Open your Bible, and look at 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Now, if you have a Nelson King James Study Bible (a fabulous Bible, BTW, but, like all study Bibles, it has its doctrinal flaws and imperfections)
All study Bibles have doctrinal flaws and imperfections, but not Candy's interpretations . . .
What jumped out at me in her entry is her double standard on Bible translation. Let me refresh your memory of her view of Roman Catholic translation:
Vatican says - The Holy See Vatican says that the Catholic Church ("The Church") has the right to pass down traditions, and that these traditions hold as much water as the very Bible itself. reference 1
God says - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. -Mark 7:13
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. -Colossians 2:8
My Notes: This is WHY God gave us the Bible, so that we have His Word, written down, so that we don't have to depend on traditions to know what is right. Any tradition that goes against scripture, or that adds to it, is a tradition not needed, and could be eternally harmful.
Yet Candy writes today:
"Unknown tongues (lit. "tongue"): Omit unknown in this chapter whenever it occurs with tongues; it was supplied by the translators. Paul's discussion of tongues follow the same idea as the tongues in Acts which were foreign languages miraculously heard and translated by the recipients." Page 1784
I believe the above note to be wrong. The KJV translators were right to insert unknown in the text, because it makes the text more clear to the English ear. Acts chapter 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 are both speaking of the gift of tongues, BUT, they are speaking of two different types of tongue gifts. There is a distinction here, which a lot of people seem to miss. Remember, the Bible is full of fine distinctions like this.
So, adding to Scripture is wrong when Catholics do it, but not when the King James translators do it? I know, because the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and the King James translators are divinely inspired. Really, she favors the KJV translation because it agrees with her interpretation.
She spends most of her article claiming an important distinction between "other tongues" and "unknown tongues" and then looks to Paul to approve her interpretation. But what are her proof texts?
Remember, forget what your church teaches on tongues, and let's see what the apostle Paul thinks of tongues. Does he approve of speaking in tongues? Let's read what he said on the matter:
"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"- vs 18
"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." -vs. 39
These verses only say "tongues" and do not specify unknown or other. Was Paul speaking in other tongues or unknown tongues?
Also, in typical Candy manner, she neatly pretends to best the Baptist argument against speaking in tongues while she never even presents their theological basis. From my understanding (and I'm always open to correction here, folks) Baptists don't deny that Paul or any of the early Christians spoken in tongues. They only feel that that particular gift was for the apostolic age and does not continue to the modern day.
19 comments:
I thought her post was confusing at best, and thought it must have gotten published half finished, actually.
She never made a POINT! She says she disagrees with the Baptists on this point - but doesn't elaborate on what specifically HER view is (will you definitely speak in tongues when you are "baptized by the HS"? Is speaking in tongues proof you are saved? Is it okay sometimes? Only when praying? etc. etc. etc. - there are SOOO many diverging Pentecostal/charismatic views and doctrines on the topic!)
She also isn't completely clear about what, exactly, her pastor taught that she disagreed with. I inferred it because I'm familiar with Baptist theology, but if one had never heard of it, would they even catch her point?
She really should try out the Douay Rheims. It has the correct translation:
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co014.htm
LOL
She only uses the Douay Rheims when she trots out Gen 3:15. ;)
I'll bite: what point(s?) does she try to make with Gen 3:15?
I believe you mean "Dewey Rheim", LOL!
Her point is that Catholics have obviously abused and added to the Bible, as can be proven by the Douay-Rheims version of Gen. 3:15 Douay-Rheims says "her"; the KJV says "his".
But when her KJV translators add to the text - they are correct to do so!
Here you go Dr. Mike!
http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/search?q=Genesis+3%3B15
Most Baptists are cessationists, meaning they believe certain gifts, such as healing and tongues, ceased after the NT was completed.
They believe God can heal, but that no one person has the gift of healing.
I think Candy is more of a Pentecostal than a Baptist in theology.
My guess is the Pastor said tongues are a human foreign language spontaneously spoken.
I think Candy is more of a Pentecostal than a Baptist in theology.
Which one teaches that God implanted an already fertilized egg into Mary's womb so that she is only his adoptive mother, and not his genetic mother?
Candy certainly defies easy labeling, that's for sure. . .
Which one teaches that God implanted an already fertilized egg into Mary's womb so that she is only his adoptive mother, and not his genetic mother?
Ethiopian Apostolic. Did she ever have "The Bible Writers' Theology" on her book list.
...and which one teaches that Satan went to Mars and destroyed the planet...?
At one point, she said to me that she thought she had more in common with Menno Simons than Martin Luther. I wonder if she had this in mind:
The Anabaptists started with the Radical Reformers in the 16th century. The credited founder, Menno Simons, taught that Jesus did not take the flesh from His mother and that Jesus brought his body from heaven or had one made for him by the Word. It was also believed that the body of Jesus passed through Mary, His mother, just like water passes through a pipe.
I got it from here:
http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/library/anabaptistbelief.htm
...and which one teaches that Satan went to Mars and destroyed the planet...?
My first guess is Jack van Impe.
At one point, she said to me that she thought she had more in common with Menno Simons than Martin Luther.
This does not surprise me. Did you see the Martin *Loser* section at Jesus-is-Savior?
Isn't she aware that so-called Heavenly or Divine Flesh doctrine is gnosticism?
"Begotten, not made" is in the Nicene creed for a reason.
She's already a Nestorian, why not a Gnostic as well? she clearly feels that she has special knowledge . . .
The note is wrong.
adding to Scripture is wrong when Catholics do it, but not when the King James translators do it?
Not in terms of translation, rather, e.g., Gk additions to Daniel and Esther, etc.
What gets me is until 150 years ago, English bibles included the OT Apocrypha. The Scottish Bible Society didn't want the added expense of those pages, dressing their thrift up in theological terms.
If Candy really has a reproduction of a 17th century English bible, it contains the RC additions. If it doesn't, it isn't genuine.
She's already a Nestorian
I hope you didn't pick up that label from comments at Jennie's blog.
Being a former Baptist, the belief is that the apostles did speak in tongues, but that while the languages were unknown to the persons speaking they were indeed known to the hearers. So the pentecostal babbling version of tongues is what is denied in it's entirety. Baptists also believe that the gift of tongues ceased with the completion of the Bible.
I hope you didn't pick up that label from comments at Jennie's blog.
I'm not sure which Jennie's blog you are referring to. I do read Jen at Conversion Diary, but I don't think Nestorianism has come up there.
I picked up that label from my History of Christianity class, part I. You can read a blog post I wrote nearly a year ago now, when I first discovered Candy's Nestorian beliefs.
http://mdcalexatestblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/mary-was-just-vessel.html
I picked up that label from my History of Christianity class,
I'm relieved to know that.
Now you do get, when Protestants claim Catholics added to the Bible, what texts they are talking about? The Bible in English has nothing to do with that charge.
apostles did speak in tongues, ... [that] ... were indeed known to the hearers
1 Cor. 14 isn't about apostles speaking in tongues.
Post a Comment