it doesn't completely agree with someone else's interpretation, which is equally sincere.
I want to know if baptism saves me. I want to know if I'm wrong. After all, the translators used their human understanding to interpret the 'signature' languages, did they not?
How can there be multiple verses which make no mention of baptism in relation to salvation, but two or three which do, and not have an inconsistency? ~ unless the human translator misinterpreted it? I don't say THAT one did it maliciously, just humanly.
To tell you the truth, it doesn't affect my salvation one bit, nor yours. Only our belief and trust in Christ's shed blood, death and resurrection for my (and your) sins matters.
I sincerely don't think that getting the most accurate translation will kill the faith of any true believer; no, it will strengthen it.
Also, why all this discussion if the true meaning doesn't matter?
Respectfully and prayerfully submitted,
-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000
Connie;There are multiple verses which make no mention of confessing Christ before men in relation to salvation, but two or three which do. There are multiple verses which make no mention of repentance in relation to salvation, but a few which do. And there are even some verses which make no mention of faith or belief! Just because there are only a couple which might mention it does not invalidate it, any more than it would invalidate confession and repentance.
I do not believe that the act of baptism itself saves you. But I stand by the verse that says, "this baptism now saves you!" I believe that it is through baptism that you are saved, as I also believe that it is through faith that you are saved, through confessing Christ publicly that you are saved, and by turning from your sins that you are saved. All of these things in the New Testament are mentioned in verses that say that these things "save" -- so we must conclude that they are all involved in the conversion process. (Not that they in and of themselves are effectual in salvation in the slightest, of course; it is ultimately the blood of Jesus that actually saves!)
-- Anonymous, June 30, 2000
i am just wondering how many times God has to say something before we will believe him. should once be suffiecient? acts 2:38 is very clear, in response to "what must we do". should our answer be any different?
-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000
Dr. Jon:I would like to clarify what I said above, and that you commented on:
A side question, but related: Have you all seen different present day languages side-by-side and noticed how some take up a lot of room and others are very efficient?
You just CANNOT translate Greek accurately with the same number of words which you use in English. It can't be done. There has been man- made facility introduced to simply make the words readable and understandable. And more important, to make the THOUGHTS AND INTENTS OF GOD understandable.
-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000
You responded: (ostensibly quoting me). And besides, Greek cannot be accurately translated into English because of the inaccuracies of the English language. It can't be done.
What I meant (and thought I said) was that the Greek cannot be translated WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF WORDS into the English, not that it can't be translated into the English. In all of the present translations into English from the Greek, many more English words are used than are Greek words in the originals.
There have had to be linguistic gymnastics of a sort (without losing any of God's intended meaning) to come up with ANY translation. My point was that to criticize the Amplified for using extra explanatory words, is, in a way, specious, in that ALL translations have had to use extra English words to produce the intended meaning.
God has preserved the message, even though we as fallible human beings may not completely understand it.
-- Anonymous, July 01, 2000
This is partly to Connie, and partly to Dr. Jon, since I'd like to respond to both of them, and there is some overlap in what I'd like to say to each.Dr. Jon, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. On the one hand, you say, "Understanding of the history of the biblical translations is important, especially to those who claim scripture only as their basis for what they believe. ..... The translation process is vitally important. And yes, every translation team (to include KJV) approached it with presuppositions. This is important to understand while using these translations." But then later you say, "... what these debates actually lead to is the loss of confidence by the average churchgoer in the trustworthiness of Scripture as being the Word of God. Once this confidence is shaken, so is their faith. If the Bible isn't true, then we have no hope. [T]he scriptural records are totally reliable. Be very careful when you start to take the road that questions reliability of translation. Unless it shows absolute error (like for the New World Translation, which does have deliberate mis-translation), you run the risk of damaging your people's faith."
So which do you think we should do? Teach people about the translation process and ways to differentiate the better translations from the worse ones? or pretend the problem doesn't exist, lest someone whose faith is weak might think there's no way to know what God taught?
I do understand the "danger" -- though I don't think it's as great as you seem to think. So don't confuse what I say in this forum with what I teach in the church I serve. There's no contradiction or inconsistency, but there is a slight difference in emphasis. With non-Christians, new Christians, and those weak in the faith, I tend to emphasise the certainties -- the things we can know. Even with these, however, sometimes questions arise from things they have heard other places, e.g. from Jehovah's Witnesses, and I have to be prepared to explain as well as I can.
Even with more mature Christians, I don't go out of my way to point out problem areas, but again, when the information is relevant to questions that have been asked, I explain the problem in the best way I can, while still stressing that God's word itself is trustworthy -- it is just that we sometimes have to make an effort to discern what it really said in the original.
I am currently teaching a class in "Basic Christian Doctrines" in the church. A few weeks back our topic was "How to Study the Bible." Someone asked the question, which translation is the "right" one, i.e. which one "should" we use? My first answer? ANY of them! I said that God's word is God's word, and the really fundamental things about who God is, who Jesus is and what He did for us, and how we are saved can be found in any Bible -- including Roman Catholic Bibles and probably even Jehovah's Witness Bibles! The problem, however, is that not all translations are identical in quality. Therefore certain doctrines may be obscured in certain translations -- whether deliberately, as with the JW's New World Translation, or because of theological bias on the part of translators, or because of changes in the language, as with the KJV, or for other reasons.
(Parenthetically, I will mention that I have an advantage with this particular congregation because EVERYONE in the church [except my wife and daughter] is at least bi-lingual, and most are tri-lingual, quadri-lingual, or more. So they all understand the problems of translating from one language to another.)
I then went on to explain several different approaches to translating and the strengths and weaknesses of each. On the one hand, the closer a translation is to a "word by word" translation, the more "literal" it is and, in a sense, the more "accurate" it is, but, at the same time, the harder it may be to understand. On the other hand, the "freer" a translation was -- the more like a "paraphrase" it becomes, rather than a real translation -- the more prone it is to reflect the opinions of the translator as to what the passage "means", rather than what it actually "says." And I gave examples of where various popular translations fit on the spectrum.
I suggested that they should each find one translation that they are most comfortable with, and concentrate on getting familiar with that, and suggested that most people would probably be most comfortable with something near the middle of the spectrum, e.g. the NIV. But I urged that whenever doing any serious study, they should compare translations to see if a different translation helps clarify difficult passages. For them, this can include translations in more than one language.
I told them there were only two translations I would recommend they avoid -- the J.W. New World Translation, and the Living Bible. There are a few others, like the Philips, plus a couple of others that I have heard about but never seen, that I might have also warned against if I thought they were likely to run into them, but those are so rare these days that I didn't think it likely.
I reminded them that the footnotes in various study Bibles (and in RC translations) may sometimes help us understand something, but they may hinder too if they come out of a particular bias, and we need to keep in mind that they are only explanation and not part of the Word of God itself. I don't think I've ever seen the Amplified translation on sale here in H.K., or I might have warned that the words in the square brackets in the Amplified are the equivalent of the footnotes in study Bibles, i.e. NOT part of the Word of God itself.
To re-iterate, my approach with most people is to emphasise that EVERYONE can understand the Bible, that you don't need special training in Biblical languages or a seminary education to be able to understand the Bible, but even the "plowman" can read and understand and in his/her own language. Even when there are difficulties with the translation, the meaning can usually be determined with a little comparison of different translations and checking of easily available commentaries.
I do have a fair ability to read the Koini Greek text (especially with good lexicons to refer to), but I TRY to avoid "snowing" people with my knowledge of Greek. (I apologise if I have been referring to the Greek too often in this forum. Sometimes people have asked, "what does the Greek say" and I've tried to answer.) I normally try to prove my case from English translations alone, and refer to the Greek mainly when either (1) the particular Greek words give some fresh insight into the meaning of a passage, or (2) I think there has been a mistranslation, as with "their wives" in I Tim. 3:11, or (3) someone is trying to claim that a passage has some particular meaning that would not really be possible from the Greek.
Connie, yes, I agree that the Living Bible and the Amplified are not QUITE in the same category. The Living Bible is a paraphrase, and says so. The Amplified is an actual translation -- not an outstanding one or a very original one (one publisher's blurb says, "Built on the sub-structure of the King James Version"), but one with an unusual approach. The biggest problem with it is not the translation itself (as long as you leave out the interpolations), but the fact that it includes explanatory notes in the text itself, set apart only by square brackets.
Roman Catholic Bibles include a lot of footnotes to explain how their particular doctrines fit with certain passages that seem to contradict some of those doctrines, e.g. explaining that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were really only cousins or foster brothers, since Mary remained perpetually a virgin. But at least they keep those in the footnotes. The transleters of the Amplified (people with a different theological bias, but a bias nonetheless) have included their own "explanatory footnotes", but have incorporated them in the text itself (set apart only by square brackets), which easily misleads people into thinking that they too are "translation". They are not. They are explanation and commentary.
If you like the Amplified best, by all means use it for your own study. But if you want to quote it to prove a point, leave out the words enclosed in the square brackets. (The text is written in such a way that the sentences still usually make sense without those added words.) Or, if you want to use them to show someone else's comments on the text, by all means do that too -- but separately. You'd get less criticism for your position and for your approach if you would do it that way than if you continue to do it in a way that makes it seem that you want us to believe that those interpolations are part of the original text -- which even the translaters of the Amplified version admit they are not.
On another subject, Connie, you said something awhile back about the Greek word ANOTHEN used in John 3. (I think the other writer you quoted may have transliterated it ANOWTHEN -- the "O" or "OW" takes the place of the Greek Omega, with a long "O" sound, as opposed to the Omicron, also rendered "O", with the short "O" sound.) The Greek word has TWO meanings in English. It can mean EITHER "from above" or "again". Another place where it is used with the "again" meaning is in Gal. 4:9, where it cannot possibly have the "from above" meaning.
Which meaning it has in a particular place can usually be determined from the context. Some clues to the meaning that can be found in the context are, what else is said? and what did the original hearers understand it to mean? Nicodemus plainly understood Jesus to mean it in the sense of "again" or "a second time", and Jesus, rather than contradicting him, went along with that idea, which suggests that this is the meaning Jesus intended in the first place. Since our being "born again" is also "from above", it may be that Jesus intended BOTH meanings. The only problem with that is that Jesus was probably talking to Nicodemus not in Greek but in Aramaic, and I don't know what Aramaic word he would have used, or whether or not it too could have had these same two meanings.
In any case, we are BOTH born "again" and "from above". We have no power to save ourselves or to be "born again" by our own power. But unless you are a strict Calvinist who believes that even faith is given to us by God WITHOUT ANY FREEDOM OF CHOICE on our part, we must all "choose" whether to accept or reject what God offers. Baptism (which I believe -- and ALMOST all translaters and commentators through the centuries have believed -- to be what Jesus meant by being "born of water") is the mechanism by which we affirm and demonstrate that choice. "Born of water" (i.e. baptism) is how we accept what God offers; "born of the Spirit" is what God then accomplishes in us when we do that.
I meant to also answer the questions about the source of my information about the change in the translation of the NIV of Acts 2:38, but I've run out of time for today. The fact that it has been changed is easily verifiable. Look at the copyright date and look up the verse. Any copy without the 1984 (or later) copyright date will translate the relevant clauses as "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ SO THAT YOUR SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN." From 1984 on, this becomes "FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS", which CAN mean exactly the same thing, but becomes slightly ambiguous, allowing people to suggest other possible explanations. My sources for the rest of what I said, I'll give as soon as I can.
-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000