Translation & More

[HERn]

Originally Posted by JJ

I see the problem with MOTA and remnant theology being that there is only one MOTA at a time. While Martin Luther took a big step in recovering the church to the pure word of God, he was hardly alone, but rather part of the Spirit's response through a group of reformers bold enough to risk their lives by standing with truth versus the church's teaching of the day. This has been the case ever since.

The Ministry of the Age is the ministry of God's word and Spirit, rather than law (or licentiousness and self exaltation). No single man has ever "cornered that market". And, anyone who thinks he or a very small group of men has needs to learn more of Bible and church history. The Lord has a way of preserving a remnant of thousands of faithful saints in a manner that is hidden to God's prophets, until He chooses to reveal them (to His glory!).

A sister from the GLA showed me the book "The Pilgram Church" by Broadbent that shows that God has always had a faithful church, and it's not the one that declares its own beauty and faithfulness to the Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

A sister from the GLA showed me the book "The Pilgram Church" by Broadbent that shows that God has always had a faithful church, and it's not the one that declares its own beauty and faithfulness to the Lord.

Great book! I gobbled it up as soon as I got it. It was church history books like this one that helped me see through Lee's self-serving views of history.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great book! I gobbled it up as soon as I got it. It was church history books like this one that helped me see through Lee's self-serving views of history.

That dear couple left the GLA churches and joined with the LSM denomination in Fairborne. In my opinion I think the GLA churches were more healthy than the LSM-denomination churches.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

That dear couple left the GLA churches and joined with the LSM denomination in Fairborne. In my opinion I think the GLA churches were more healthy than the LSM-denomination churches.

I knew the brother RR that started the LC in Fairborn. We were in Columbus together since 1977, as was Phil Comfort and many others. After Comfort was badly abused and publicly shamed by TC in 1981-82 while staying in Cleveland, he returned to Columbus and stepped down from the eldership and no longer ministered in the meetings. The rest of us attempted to proceed doing the best we could, though relations with TC were strained. Brother RR and the other Columbus leaders heard what happened to PC in detail, and all of them were quite disgusted with TC's behavior.

Then in 1985 TC launched into another public shaming campaign, this time with RR. TC, in an orchestrated group ministry rotation among the LC's, arranged for RR to speak in Cleveland after the Lord's Table meeting. TC slips into the back row just in time for RR to share, and promptly ridiculed him openly, with the goal to destroy RR's reputation in the region. RR remained in the Columbus area for awhile, and then eventually ended up in Fairborn (a Dayton, OH suburb) with a few others, to start a new LC. While WL was alive, TC frantically tried to prevent Fairborn from becoming a legitimate LC, recognized by LSM, and permitted by them to receive the Life Study Standing Order and attend their trainings. After WL passed, the BB's used Fairborn and a few other "rebel" LC's in the area to create inroads of support to undermine TC's authority in the region.

During the GLA Quarantines (circa 2006) I said repeatedly that many more regional leaders would have supported TC, except for the way he treated them. After working together with Cleveland for decades, Chicago joined LSM because their leader (Bill Barker) got publicly shamed by TC over a local matter involving the Spanish language work. Here's a full time senior worker in his 60's, leading a region of LC's (in IL, WI, IN, MN) getting majorly chastised over a minor matter in front of many younger brothers. This is how TC created enemies out of beloved brothers. This is how WL trained TC to rule the LC's.

[OBW]

Question. It seems that there was maybe one actual reference to a remnant in the Bible. Was it so important that there should be a remnant theology?

The reason I ask it this way is that the whole remnant idea based on the return from Babylon would seem to not be anything specifically special in the way that Lee taught it. Surely there was the prophetic need for Israel to be once again when the Messiah came. But it has always been interesting that they were only very briefly somewhat free from bondage even in Judea. And one of the leaders of the return was only there for a while for some of the building, then was required to return to his post as cup bearer for the king.

And it was the semi-freedom to return, or stay, or go elsewhere that seems to have begun the scattering that found the Jews almost everywhere when Paul began his journeys. Not so negative after all.

My problem with remnant theology is that it is steeped in the idea that Christians are mostly falling away and there has to be some special few who stand for the truth, or return to the truth. I honestly think that this is more in error than whatever "deadness" we attribute to groups that just don't get excited outwardly like the LRC and some other groups do.

[testallthings]

THE CHURCH OF GOD

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 1Co 1:2 unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and ours (ASV)

"Paul's description of the church is marvelous. However, Christians have not paid adequate attention to it. The church is the church of God, for it is constituted of the divine nature. The expression “the church of God” indicates that the church has the nature of God, that it is constituted of the element of God. Therefore, the church is of God." (Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 1, Section 2) http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchM...?id=2FEADBC94D

At the outset, let me say that this paragraph is not included in the footnotes on the same verse.

W. Lee is trying to indicate that the church has the nature of God based on the preposition of. This is a very weak argument because few verses later Paul said, “1Co 1:11 For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 1Co 1:12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” (ASV)

I don't think Paul indicated that some Corinthians had the nature of Paul, others of Apollos, some others of Cephas, and finally some of Christ.
What he was indicating, is that the church doesn't belong to apostles, but only to God. Am I wrong?

[testallthings]

ELLIPSIS?

“To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, the year of jubilee.'' (Luke 4:19, Recovery Version of the Bible)

Every Bible translator has to face the problem of ellipsis. Here is what Dr. E.W. Bullinger wrote on the subject in his unique book:

“El-lip´-sis, a leaving in ( en ) in, and ( leipein ) to leave .
The figure is so called, because some gap is left in the sentence, which means that a word or words are left out or omitted . The English name of the figure would therefore be Omission .
The figure is a peculiar form given to a passage when a word or words are omitted; words which are necessary for the grammar, but are not necessary for the sense. The laws of geometry declare that there must be at least three straight lines to enclose a space. So the laws of syntax declare that there must be at least three words to make complete sense, or the simplest complete sentence. These three words are variously named by grammarians. In the sentence “Thy word is truth,” “Thy word” is the subject spoken of, “truth” is what is said of it (the predicate), and the verb “is” (the copula) connects it.
But any of these three may be dispensed with; and this law of syntax may be
legitimately broken by Ellipsis.
The omission arises not from want of thought, or lack of care, or from accident, but from design, in order that we may not stop to think of, or lay stress on, the word omitted, but may dwell on the other words which are thus emphasised by the omission. For instance, in Matt. 14:19, we read that the Lord Jesus “gave the loaves to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.”
There is no sense in the latter sentence, which is incomplete, “the disciples to the multitude,” because there is no verb. The verb “gave” is omitted by the figure of Ellipsis for some purpose. If we read the last sentence as it stands, it reads as though Jesus gave the disciples to the multitude!
This at once serves to arrest our attention; it causes us to note the figure employed; we observe the emphasis; we learn the intended lesson. What is it? Why, this; we are asked to dwell on the fact that the disciples gave the bread, but only instrumentally, not really. The Lord Jesus Himself was the alone Giver of that bread. Our thoughts are thus, at once, centered on Him and not on the disciples....These Ellipses must not be arbitrarily supplied according to our own individual views; we are not at liberty to insert any words, according to our own fancies: but they are all scientifically arranged and classified, and each must therefore be filled up, according to definite principles which are well ascertained, and in obedience to laws which are carefully laid down.” (FIGURES OF SPEECH USED IN THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED,By E. W. Bullinger, D.D.)

An example of a correctly supplied word is Mat. 2:9:

“And after they heard the king, they went their way, and behold, the star which they saw at its rising led them until it came and stood over the place where the child was.” (Recovery Version of the Bible).

Now let's consider Luke 4:19 Recovery Version of the Bible. Not even one major Bible translation (that I am aware of) adds the words “the year of jubilee”(in italics, of course).
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord is already clear. There is no need to add any more words. This is more like an explanation, or rather an interpretation that has slipped, in italics, of course, into the text. The phrase “the year of jubilee” of course can find its place in the footnotes, where it belongs.

The Bible itself provides examples of explanations:

Joh 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

Joh 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Joh 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.(KJV)

The difference is that, in the last 4 examples, the One Who added an explanation was the Holy Spirit.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by HERn

A sister from the GLA showed me the book "The Pilgram Church" by Broadbent that shows that God has always had a faithful church, and it's not the one that declares its own beauty and faithfulness to the Lord.

Yes, the Pilgrim Church is great chronicle of church history that I believe illustrates the proper "remnant" principle.