Trinitarian Commentaries vs. Discourse Analysis (E

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You can share which book. Much simpler to use the pure Bible, the Authorised Version (KJB).

Steven

*Yes, I am well familiar w. your thoughts on the KJV & I tenaciously disagree (to put it mildly). In fact, we are currently in the process of switching from the KJV to the ESV for our public reading in the church I pastor...& the people love it. I regularly teach on the errors of KJVO (which is not the same thing as being anti-KJV).

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

I rarely made reference to the Greek when I taught at church. It is a needless distraction.

*I would differ w. you here inasmuch as the NT apostles & Jesus Himself appealed to specific grammar to formulate their doctrines (e.g., resurrection doctrine, baptism, etc.). While I do understand that in-depth exegesis (e.g., sentence diagramming, syntactical parallels, etc.) can be overwhelming to the lay church member, I do highly encourage original language research for the saints. Simply, I encourage "growing in knowledge."

Originally Posted by Sean

God is not a "commentator" in my point of view.

It it His word and He invents his own ideas.

He spoke through men that wrote His thoughts.

If not, God is not the author of His word.

When I say commentary, I think of opinion pieces.

*Again, not interested in opinions - only the originally-inspired grammar of the biblical data itself. Already explained that every translator absolutely must make interpretive decisions in the transmission process from sender language to receiving language.