>Does the Bible Authorize Blogging?

Posted: 21/02/2010 in making fun of fundies from Kentucky, performative contradictions, rhetorican arguments, sarcasm, satire, the bible

>

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season reprove rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. -2 TIM 4:1-2

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. – 1 COR 4:6

Based on these two verses, and the pattern of scripture, how do we justify blogging? 2 TIM 4:2 calls us to preach, the word not post it on the internet. Where is the New Testament authority for google reader, blogspot, html, comments, and facebook posts?

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Q says:

    >Is this a legit question, or are you just being provocative? Because if you really want to go that way with it, preaching with a manuscript couldn't be considered preaching, which is how most preachers are taught.

  2. Jin-roh says:

    >I am more or less being a jerk. I started following some blog for masochistic reasons.What's this about manuscript preaching though?

  3. Q says:

    >Haha, got it. I was going to say with manuscripts, if what is at issue being the written nature of the message and you wanted to push it to the extreme, the preaching with a manuscript couldn't be preaching. I'd say that because you're essentially reading out loud. Sure, it's oration, but it's not extemporaneous speech and if that's what preaching has to be, then manuscript preaching couldn't count. Of course, if you don't have a problem with sermon manuscripts, then is the preaching only in speaking the sermon or is the sermon itself the message? And if you answer the latter, why can't a blog just be a written proclamation? Convoluted argument, but I think it's valid.I feel like I've been giving you a hard time recently. I need to lighten up a bit. =)

  4. Nitewrit says:

    >Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. Act 10:34-38 (KJV)And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. Acts 13:48-49 KJV)And the gospel must first be published among all nations. Mark 13:10 (KJV)Just to say it's kind of matters of translation and then splitting hair. šŸ™‚

  5. Q says:

    >Those verses are actually very interesting in Greek. the KJV and NKJV are the only ones that use the word publish in any of those passages. In Acts 10, the translation is interesting because it's a participle phrase acting adverbially: to genomenon rhema, meaning something along the lines of "the becoming word." So it means something along the lines of the word you received or the word that was told of or spread.In Acts 13 the word is diephero, meaning "to spread" or "to pass through" when used transitively. So, "the word was spread throughout the whole region."In Mark 13, the word is the standard word meaning "to preach or proclaim": kaerusso. So Mark should probably be translated preached unless the context provided some other reason to do so (which it doesn't appear to here).

  6. Nitewrit says:

    >True, and it appears in certain translation a decision was made to use "preach" or "preaching" consistently despite whether the original could be that or "proclaim" or "spread" or possibly something else. However, none of this precludes Blogging any more than precluding Paul, Peter, James, Etc. from writting letters or the Testaments being passed along to carry the word of God on scrolls on in books.I assume Jin-roh is funning with us though and hope it isn't my blog he followed for masochistic reasons.

  7. Jin-roh says:

    >heh-heh, you two are taking this way to seriously. I am making a point that those who believe that Christians can only do whatever the Bible explicitly tells us to do are busy living a contradiction since the Bible doesn't tell us to do things like blog.And no, Nate, I am not making your blog.

  8. Q says:

    >I only commented on the verses because I think the translation issues there are very interesting. You know me: give me an opportunity to show off my nerdiness, and it usually happens.

  9. Jaret says:

    >Since I adhere to Sola Scritura like a good protestant fundamentalist, I find your "google" "blogs" and "internets" unsupportable abominations, inspired by the devil himself no doubt.I'm sure that was the response you were going for, right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s