Re: From my blog (was Hello? Anyone there?)
- From: Timothy Travis <qspirit@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:45:15 -0700
I was reading from "No Cross, No Crown," this morning and, as is my
practice, I looked at a verse in the Bible to which Penn referred to explain
a point he just made in his own text. I usually look at at least two Bibles
in doing this (both my KJV with all kinds of lexical and other aids, and my
wide margin make-all-kinds-of-notes-in-the-margin NIV). In doing so I
realized how religious ideology can impact Biblical translation (in a purely
innocent way?) and lead people astray.
The verse was Luke 1:77. The term used in my KJV is "remission" of sins
which, the Strong's (859) says means "remission, foregiveness." it goes on
to say "...putting away of sin and deliverance of the sinner from the power
of sin, although not from the presence of sin."
Protestant Christianity (i.e., Calvin) teaches that we cannot be delivered
from the power of sin in the sense that we can successfully resist it. We
are going to sin, no matter what we do. If that--as opposed to the classic
Quaker theology of perfection--is one's view then one is going to use
"foregiveness" (as the NIV does) in that verse because all we can hope for
is pardon, deliverance from the power of sin in the sense of being delivered
from its consequences.
If we take the classic Quaker view of this--which caused the Protestants of
the 17th Century to so loudly roar against Friends--which is that Christ can
break the power of sin over us in enabling us to not sin, in the first
place, then we would want to use "remission" or some other term that would
give us the sense of delivering us from the power of sin to control us, even
though it will always be there trying to do that.
The NIV uses the word "foregiveness" which serves the Calvinist outlook--we
are wretched sinners who have not power or control over our sinful nature,
Christ has not changed that nature, only erased the consequences of its
inevitable manifestations in our lives. This is not Quakerism but Quakers
who use the NIV are getting a mild form of indoctrination, here, into
Protestant (Calvinist) theology.
But the Greek word (according to Strong [859])--"aphesis"--doesn't carry
that meaning, at the very least it doesn't carry that meaning, alone. It
also carries the meaning that we can be delivered from the power that sin
has in "making" us do that which Christ does not want us to do, so that we
can do as Christ told us we should do.
Those who work in translation, or in paraphrasing, of Bibles are going to be
influenced by what they believe. When they wonder what an author meant by
this or that they are likely to conclude, based on their ideology of faith,
that the author must have meant that which is consistent with what they
believe.
It's one reason why the Bible is not the primary authority. God is. And God
teaches us directly. Every Quaker knows that.
p.s. -- get a load of what Strong's says about the meaning of the word
"knowledge" in the same verse. It's not intellectual knowledge--book
learning, understanding what scripture says, or one's pastor says, about
salvation. It is experiential knowledge--the kind of knowledge that classic
Quakerism says one needs to have for faith to make a difference in one's
life.
Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon
onequakertake.blogspot.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: From my blog (was Hello? Anyone there?)
- From: Marshall Price
- Re: Hello? Anyone there?
- From: overcomer . man
- Re: From my blog (was Hello? Anyone there?)
- From: SMcFarlane
- Re: From my blog (was Hello? Anyone there?)
- From: 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
- Re: From my blog (was Hello? Anyone there?)
- References:
- Re: Hello? Anyone there?
- From: Sparky
- Re: Hello? Anyone there?
- Prev by Date: Re: Hello? Anyone there?
- Next by Date: Re: From my blog (was Hello? Anyone there?)
- Previous by thread: Re: Hello? Anyone there?
- Next by thread: Re: From my blog (was Hello? Anyone there?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading