4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
So are you going to tell the JW's that the Word ceased to be deity when
He became man and a part of creation.
So are you going to tell the JW's that the Word ceased to be deity when
He became man and a part of creation.
The issue here is "Did Christ stop being God because of the incarnation?"
Did Christ becomming a creature make Him no longer God ? No, in incarnation the Word that was God did not cease to be God. But He did take on something upon Himself which is created, something which He had not in eternity past - flesh and blood humanity.
I quote the Gospel of John that "the Word became flesh". When God became a man He did not cease to be God.
If the Word becoming flesh meant that He ceased to be the (Word) God then John would not have said that their hands handled the Word of life.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.) (1 John 1:1,2)
Notice the apostle says their "hands handled" the Logos of divine and eternal life. The touched with their hands the Word which was with God and was God. When the Word became flesh in order to be touched by human hands, He did not cease to be God.
I don't say this is easy to comprehend or explain.
I don't say that this will not involve the orthodox Christian in some likely debates.
History demonstrates that standing upon all of what the Bible says concerning Christ will certainly not please some natural minds somewhere.
It involves paradoxes to believe the Scripture.
And some paradoxes will be called contradictions.
Flesh, blood, humanity are creatures. And God became that.
But we cannot say He stopped being God because of incarnation.
Now in resurrection, that created part that He took on was uplifted and sanctified to be the Firstborn Son of God. In that sense Christ "Godnized" humanity forever.
He returned to the eternal throne with this humanity and will never again put it off. This is tremendous thing in the history of God.
This is why I tell people that what God IS cannot be totally separated from what God DOES. What He is intrinsically related to His will in His economy of eternal purpose. And His being three-one, His being triune is instrinsically related to His eternal purpose to dispense Himself into man.
So the part of Him that was created and had nothing to do with God in eternity, He sanctified, uplifted, and "Godnized" in resurrection. So His resurrection is also called a BIRTH. It is not just a "coming back to life". No, His resurrection brought that created part back to the eternal throne forever and He was BORN the Firstborn Son of God.
He is both the only begotten Son of God as to eternity before incarnation and the Firstborn Son of God - Firstborn from the dead.
In both catagories He has the first place and is preeminent.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFrom my study of this issue I would point out some things.
P.S. I think the text is saying the Word has the same nature as God.
well, progress at last.
divine, the same nature, a god, same thing, but as has been demonstrated, if one is to
stick rigidly to the text, 'a god', is the proper translation, you may make of that what
you will.
1. Definite nouns refer to a specific, identifiable person or thing.
In either language,it may or may not have a definite article in front
of it. All other nouns are indefinite.
2. When translating an indefinite noun from Greek to English the use
of the indefinite article "a" or "an" before the English is not
always legitimate.
For example, abstract nouns and titles:
1 John 4:8 is translated ",,, God is love" and not "God is a love".
In John 1:1 the purpose of the definite article "ton" is to identify
specific person "God the Father". John uses "Logos" to identify
Yahshua before He became flesh since He was the one that communicated
with words to man. The Word (the Son of God) was with God the Father
in the beginning.
Now here is where our problem in translation comes in. John could
not put the definite article in front of "Theos" because that would
make the "Word" the same as "God the Father". But John still wants
to identify the "Word" also as "God", but not the same person as "God
the Father". How else is He to do this?
This also causes a problem on the English side because to translate
it as "a god" means a false or pagan god. So I think our only
solution is to translate it "Deity". It seems clear that John was
trying to identify the "Word" as having the same nature as "God the
Father" from what He says later.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsman, this is a very old and unsubstantiated argument, usual trinitarian slithering
From my study of this issue I would point out some things.
1. Definite nouns refer to a specific, identifiable person or thing.
In either language,it may or may not have a definite article in front
of it. All other nouns are indefinite.
2. When translating an indefinite noun from Greek to English the use
of the indefinite article "a" or "an" before th the same nature as "God the
Father" from what He says later.
around trying to find some justification for their error. why is totally erroneous?
because one just needs to look through the Gospel of John to find other instances
where both the subject noun and the predicate noun have the definite article and no
confusion exists between subject and predicate. Also we know that the subject of
the third clause of John 1:1 is 'the word', because in the immediately proceeding
two clauses 'the word', was the subject under discussion, John simply makes
subject and predicate nouns formally identical because context differentiates them,
so there is no validation to this idea that John was forced to omit the definite article
from 'god', in order to help the reader to identify the subject of the clause. Its
another nonsense.
Neeext!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
This is an apt demonstration of why science uses very precise language and word
definitions that are universally (among scientists) understood.
And why that is important.
So that when a scientific paper comes out nobody has to argue about what the person
writing the paper is trying to say, and can just get strait to the meaning of the paper.
If god was so great, how could he not make sure his instruction manual for life was clear
unambiguous, and easy to understand?
You don't have to 'interpret' a science paper to tell its true meaning.
It's made clear from the outset.
If your words require correct interpretation then you run the risk that people will incorrectly
interpret them.
If you care about whether you are clearly understood or not you must therefore care
whether your words are clear or ambiguous.
You can't argue its because of translation errors, because if the original meaning was made
clear, the translators would have no problem. [and god should have overseen the translation
process anyway, if he cared, or existed, at all.]
I also don't know how you can claim the bible to be inerrant if you can't agree what it actually says.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsas for the assertion that 'a god' is pagan, or false, have you never read, Luke 20:38?
From my study of this issue I would point out some things.
1. Definite nouns refer to a specific, identifiable person or thing.
In either language,it may or may not have a definite article in front
of it. All other nouns are indefinite.
2. When translating an indefinite noun from Greek to English the use
of the indefinite article "a" or "an" before th the same nature as "God the
Father" from what He says later.
'He is a god not of the dead, but of the living'.
theos de ouk, estin nekron,
please note that the same form can be found in John 1:1, where 'theos', is before the
verb and it is indefinite. Here the term 'god', is indefinite because it speaks of a
category to which the subject belongs. Are we to understand that Christ is making a
reference to a pagan deity? or a false God? i think not.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThis is an apt demonstration of why science uses very precise language and word
This is an apt demonstration of why science uses very precise language and word
definitions that are universally (among scientists) understood.
And why that is important.
So that when a scientific paper comes out nobody has to argue about what the person
writing the paper is trying to say, and can just get strait to the meaning of the paper.
I know how you can claim the bible to be inerrant if you can't agree what it actually says.
definitions that are universally (among scientists) understood.
And why that is important.
then take it to science spanky, this is spirituality. As for your assertion, meaning is
rooted in language, not simply carried by it as you have erroneously tried to assert,
not only that, language is organic, it changes depending on any number of factors,
perhaps we should simply try to stop it, to confine it, to sanitise it, put it in a test tube
and analyse its atomic structure? Get a grip.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo clear meaning is not important in spirituality?
This is an apt demonstration of why science uses very precise language and word
definitions that are universally (among scientists) understood.
And why that is important.
then take it to science spanky, this is spirituality.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeplease see the edited text, as for clear meaning, there is no confusion in my mind, nor
So clear meaning is not important in spirituality?
have you been able to point any out, constant reference has been made to the Greek
text, the rules of grammar and structure which are readily defined and easily
discernible.
What you are in fact witnessing has nothing to do with the defined quality of language
or its precise use, it has to do with religious bias and taking certain liberties, justified
or otherwise with language.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLuke 20:38
as for the assertion that 'a god' is pagan, or false, have you never read, Luke 20:38?
'He is a god not of the dead, but of the living'.
theos de ouk, estin nekron,
please note that the same form can be found in John 1:1, where 'theos', is before the
verb and it is indefinite. Here the term 'god', is indefinite because it speaks of a
c ...[text shortened]... tand that Christ is making a
reference to a pagan deity? or a false God? i think not.
Here your translation is definitely wrong because it is clear that the
noun is definite because it refers to a specific God not some
indefinte god. The indefinite article "a" can not be legally used,
but you could use the definite article "the" in the translation into
English or omit it like the original Greek.
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
This is an apt demonstration of why science uses very precise language and word
definitions that are universally (among scientists) understood.
And why that is important.
So that when a scientific paper comes out nobody has to argue about what the person
writing the paper is trying to say, and can just get strait to the meaning of the paper.
I know how you can claim the bible to be inerrant if you can't agree what it actually says.
If god was so great, how could he not make sure his instruction manual for life was clear unambiguous, and easy to understand?
I don't think this is a fair criticism.
If God does communicate something simple to you, like ABC, and you resist, maybe DEFG is useless for you to go on to.
God convicts my conscience one night that my failure to return a company owned manual to the office, is actually stealing. Suppose I say in my heart "I don't care. I really want to own this book. I can save myself many dollars if I just, kind of indefinitely borrow the book."
I have resisted His truth "You shall not steal". I have not recognized that as a sin. I have not appreciated that it harms someone else and it is not an act of love or honorability. I resist.
So now I have wasted the light that God has shown me in His word "You shall not steal" and "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins". That light has been wasted on me because I rebel.
Now if He wants to give you more light, should you complain that He is not great and is too ambiguous. "God is you were really great, You would have made it simple to understand Your incarnation, Your redemption, etc. Why did you make is so ambiguous ?"
Before you use the excuse that God has not made everything in the Bible so clear, first examine how you have handled the understanding that He HAS provided to you concerning your life.
You don't have to 'interpret' a science paper to tell its true meaning.
The above explanation is meant to show you that primarily God is into changing people's lives through repentance and transformation. Anyone who comes to the Bible with no willingness to be changed by the Spirit of God should not use the rational of everything being too ambiguous.
Perhaps, what was elementary and basic you did not allow to touch your life. Perhaps you should go back to that basic place, that crossroad where you DID understand something that He asked of you. Your obedience will open the way for deeper understanding.
Maybe you thought the Bible exists only to satisfy man's curiosity with objective information. But He spoke in order to dispense something of Himself into us to make He and us come together in fellowship.
I am just saying that much complaining of the revelation being too ambiguous is actually due to a person not wanting to be changed by the word of God. I do not have to master Greek, Hebrew and Church history to receive His light from the word that I am a sinner in need of the love and forgiveness in Christ.
You can see that Jesus is unusually good and wonderful. You can see what He says about you and I. How do you handle the basic light ? How do you handle the most elementary revelation concerning your need to believe in Him as Lord ?
It's made clear from the outset.
If your words require correct interpretation then you run the risk that people will incorrectly interpret them.
In your complaint about not being able to "interpret" some finer truths of the Bible, also ask how you have handled that which you DID understand with no problem.
His speaking to us from the Bible should be personal with a view to bringing us to Himself.
"Lord, I may not understand everything about the Logos as these people debate. But I understand that God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. I can see what a gift this Son of God was to mankind. And I can see that He has told me to believe in Him, to receive Him as my Lord."
How have you handled that which was clear to you ?
If you care about whether you are clearly understood or not you must therefore care whether your words are clear or ambiguous.
Life in the natural realm is a matter of growth and maturity. In the spiritual realm divine life is also a matter of growth and maturity.
There is the milk of the word, Paul says. And there is the meat of the word of God. No, everything in the divine revelation may not be that easy to understand. But in obedience to what God does open our minds to understand, we should come to Him and obey through His grace.
Proverbs says "But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, Which shines brighter and brighter until the full day." (Prov. 4:18)
If you have some light from God, walk in that light. Further light will then be available to you. He is into CHANGING people into the image of Christ.
You can't argue its because of translation errors, because if the original meaning was made clear, the translators would have no problem. [and god should have overseen the translation process anyway, if he cared, or existed, at all.]
I understand your frustration. And I also have a point of view and trust. But it would be a mistake to show up before God with a rational that since so many teachers of the Bible were not in agreement, THEREFORE, one chucked the entire Scripture aside.
Yes, it is inconvenient that not every handler of the Bible is in 100% agreement about everything. Don't count on that as an excuse to push away the lordship of Christ. He said by their fruits we will know the true prophets from the false prophets.
I am responsible to my Lord for fruit out of the level of understanding that I DID have. Many times the problem is not with what one doesn't understand but rather with what one DOES clearly understand.
I don't think you have understood nothing of the work of Jesus Christ and His teaching of what your response should be to Him as Lord and Savior of your soul.
Are you putting confidence in this rational ?
"God I come before you an unredeemed sinner. I never believed in Christ. I did not ask for forgiveness of my sins. I never received Him as Savior. But it is Your own fault. There were too many arguments over the translation of a few passages in John here and in Mark there. So I decided that Christ was nothing to me. I now stand before You with no justification, no redemption, no Savior, but only good arguments blaming You."
That will not work.
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsnow you are trying my patience, i provided the Greek text, demonstrating that it
Luke 20:38
Here your translation is definitely wrong because it is clear that the
noun is definite because it refers to a specific God not some
indefinte god. The indefinite article "a" can not be legally used,
but you could use the definite article "the" in the translation into
English or omit it like the original Greek.
was indefinite, if you have anything to say, make reference to the Greek text, not to
my translation. If you can demonstrate that the Greek text has the definite article
then do so, otherwise, once again, you have no case. Here it is AGAIN,
theos de ouk, estin nekron
no definite article, translates as 'a god'. You cannot bend the rules of Greek
grammar simply because it does not comply with your religious bias, that is what
the text states. It is clear that 'theos', refers to a category to which the subject
belongs. This is a grammatical fact whether you like it or not. No you cannot use
'the God', it doesn't exist in the Greek text, nor is there any basis for introducing it,
this is a grammatical fact, whether you like it or not. Other translations
acknowledge the indefinite nature of 'theos' and translate it as 'a god', although they
try to impose their bias on to the text where none exists in the original by
capitalising God, at once recognising the indefinite nature of theos by translating it
as 'a god' and trying to make it appear definite at the same time by capitalising it.
Its simply more religious bias in translation, of which we have now become
accustomed, or as the NIV has done, simply to ignore the Greek construct
altogether and put in their own version, but hey, what Christian is likely to know,
that is why i loathe those translators, they treat other Christians as being stupid.
http://biblos.com/luke/20-38.htm
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt is very important as it does lead to life. The Bible uses the term "Sacred Secret". See if this explination helps with your question....
So clear meaning is not important in spirituality?
The Greek word mysterion, translated “sacred secret,” has reference primarily to that which is known by those who are initiated. In the ancient mystery religions that flourished in the time of the early Christian congregation, those who wished to take part in the mystery celebrations had to undergo initiation; the uninitiated were denied both access to the so-called sacred actions and to knowledge of them.
Those initiated into them were bound by a vow of silence, not to reveal the secrets. However, there was also a secular, “everyday” use of the word, such as for a private secret, a secret between friends, family secrets. The apostle Paul uses the passive of myeo in this latter sense when he says: “I have learned the secret [literally, I have been initiated into secrets] of both how to be full and how to hunger, both how to have an abundance and how to suffer want.”—Php 4:12.
Different From Mystery Religions.
Concerning the Greek mysterion, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains: “In the [New Testament] it denotes, not the mysterious (as with the Eng. word), but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by Divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those only who are illumined by His Spirit. In the ordinary sense a mystery implies knowledge withheld; its Scriptural significance is truth revealed. Hence the terms especially associated with the subject are ‘made known,’ ‘manifested,’ ‘revealed,’ ‘preached,’ ‘understand,’ ‘dispensation.’”—1981, Vol. 3, p. 97.
The sacred secrets of God and other “mysteries” of the Bible, such as that of Babylon the Great, are therefore things, not to be kept secret forever, but to be revealed by Jehovah God in his own time to those who look to him and to whom he chooses to reveal them. The apostle Paul discusses this aspect of matters at 1 Corinthians 2:6-16. There he speaks of the “sacred secret” of God as “hidden wisdom,” revealed through God’s spirit to his Christian servants. It is something that the spirit of the world or the human wisdom of physical men cannot fathom but that is spoken and understood by those ‘combining spiritual matters with spiritual words.’ Jesus Christ earlier pointed out to his disciples: “To you the sacred secret [Gr., mysterion] of the kingdom of God has been given, but to those outside all things occur in illustrations, in order that, though looking, they may look and yet not see, and, though hearing, they may hear and yet not get the sense of it, nor ever turn back and forgiveness be given them.”—Mr 4:11, 12; Mt 13:11-13; Lu 8:10.
The great difference between the sacred secret of God and the secrets of mystery religions is, first of all, in content: God’s secret is good news and is not a lie or man-made deception. (Joh 8:31, 32, 44; Col 1:5; 1Jo 2:27) Second, those who are chosen to understand the sacred secret of God are bound, not to keep it secret, but to give it the widest possible proclamation and publication. This is revealed, as noted in the foregoing, by the Bible use of terms such as “preached,” “made known,” “manifested,” and also “declaring,” ‘speaking,’ in connection with “the sacred secret of the good news.” True Christians exercised the greatest vigor in telling this good news containing the understanding of the sacred secret to “all creation that is under heaven.” (1Co 2:1; Eph 6:19; Col 1:23; 4:3, 4) God determines who are not deserving and withholds understanding from such ones. God is not partial when he does this; it is because of “the insensibility of their hearts” that God does not open up to them the understanding of his sacred secret.—Eph 4:17, 18.
So it would be safe to say that God had the Bible written in such a way that it does take not only work to understand it but it takes the right heart condition that God sees in us which only then would allow us to learn and understand.
One can see even here at RHP all the different opinions that are discussed even on the simplest subjects and that would show that not all here have the correct understandings, other wise all here would be in agreement. And the agreement is one sign Jesus spoke of that would define his true followers.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Darby Translation (DARBY)
10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and that there be not among you divisions; but that ye be perfectly united in the same mind and in the same opinion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI pointed out to you before the rule for determining definite and indefinite
now you are trying my patience, i provided the Greek text, demonstrating that it
was indefinite, if you have anything to say, make reference to the Greek text, not to
my translation. If you can demonstrate that the Greek text has the definite article
then do so, otherwise, once again, you have no case. Here it is AGAIN,
theos de ouk, estin ...[text shortened]... s, they treat other Christians as being stupid.
http://biblos.com/luke/20-38.htm
nouns. Here it is again.
1. Definite nouns refer to a specific, identifiable person or thing.
In either language,it may or may not have a definite article in front
of it. All other nouns are indefinite.
An indefinite noun is not determined by the lack of an article, but by
usage. In Luke 20:38, God is definite because it refers to a definite or
specific, identifiable person or thing. It does not refer to just any god.
So it is a violation of correct grammer to use an indefinte article with
a definite noun. This is the rule whether you like it or not.
The following is an example of a correct translation conforming to the
rules of correct grammer:
Luke 20:38
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
38 Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:38&version=NASB
Originally posted by googlefudgeScientist is not perfect in their use of language either no matter how much
This is an apt demonstration of why science uses very precise language and word
definitions that are universally (among scientists) understood.
And why that is important.
So that when a scientific paper comes out nobody has to argue about what the person
writing the paper is trying to say, and can just get strait to the meaning of the paper.
I ...[text shortened]... know how you can claim the bible to be inerrant if you can't agree what it actually says.
you want to elevate science above God. We are discussing a matter of the
proper translation from a language that neither one of us are an expert
in. Apparently not all the translaters were experts in both Greek and
English either, which resulted in slightly different translations that could
then be interpreted to mean two different things. We are simply trying to
check the rules to determine if it is possible for us to agree on a translation.
8 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsOnce again your made up rules are not the rules of Greek grammar and you are quite
I pointed out to you before the rule for determining definite and indefinite
nouns. Here it is again.
1. Definite nouns refer to a specific, identifiable person or thing.
In either language,it may or may not have a definite article in front
of it. All other nouns are indefinite.
An indefinite noun is not determined by the lack of an article, but ...[text shortened]... for all live to Him.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020:38&version=NASB
wrong, as you have been throughout the entirety of this thread,
The indefiniteness of this text (Luke 20:38) is proved by the parallel account at Mark
12:27, which reads, ouk estin theos nekron, where 'theos', follows the verb rather
than proceeding it, what this means is that in such a position the anarthrous theos
must be indefinite. So suck it up RJH, once again you and the scurrilous translators in
whom you have put faith have been found to have demonstrated their bias when
translating the ancient text. There is no hiding place for them, nor their shameful
deeds.
Try referring to the actual Greek text rather than these bastardisations of the text, if
you want to prove a point, for we are quite aware how these translators ignore the
basic rules of Greek grammar simply because it does not conform to their dogma!
Who knows you may do better.