On the other hand is often the verses in the Old Testament prophecies and was quoted as subject to Christ despite the imposition of the original looks completely different. It was concluded that, this freedom proves an understanding of inspiration is far more lenient than those typically associated with the Bible and writers. The aim is to provide a translation of the actual intent and not to provide translations of words. Because of these differences, which certainly is due to differences in structure and origin of language, it is often a more liberal translation closer to the original meaning rather than literal translations.
The question of quote the Old Testament prophets is more complicated, for here the whole meaning and its application somewhat changed. Indeed there is the idea, that with or without conscious verses have been charged incorrectly, because the authors seek detailed evidence from the books of prophecies about the Messiah from the office of Christ. Viewed at first glance this idea is understandable, because many of the verses quoted apparently in connection with the original text does not refer to the Messiah is not at all. But the Bible is a book even includes many writings. Because it's in the Bible there is a wider context than immediately. Can be said, the whole history of Israel centered and fulfilled in the history of 'Israel proper', and this can be seen in the history of the ways God works. For example the name of Rachel, who seems without foundation connected with the events in Matthew 2, reminding us of how often an attack, death and exile. If we look at this quote as the only direct evidence, this quote is not convincing. But if we see them in the broader relationship, the relationship with the aims and work of God, the last quote shows us the symbols and patterns which were fulfilled in the History of Jesus Christ.
We must be careful, do not interpret what the Bible says in the guidelines themselves, which are broader than the Bible itself. For example about the author and his time is often more is said by tradition than by the Bible. Sometimes surprising that the Bible does not say anything in this regard. We know very little about the collection of books containing the history of the Old Testament. We do not read about the timing and circumstances of the writings of some prophets (for example: Malachi). We do not know who the author of many of the Psalms and the Book of Job. We were not told that the author of Hebrews is Paul. The script itself does not say that Luke wrote the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, or that John who wrote the fourth Gospel, although the view that Luke and John, who wrote his book, can be accepted by common sense. testimony of the Bible itself must be distinguished from the evidence of tradition. If not, we're easy to equate the authority of the Bible with the historical realities of the power provided outside the Bible. After all the above mentioned, it is necessary to say also, that the Bible clearly states it's from God, nature and the divine authority. By the light is said in Scripture that the word is from God. Stated that the authority of the Holy Spirit through human beings. Admittedly, that in the words of the prophets and the historical events that are told there is an influence from God. Not far-fetched a distinction between content and form of God's Word. Testimony of the Bible that the Bible is the written Word of God that requires us to believe it or not. If we are faced with the Bible there may be other reasons that may arise, but these basic guidelines can not be circumvented.
The question of quote the Old Testament prophets is more complicated, for here the whole meaning and its application somewhat changed. Indeed there is the idea, that with or without conscious verses have been charged incorrectly, because the authors seek detailed evidence from the books of prophecies about the Messiah from the office of Christ. Viewed at first glance this idea is understandable, because many of the verses quoted apparently in connection with the original text does not refer to the Messiah is not at all. But the Bible is a book even includes many writings. Because it's in the Bible there is a wider context than immediately. Can be said, the whole history of Israel centered and fulfilled in the history of 'Israel proper', and this can be seen in the history of the ways God works. For example the name of Rachel, who seems without foundation connected with the events in Matthew 2, reminding us of how often an attack, death and exile. If we look at this quote as the only direct evidence, this quote is not convincing. But if we see them in the broader relationship, the relationship with the aims and work of God, the last quote shows us the symbols and patterns which were fulfilled in the History of Jesus Christ.
We must be careful, do not interpret what the Bible says in the guidelines themselves, which are broader than the Bible itself. For example about the author and his time is often more is said by tradition than by the Bible. Sometimes surprising that the Bible does not say anything in this regard. We know very little about the collection of books containing the history of the Old Testament. We do not read about the timing and circumstances of the writings of some prophets (for example: Malachi). We do not know who the author of many of the Psalms and the Book of Job. We were not told that the author of Hebrews is Paul. The script itself does not say that Luke wrote the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, or that John who wrote the fourth Gospel, although the view that Luke and John, who wrote his book, can be accepted by common sense. testimony of the Bible itself must be distinguished from the evidence of tradition. If not, we're easy to equate the authority of the Bible with the historical realities of the power provided outside the Bible. After all the above mentioned, it is necessary to say also, that the Bible clearly states it's from God, nature and the divine authority. By the light is said in Scripture that the word is from God. Stated that the authority of the Holy Spirit through human beings. Admittedly, that in the words of the prophets and the historical events that are told there is an influence from God. Not far-fetched a distinction between content and form of God's Word. Testimony of the Bible that the Bible is the written Word of God that requires us to believe it or not. If we are faced with the Bible there may be other reasons that may arise, but these basic guidelines can not be circumvented.
Main Source: Writing the first part up to the third part of this is inspired by the book "The New Bible Commentary, 1999"
No comments:
Post a Comment