Why do Christians disagree? Part 2

[OzSpen]

It seems to me that the most significant and important events should be the most well attested, that the true things of God would be clearly laid out in the same way that I clearly explain the things I find important to my own children. Do you see it differently?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

That may be the way you and I think as fallible human beings in a fallen world. But for the infallible God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Num. 23:19), the true things of God are obtained by searching the Scriptures (see John 5:39 where Jesus stated, 'You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me', ESV.)

Why do you think God would give the holy Spirit to lead believers into truth (2philoVoid perspective notwithstanding) and then let them fight and divide when he could easily clear it up?

In approx. 55 years as a Christian, I have discovered that:

1. Not all who claim the Holy Spirit is leading them into truth are following the Holy Spirit but are often pursuing personal opinion or the views of a particular denomination.
2. If hearing God through the Holy Spirit clashes with Scripture, the person is not hearing the Holy Spirit leading him/her into truth.
3. It is the Scripture that is infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and not an infallible subjective experience with the Holy Spirit.

Why do you think he used languages that would be inaccessible to the common person 2000 years later?
Thanks for a great post!

To understand this issue, go to Genesis 11 and the Tower of Babel and why the one language became a multitude of languages. We can't sin against God without consequences. So in 2016 we are reaping the consequences of sinful behaviour in the beginning of time.

According to Wycliffe Bible Translators there are still about 1,800 languages in the world that do not have any part of the Bible translated into their native languages. Many of those languages have oral proclamation of the Gospel.

The ancient Hebrew and Greek languages have similar issues to many other languages. There are not many who can competently translate from one language to another. That's why God gave teachers to the church (see 1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11-12).

The ancient biblical languages are not inaccessible to anyone if one is prepared to learn a language. However, that is not the gift of all. There is no need to worry about the English language as we have a plethora of good translations from the ancient languages. God's teachers are gifted to be able to teach from these languages.

Just my 2-bits worth.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So when these everyday Christians don't have the education to access the old testament, why does God allow them to make errors and spread dissent. Is the holy Spirit not able to overcome their poor education and human error?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

This is like asking God to zap you or me when we make a mistake. Imagine if God stepped in right now when I typed miszake instead of mistake. It seems to me that God has allowed ordinary human beings to make errors (with consequences) in his providence.

This is what everyday Christians are to do: 'Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world' (1 John 4:1 NIV).

Everyday Christians who are literate (sadly there is increasing illiteracy in the English speaking world) can access all of the OT in English.

To make errors and spread dissent is a product of what happened in Genesis 3, the Fall into sin. Our world, including the human heart, is contaminated by sin and we will not see it eliminated until there are new heavens and a new earth where justice/righteousness dwells (see 2 Peter 3:13, 'But we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth he has promised, a world filled with God's righteousness', NLT).

May the Lord lead you in your search for truth.

Oz

 

[com7fy8]

God's word is first His personal message, to each of us . . . not first a thing for logical analysis and getting ideas and explanations and rules.

If you were to get a letter from your wife, would you start with logically analyzing what she wrote, and getting doctrinal ideas about her; or would you start with how you love her so and are excited to read whatsoever she lovingly shares with you? I think you might be excited and wanting to discover all she has to share.

And, because you already personally know her and have shared in all the things you have shared, you can understand what she means by different things. But someone who does not know her might not get things like you can

So, if people start with the Bible impersonally, they get in problems with each other and also themselves . . . unless God gets through to them in spite of themselves And He is about personal loving; so if people are discussing His word in an impersonal way . . . this can be how they get nowhere. As much as we are impersonal, we do not connect with our Heavenly Father who is personal and about family.

We depend on God to bring us into how He has us loving with Him and each other >

"Now may the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of Christ." (2 Thessalonians 3:5)

I would say that this is always the main intended meaning, deeper than the words, of all His message.

By the way, what happens if you start to take a special someone for granted? Also, we need to not take God's word for granted just because we have gotten a few ideas about Him and His message. There are people who can read the exact same thing in the Bible, any number of times, and each time they get something new and fresh to make them more alive with God and loving. Meanwhile, others can get some one set idea and only use the whole Bible to prove it; and their interacting, then, about their ideas can indeed be love-dead and with arguing and despising others who don't agree with them. His message is meant to make us more and more alive in His love, instead

 

[OzSpen]

God's word is first His personal message, to each of us . . . not first a thing for logical analysis and getting ideas and explanations and rules.

com,

I would question that premise. The OT was not a personal message to us but a message to the people who would become known as the Israelites.

In the NT, the Gospels and Acts are historical documents regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the initial spread of the church.

The epistles are written to specific church situations, e.g. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, etc. The Book of Revelation was addressed to 7 churches and is prophetic in its application.

So Scripture is not first of all his personal message to us. Rather, it's a message to various people groups but has application to all Christians, as long as one understands that some of the Old Covenant (particularly ceremonial laws) has been abrogated by the New Covenant brought in by Christ's passion and resurrection.

Oz

 

[Athée]

there are very few enlightened christians -
look how many are raised to hate catholics or anyone who doesn't believe the way they do -
thomas proved that faith is reasonable
-and-
augustine proved that there is no reason without faith

On the quesrion of Thomas, do you think his story demonstrates faith or is it perhaps more about confidence based on a personal experience.
Not sure what you mean about no reason without faith unless that is a throw away to Vantill?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

there is another test -
only the good tree will bear good fruit
-and-
it is the toughest test off all

So are you agreeing that the test of time maybe it the best way to determine the truth of an idea?
As for fruit I wonder what kind of fruit only a true Christian could produce. Do you have any examples?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

Very interesting discussion overall.

Just a thought. I think much of the problems of understanding what the core Christian truth is, is related to the fact that the Bible does not contain a consistent and clear explanation about it. What we have in the NT is a random collection of contradictory stories, personal letters written in a narrow context, and an allegory. In other words, 4-way cacophonous hearsay, a forever hidden context and aesopian language. All of these writings are layered upon a body of texts - the OT - which are even farther away from Christianity.

So, there is no Christian core truth in existence as is. Christians are really struggling to try and extract the almost unexctractable. No wander they can never agree on virtually anything! Mission impossible.

In the first 3.5 centuries there were several prominent denominations of Christianity with even greater disagreements on the core truth as we see today. Then Orthodoxy finally won under Constantine the great and pushed all the other versions of Christianity into persecuted apostasy or oblivion. It is not a secret how and why the 'canon' was selected, sanctified and protected throughout the centuries, the alternatives exterminated. As the result, most of the modern Christianities are but offshoots from Orthodoxy.

It's so sad and unfortunate that even though Christ's teaching as echoed in the gospels is so powerful and revolutionary, nobody at the time took an effort to try and write it out A to Z in a clear, consistent and comprehensive way. That would have made things a lot easier today. Or did anybody even understand it as is?

Very interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. Why do you think God allowed/planned this state of affairs?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

no

It is not only a theoretical and scholarly issue or subject, or a do-it-yourself and self-willed thing.

There is how God prepares a person and has someone learn, so the person trusts in Jesus > John 6:43-45.

God joins the person to Jesus so he or she is "one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17) In this process a person denies oneself, like Jesus says all need to do > Luke 9:23.

Then there is much discovering that one experiences in becoming one spirit with Jesus. So, this is way more than words and scholarship can tell. We are changed into a nature of peace, more and more > Matthew 11:28-30.

There is plenty of scripture, then, which is commanding and teaching but also describing what happens because of our being with God.

So if reasonable Christians disagree about this, then it follows that the disagreements are not only about trivial, peripheral, would you agree?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

One thing which helps me is I have gotten to know the Bible so it is easier to spot what is not really with it; I try not to develop any ideas which are attached to only one verse and have no other company to keep

There are people who have built everything on one verse . . . to exaggerate, more or less. And then all you hear them talking about is their one or two or three ideas they got from that verse. Those items are what I call "fingerprints" that they can have all over everything they say. And they can constantly be comparing themselves only with other people . . . not comparing themselves with Jesus and how He has us relating. 2 Corinthians 10:12

And if we have experience of how God's love in us effects us, this can help us to better understand all which the Bible really means, so we don't get sidetracked with only or mainly ideas and doctrinal issues.

So, for one example, if someone comes along and only talks about how he or she is right and everyone else is wrong, but the person does not give anything which actually feeds us how to be with God and how to love, I will consider that that person is mainly or only about getting attention to oneself.

I wonder what the difference might be between, getting to know the bible better in a way that leads to true understanding of it...
and
Taking time with difficult ideas until I can rationalize them into supprting my own beliefs and values?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

There can be up-front leaders who make a major show, so people suppose they speak for everyone . . . while the gentle and quiet and humble ones are sitting in the back row. The ones disagreeing can be the ones who get the attention so you can suppose all elders do this

There are churches and groups who select elders in a status giving way, not according to the standards of 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

Well, I do not think I meant to say that length of time determines how well someone gets one's ideas straight. Maturing does take time, though, but we need quality of the quantity

There have been religious people in history who have been into much quantity without the quality. I think an individual who is maturing in Jesus will mature in Christ's light and creativity in one's own lifetime. But you might not see much public show of the person.

Those are really interesting ideas but I wonder how we would know if they are actually the case. What do you think?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

understd

That is always an adventure. What I think helps me is to first know that I somehow could be wrong. Even if my idea might be right, how am I being, about it? How am I relating with people? Am I caring about the person I may disagree with or only trying to prove myself right? These always are issues, for my own case!

And I offered that general growing in knowledge of the Bible can help, along with sharing with people who are good examples for me. They can tend to have more nutritious understanding and not only doctrinal and self-favoring ideas which we can use to make ourselves look superior to others.

An adventure indeed...ask 2PhiloVoid about coherentism sometime
I guess I wonder, since we agree that a person can be mistaken about their beliefs how we would come to realize if the group around us is also wrong. For instance a community of pastafarians who all agree more or less might guide those new converts into a greater internal coherence, in the same way that a group of Lutherans might ,or Catholics etc. Does this work as a path to figuring out what is true?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[pius463]

Note:
I am re-posting this discussion after the former was closed. I have been informed that I did not transgress the rules so I am hoping this one will be allowed to continue. The following is the OP from that first thread.

Hi all,

I am an atheist, married to a wonderful Christian woman. In hopes of coming to belive what she believes I have started attending a bible study group with some cool guys from our church.

One question that keeps coming up in our discussions is this notion of the indwelling of the spirit as it pertains to interpreting the Bible.
I have often heard that when a believer reads the bible the truth of it will be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. If that is the case why do so many Christians disagree about interpreting scripture?
The most common response in our group was that people supress/make errors even though the holy Spirit is teaching them the truth . If this were the case wouldn't we expect broad agreement on any particular issue as the supression and error would be idiosyncratic to any particular believer but the consensus would remain (same principle as poll the audience in Who Wants to be a Millionaire , all the people who know the right answer pick the same one, everyone who doesn't spreads their votes out over the possible choices leaving the truth clearly indicated.
In our group this ended with the guys just saying they don't really have a good answer for this problem, which while intellectually honest is not super helpful
Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Note: This is not supposed to be a debate thread so as you respond I will try to simply ask questions to clarify rather than offer rebuttals. As such if you can think of a counter argument to your own position please include it and also include why you don't find that counter argument compelling

Thanks for your time and intellectual effort.

Peace

It may be too simple but, the now Churches, rather than being a pure Christ’s Church, each is a denomination Church with its own way of understanding and of teachings. However, it is admitted that disagreements contribute good things to hierarchical absolute interpretations. Now, shall we be living always in disagreements? Jesus did tell us about this thing.

(Mat 11:12, NRSVCE) “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.”

I think here “violence” means an untrue way of doing, and, “take it by force” means not the way Jesus wants. As we might see there are many additional teachings by denominations that are beyond what Jesus said. We see a lot of human’s or theological products which are more confusing than making clear the salvation way. As the way out, I’d like to suggest the Christians to follow John 16:12-14 and put John 17:3 in the focus.

We need to focus to Jesus’ sayings, just like the Spirit of truth listens to Jesus (John 16:14). We are supposed to let the Spirit open the true meaning of Jesus’ teachings, the teachings that are written in the Gospel and somewhere else. It means, we slowly give less attention to the denomination’s byproducts and give more discussions focus on what Jesus said. Otherwise, we will unavoidably forcing the Spirit to listen and to agree on the theological products and not merely to listen to Jesus.

As an opening, let’s elaborate more about “redemption” and “salvation” and its synonyms. The more popular word now is “redemption”. I found in the four Gospels, the word “ransom / redemption” once in Mat 20:28, and once in Mark 10:45; majority of English version use the word “ransom” but many are using different word “liberate (CEB), rescue (CEV), save (ERV/ICB), set free (PHILIPS), make free (WE)”. For me it means a lot. I believe God always forgive our sins, we take it for granted. God does not punish us because of our sins instead, we punish ourselves by our own choices and deeds. So, the using of “ransom / redemption” may be not the best translation. Then, why are we here in distress and sufferings? The answer to this question gives explanation to “salvation”.

Mankind are living in a way biased from knowing the truth, they are following the false ways of thinking and biased from knowing the true God. Jesus came to teach about the truth (John 14:6) and shows humanity the way to know the truth and the only true God so that a believer will not again suffer a deadly life (John 3:18) but will move to live eternal life (John 17:3). I think, “salvation” is not just “redemption” or about asking God to forgive our sins (or He redeems), is not just about living a holy life, but it is about consciousness of self and of knowing and accepting the only true God (John 17:3). It does come only through following Jesus.

I think living a mere holy life without knowing the only true God will not bring one to eternal life (the definition is in John 17:3). Now, the time has come that secularism or non religions are able to define and guide to the good or proper social life through constitutions and laws, it will be better for the Church(s) to focus on salvation and the eternal life.

 

[Athée]

What the non-believer does can be more self-produced.

I now understand that the Bible means how God changes us to become like Jesus so we live the way the Bible describes and prescribes.

But, also, I have quoted 1 Timothy 4:10 which I understand means that God does bless non-believers . . . somehow, but the blessing can be limited to how they really are, and therefore can benefit from how He would do them good. So, He can help a guy to stop drinking, for one example, and learn not to fear so he is emotionally sober enough to keep off the booze. But how much has his character and other ways really changed for the better so he can benefit in many other ways, also?

We have the most we can have, with Jesus.

But, again, you could ask if I might also be self-producing some of my loving and not fearing. Again . . . a very good question I'll let your wife give you another hug Yes, it could be me, too. So, we keep praying for God to make sure we really are with Him and how His own grace effects our nature. Because we can pick and choose how we want to be corrected. I have seen how someone can pray for correction of something which has started to interfere with how the person wants to live selfishly. For example, one's arguing might turn away love life; so the person who wants to only use others might pray for correction of the arguing, but not for correction of how one wants to use other people. So, yes, even Christians can try to use do-it-yourself correcting in order to adjust ourselves so we can get things we want.

This I guess still leaves us with the difficulty of distinguishing based on owtward evidence at least, the difference between believer and non. Difficult stuff indeed, thanks for sharing.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

My own experience was that the Holy Spirit/Wind/Breath began to do its work on me BEFORE I ever began to seek the Lord. I know this will not sit well with most of the membership here, but that's how it worked. Jesus said, as I posted in my first post in this thread, "the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit." [YLT]

Consider this if you put the will of man on a pedestal - before I had said the sinner's prayer, before I was baptized, saved, whatever you care to call it, I was at a church service and there was an altar call. EVERYBODY went forward...but me. Yet, I could feel a physical force pushing me ever so gently (but firmly) toward the aisle. How to explain that, if we must seek God first? No, I think He seeks us first.

Lots of supper for this in the reformed tradition I believe.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

Let me respond to 2 issues arising from this discussion:

(1) THE SPIRITUALITY OF DIVINATION METHODS:
In the OT Gideon asked for and received signs or "fleeces" before he was willing to embrace God's commission. The 11 disciples used divination in the form of casting lots to pick Judas's replacement (Acts 1:23-26). OT high priests used divination in the form of the Urim and Thummin on their vestments (for their function, see 1 Samuel 14:41). The great Catholic saint, Francis of Assisi used bibliomancy to discern whom he should accept as his disciples. I used it because I was certain that Linda's use of it to justify remaining married to a sexually unfaithful husband was not biblically mandated, but I wanted to demonstrate the unreliability of this divination method before opening up the Scriptures on the subject of divorce. The impact of this on Linda makes me glad I'm glad I did!

(2) The question has been raised as to why God allowed biblical ambiguity instead of giving us a Bible with unequivocally clear systematic theology and life guidelines. That question can be sharpened by asking why Jesus Himself never wrote such a manual, so that the modern dispute about eyewitness testimony in the Gospels could never arise. Add to that the fact that most of Paul's epistles are written to address controversies in various church communities, which we can understand, but not perfectly. No internal church conflict, fewer Pauline epistles!

One answer is that neither Jesus nor the early church envisaged a church age of thousands of years. Jesus and the early church thought He would return soon (e. g. Revelation 22:20), even within the lifetime of Jesus's disciples ( Mark 13:30; Matthew 10:23; 16:28). Thus, the first-century church never envisaged the need for our comprehensive NT canon, Indeed, in the 2nd century there were conflicting versions of what books the NT should contain. Yet by 200 AD a growing consensus seems to have developed in favor of our current canon.

On the other hand, Jesus anticipates this problem to the extent that He promises the guidance of an internalized Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth (John 14-16). These promises raise 2 questions: (a) Must canonical NT books be restricted to those written in the apostolic age? Answer: Theoretically no, though I'm alarmed at the thought of any proposal of a modern book's inclusion. But Luke 1:1-4 seems to acknowledge lost first century Gospels. What if one of them (attributed, say, to Peter was discovered? Could our NT canon theoretically be expanded to include such a Gospel?

(b) Can any written modern doctrinal revelations from the Holy Spirit theoretically be accepted as authoritative, if they go beyond what is explicitly taught in the NT without contradicting our Scripture? Most evangelicals would say no, the NT canon must be restricted to books composed in the apostolic age. But in fact this seems to be an open question and must be subject to the collective discernment of the corporate Body of Christ.

I suspect believers from different traditions will contest some of what you said but I really found the part about the life expectancy of the church interesting.
It sounds like for you the full truth of revelation might be yet to come...

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

Don't try to force.

And pray and test with God.

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

If I keep getting in problems with people, and if I am stewing and getting bent out of shape about people disagreeing with me, I am at least part of the problem. So, first I need deeper correction, then see how clearly I can see things. Some ideas might stay the same, but how I handle them and share with people will be better. And I trust that God is able to personally have me know what He wants me to understand. This I may not be able to prove to a number of people; God knows if I am right or not.

So god might know if you are correct or not but how would we here in earth know as well? You mentioned testing all things. How would you go about testing the bible, or the reality of Jesus or something else foundational to your belief system?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

Greetings!
Christianity is a growth process. This is why we have passages telling us to bear with the weak and are urge to go on to maturity...Paul, in I Corinthians admonishes some in that congregation as not yet spiritual. I shall list a few here:
Hebrews 6:1-3:
Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death and of faith in God, instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so.

This may be most clear...

Ephesians 4:11-16:
So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Some are led astray while in the faith and need counseling to regain clarity...and there are supporting passages you may ask for...many times the waywardness of a Christian teaches them a life/spiritual lesson and may serve to equip them in their spiritual warfare (how to keep the sinful nature and Satan at bay).

With Christians at different levels of maturity and possessing different gifts it is important to work together and respect authority of Pastors and teachers and respectfully explain when you as a member/follower in a church disagree in doctrine. There are bound to be disagreements and Paul writes (under inspiration) in Philippians something to the effect: if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Our sinful natures can get the better of us to the point that we as followers believe we know better than our teachers...and this can in some instances be the case...it needs counsel.

Some issues are considered debatable and are not worthy of argument.

I hope I presented clearly...let me know how you respond to my comment please.

Yes very well written, and thank you for joining in
It seems to me that you belive that on some level god actually wants their to be a level of confusion and dissent, for the purposes of teaching believers to work through these and to hold fast to him despite the pressures of the world.
Am I reading you correctly?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

Athée, I recommend getting it straight from The Man so to speak.

All we really can do is point you to Him, but in the end, it will be from Him that you receive revelation regarding these things and you will know the truth, and it will set you free.

Oh the joy, God's will to impart, into every blessed soul who opens their heart.

In the meantime we hope to help you as you continue on your journey.

I would honestly very much like for that to happen. That said it hasn't yet. Perhaps god doesn't want me to believe, or doesn't want me to belive yet. I'm not sure but it seems to me that if God wanted me to belive in him he would know exactly what that would take. In any event, thank you for your encouragement.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

One very serious problem about forming the perfect religion without error is the lack of evidence to choose between alternatives. In science, one does experiments to test hypotheses. In religion, its impossible to ask a dead man whether his life led him to heaven or to hell. Is Christ of the same essence as the Father? What possible experiment could we conduct to test that? Its the lack of being able to develop information from what we already know due to lack of further information that causes our religious ideas to vary.

Are you saying that the reason we can't come to agreement about these things is because the truth of our various interpretations can only be demonstrated by knowledge from beyond the grave? What role does the holy Spirit or the bible play in your view, as far as being a way to justify belief in a certain interpretation of scripture?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Athée]

That may be the way you and I think as fallible human beings in a fallen world. But for the infallible God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Num. 23:19), the true things of God are obtained by searching the Scriptures (see John 5:39 where Jesus stated, 'You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me', ESV.)



In approx. 55 years as a Christian, I have discovered that:

1. Not all who claim the Holy Spirit is leading them into truth are following the Holy Spirit but are often pursuing personal opinion or the views of a particular denomination.
2. If hearing God through the Holy Spirit clashes with Scripture, the person is not hearing the Holy Spirit leading him/her into truth.
3. It is the Scripture that is infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and not an infallible subjective experience with the Holy Spirit.

To understand this issue, go to Genesis 11 and the Tower of Babel and why the one language became a multitude of languages. We can't sin against God without consequences. So in 2016 we are reaping the consequences of sinful behaviour in the beginning of time.

According to Wycliffe Bible Translators there are still about 1,800 languages in the world that do not have any part of the Bible translated into their native languages. Many of those languages have oral proclamation of the Gospel.

The ancient Hebrew and Greek languages have similar issues to many other languages. There are not many who can competently translate from one language to another. That's why God gave teachers to the church (see 1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11-12).

The ancient biblical languages are not inaccessible to anyone if one is prepared to learn a language. However, that is not the gift of all. There is no need to worry about the English language as we have a plethora of good translations from the ancient languages. God's teachers are gifted to be able to teach from these languages.

Just my 2-bits worth.

Oz

So it sounds like you are saying that where I as a father would clearly teach the important things to my children, that this is a pattern I choose because I am a fallen human. That God in his wisdom prefers to be the author of confusion because it serves his purposes. Is that right?
You also said that if the interpretation someone is offering is inconsistent with the bible then they are clearly not being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now I imagine that this is easily done on clear teaching in scripture. But what about all the elements that are not so clear, that are open to interpretation. How would you be able to judge in that case? Or maybe you belive that the Bible is absolutely clear on everything to the humble and honest believer?

What do you mean when you say the bible is infallible.

Finally I am wondering if I misunderstood you on the part about languages. You talked about why we have different languages and I won't dispute that account here although I am not convinced, but you also said that the original languages are available to everyone to learn if the try. Are you suggesting that an empoverished street child in a slum has the opportunity and resources to learn ancient Greek if only they desire to do so?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk