Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 322036299332583424
I agree, I did say it was a reaction
In fact, that's how it started
an heresy that stated that Jesus wasn't God but a being created in a point of time
Yeah
originated somewhere in Egypt iirc
Absolutely
Yeah
Gnostics as well
followers of Arius
Pelagius
And many others spreading false teachings
Which is why we have Eccumenial Councils, to solidify interperations of Scripture
Yes, but in that sense, the council doesn't replace scripture, nor should it discourage personal reading of it.
It never replaced Scripture
I know i know
But it determines the interperation of it
because misinterperations are easy, especially in something like an English translation *especially* if it's KJV
But some people rely too heavily upon what their church or denomination has said to believe about some passages in scripture
I especially think you're correct
I'm not a fan of the KJV
What's you vs a clergy? Clergy aren't infallible but are most likely more correct than an normal individual
The KJV was politcal through and through
You are correct to a point. You should be able to trust your church elders and deacons and wiser and more mature people in their faiths
But that doesn't mean you shouldnt explore the bible for yourself
The KJV was based on manuscript basis that is no longer as authorative
You should, but preferably ask clergy on interperation or get a Study Bible
And its translation of the words into Bishop as opposed to Overseer
Which is more literal
Yes, absolutely
Which translation do you use btw?
...NKJV. But I swears I only listen to commentary as according to my Study Bible
I still prefer ESV
Yeah
I use the ESV
Awesome translation
But I am still unanswered, how does the Reformed determine infallibility of an interperation of Scripture?
"The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts: but in that case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly. Wesley, Letters, 3:129; 5:328."
In some ways though, a literal translation is not prefereable, like for instance where poetical or allegorical language is used
But for the most part, most if not the vast majority of passages of scriputre are pretty obviously meant to be taken literally
this is just method, who declares it?