Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?

[Right Divider]

It is possible, but the nuanced, complex genitive does not lead to MAD interpretations. It is a demarcation of ministry, not two true post-cross gospel messages. The problem is the proof texting of MAD more than the translation. However, compare other versions and check grammarians and commentaries.....to is closer to the truth than of here.

I can live with of since the gospel of the Americans is the same gospel as the gospel of the Canadians and Africans. Different ministries reach different people groups, but it is the same gospel.

That is one sorry and confused explanation.

As you know, being the researching language expert that you are, the word "gospel" (euaggelion) simple means "good message" and nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that there is only ONE "good message". There is MOST certainly only one way to eternal life, but AGAIN, the Bible never says that the ONLY "good message" is eternal life.

The "good message" that God preached to Abraham is clearly spelled out by Paul in Galatians 3:8

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
​

That "good message" is plain and simple. You, and many others, force this to mean eternal life. But it does not say that. There are many ways that all nations will be blessed on the earth by Abraham, as it says right there.

The idea that all "good messages" must be forced to be the SAME "good message" is an unsound and fallacious idea invented by men and not from God and His Word.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That is one sorry and confused explanation.

Rulz will do whatever it takes to remain an Acts 2 Penty.

 

[heir]

Depends how close you get (by it).

Prepositions matter. This is why Gal. 2:7 does not support MAD.

Galatians 2:7 KJV is one of the reasons you fight against the King James Bible.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Galatians 2:7 KJV is one of the reasons you fight against the King James Bible.

Yes, the alleged "demarcation of ministry" that Paul agreed to in Acts 15 and then immediately broke in Acts 16, 17, 18, 19.

 

[heir]

Yes, the alleged "demarcation of ministry" that Paul agreed to in Acts 15 and then immediately broke in Acts 16, 17, 18, 19.

He can't explain it.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He can't explain it.

saint john w: "Well, you see, um....."

 

[godrulz]

Galatians 2:7 KJV is one of the reasons you fight against the King James Bible.

This is categorically false. I said the translation is possible, but not clear here. I have been against KJVO long before I heard of MAD and Gal. 2:7 proof text. This is a minor point. I do NOT fight against the KJV Bible.

I fight against the heresy of KJVO- big difference. You are turning a wrong view into a sect or cult. I am affirming the greatness of the KJV, but not in a mythical way. It is good, but not perfect. It is not the most readable, accurate version. Even if the only one, it is still subject to interpretation.

 

[Bright Raven]

This is categorically false. I said the translation is possible, but not clear here. I have been against KJVO long before I heard of MAD and Gal. 2:7 proof text. This is a minor point. I do NOT fight against the KJV Bible.

I fight against the heresy of KJVO- big difference. You are turning a wrong view into a sect or cult. I am affirming the greatness of the KJV, but not in a mythical way. It is good, but not perfect. It is not the most readable, accurate version. Even if the only one, it is still subject to interpretation.

Then which one is the most readable. Your answer here insinuates that there is one that is.

 

[Right Divider]

This is categorically false. I said the translation is possible, but not clear here. I have been against KJVO long before I heard of MAD and Gal. 2:7 proof text. This is a minor point. I do NOT fight against the KJV Bible.

I fight against the heresy of KJVO- big difference. You are turning a wrong view into a sect or cult. I am affirming the greatness of the KJV, but not in a mythical way. It is good, but not perfect. It is not the most readable, accurate version. Even if the only one, it is still subject to interpretation.

You'll probably accuse one of us of being a ringleader soon.

Act 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
​

 

[godrulz]

Rulz will do whatever it takes to remain an Acts 2 Penty.

This is god playing on your part, an ad hominem attack on my motives, character, credibility, intelligence.

It is also possible you are simply wrong and I am right to point this out.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, the alleged "demarcation of ministry" that Paul agreed to in Acts 15 and then immediately broke in Acts 16, 17, 18, 19.

This is is a misreading of the historical narrative.

 

[godrulz]

You'll probably accuse one of us of being a ringleader soon.

Act 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
​

Why are MAD types so arrogant in their ignorance?

Your post about messages misrepresents me. The beef is with two post-cross gospels which is tantamount to a gospel of works and denial of His finished work. There is a reason why few embrace MAD (it is unbiblical).

 

[Right Divider]

Why are MAD types so arrogant in their ignorance?

Your post about messages misrepresents me. The beef is with two post-cross gospels which is tantamount to a gospel of works and denial of His finished work. There is a reason why few embrace MAD (it is unbiblical).

Why was godrulz born without a sense of humor?

 

[godrulz]

Why was godrulz born without a sense of humor?

I can be witty and sarcastic, but sometimes miss other's humour and take them to literally/seriously.

 

[Bright Raven]

Then which one is the most readable. Your answer here insinuates that there is one that is.

I'm waiting rulz.

 

[godrulz]

I'm waiting rulz.

I have been clear that there is no perfect translation nor will there ever be. The original autographs in original languages fit that, but we have to now work toward perfection even as the KJV translators tried to do so recognizing that the work was not finished with their version (KJVO goes far beyond any evidence as a relatively new heresy).

 

[Bright Raven]

I have been clear that there is no perfect translation nor will there ever be. The original autographs in original languages fit that, but we have to now work toward perfection even as the KJV translators tried to do so recognizing that the work was not finished with their version (KJVO goes far beyond any evidence as a relatively new heresy).

I do agree that there are more readable versions than the KJV. I was just wondering what you preferred.

 

[godrulz]

I do agree that there are more readable versions than the KJV. I was just wondering what you preferred.

I would also say there are more accurate versions. This can be demonstrated over and over.

There are pros and cons to dynamic vs formal vs optimal equivalence, etc. There is always a challenge with meaning and form going from any language to another. The Bible is not immune to this and God does not lose sleep over it (the message is getting through loud and clear in all major translations).

One can certainly use and compare KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, HCSB (one I am enjoying now), NASB, NLT, etc. Even 'The Message' has a very limited place.

For a minimal range of translation philosophies on a desert island: ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT.

 

[Bright Raven]

I would also say there are more accurate versions. This can be demonstrated over and over.

There are pros and cons to dynamic vs formal vs optimal equivalence, etc. There is always a challenge with meaning and form going from any language to another. The Bible is not immune to this and God does not lose sleep over it (the message is getting through loud and clear in all major translations).

One can certainly use and compare KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, HCSB (one I am enjoying now), NASB, NLT, etc. Even 'The Message' has a very limited place.

For a minimal range of translation philosophies on a desert island: ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT.

I agree with you in that truth can be gleaned from all translations.

 

[Nang]

I agree with you in that truth can be gleaned from all translations.

Well, I would hope so, but not maybe always so . . .

It is our responsibility, as believers in the absolute Truth of God's word, to test the spirits of all that is published in the name of God.

It is lazy to sit back and claim the KJV alone is the ultimate of God's revelation, but that is ignorant and not good enough support of the holy Words of God.

As good as the KJV is, we believers must study and be on guard to only endorse translations, commentaries, teachings, etc. that reflect the original Hebrew and Greek rendering of God's gospel of salvation and grace.