1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDoes love of God come from without or within? If love of God comes from within are things from without needed to love God?
yes but language is the vehicle for expressing ideas, yes it cumbersome at times, yes
its open to abuse, yes its misunderstood and can be ambiguous, but what else is there?
Is not the flesh without the spirit, the spirit within the flesh? And is not language an ability of the flesh? Being an ability of the flesh will you not lose it when you leave your flesh behind? If the ability of language is not eternal is it important or is it just a finite distraction for an infinite being?
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232love of God comes in the form of a relationship, while i cannot speak for others, this
Does love of God come from without or within? If love of God comes from within are things from without needed to love God?
Is not the flesh without the spirit, the spirit within the flesh? And is not language an ability of the flesh? Being an ability of the flesh will you not lose it when you leave your flesh behind? If the ability of language is not eternal is it important or is it just a finite distraction for an infinite being?
comes in the form of taking in accurate knowledge, this knowledge initially enters the
mind and then percolates to the heart and one becomes appreciative. The process
continues and a relationship is formed, between the adherent and his or her God.
These latter questions are one s of theological debate and terms must be defined, for
example you have used the term soul and spirit, what do these in fact mean? well a
study of language will go a long way to helping one understand the meanings and one
can proceed from there.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSee my addition to my last post. Dr. BeDuhn said he did not disagree that
whatever, i am now passed caring.
John meant to associate the Word with the "true God." He just does not
use common sense and use this information in translating the text because
he said there was ample imformation other places that also associated
the Word with the true God and he wanted to translate this text literally
as John wrote it and not what he meant. But here since he only had
intermediate level of training in the Greek, he apparently does not
understand that the lack of the definite article does not mean it is automatically
indefinite. And he refuses to use his knowledge that John was referring to
the true God to correct his translation.
Originally posted by RJHindsif you read his book, you will know that he understands it very well. But you haven't,
See my addition to my last post. Dr. BeDuhn said he did not disagree that
John meant to associate the Word with the "true God." He just does not
use common sense and use this information in translating the text because
he said there was ample imformation other places that also associated
the Word with the true God and he wanted to translate this text l ...[text shortened]... uses to use his knowledge that John was referring to
the true God to correct his translation.
so you cannot make any comments, your like a man, sitting beside a fire while others
are freezing outside and telling them to keep warm.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you need knowledge to gain knowledge?
love of God comes in the form of a relationship, while i cannot speak for others, this
comes in the form of taking in accurate knowledge, this knowledge initially enters the
mind and then percolates to the heart and one becomes appreciative. The process
continues and a relationship is formed, between the adherent and his or her God.
These ...[text shortened]... uage will go a long way to helping one understand the meanings and one
can proceed from there.
What is a relatioinship? Is it not just a word that evokes a memory of the feelings one has for another being that is emotionally/spirtually close?
If this were true would you not be stating that love of God comes in the form of the memory of the feeling, love, you have for God if you are close to him?
Do you need knowledge or language to feel?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hey break out the tambourines, the born againers are a praising da lord, writhing on
the church floor ans speaking in tongues, filled with da Holy Spirit, Lordy Lordy,
amen to that Josiah!
hey break out the tambourines, the born againers are a praising da lord, writhing on the church floor ans speaking in tongues, filled with da Holy Spirit, Lordy Lordy,
amen to that Josiah!
Amen is one of the names of Christ.
"These things says the Amen, the faithful Witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14)
It would be just like you to mock Christ, wouldn't it ?
Originally posted by sumydidIf you are interrested the following is a fair evaluation of Jason BeDuhn's
Robbie, if RJHinds reads the same book as you, and comes away with a different conclusion; is it correct for you to say definitively that he never read the book?
*disclaimer*
maybe he admitted to never reading it in a previous post and if so, please disregard.
book "Truth in Translation" where the reviewer points out the difficulty
of preventing bias in an accurate translation that presents the view of an
author.
http://www.tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.html
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedon't even care RC what cha think 😉 I know your a smart guy and know all !!! LOL yeah it's not Jehovah this is an Anglo version of it and we know this.
what? you dont know the actual pronunciation, but you know without a doubt what its
not? this has to be candidate for contradiction of the year. But wait, your a trinitarian,
i forgot, logic and reason doesn't apply in your case, how silly of me to think that it
might apply here also.
Manny
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSplitting hairs 🙂
there's nothing to wriggle, i know you dont know anything about the Hebrew terms
almighty and mighty, you were asked before, you produced , nothing, i dont see why
you will do anything different here also, so which is it, are you lying or is Paul lying?
(Philippians 2:5-6) . . .Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus
, ...[text shortened]... ng in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure,
namely, that he should be equal to God.