Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship

Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:21:07 -0700

I did make a step there, Judy. The phrase used was "nonbiblical terminology", from your dialogue with Lance, where you answered No to his question whether you ever use nonbiblical terminology to make a biblical point. So what you do strive to use would be "biblical terminology". But it's not so much the phrase per se as the concept: the words used in the Bible. I was just musing, after reading your post below about the passage in Acts, that there is not even a consensus about what those words are, what biblical terminology is, and that you evidently mean something very exact by it--I think, the words in the KJV, a particular surface manifestation of the message in a particular language at a particular time. And I was just thinking about the implications of that from a translation point of view, as well as the point of view of language change, and so on. I tend to prick up my ears when it comes to stuff like that just because it's my field and my interest. 
 
Debbie
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal Sonship

Who uses the phrase?  jt
 
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:52:45 -0400 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Just by way of aside: the below illustrates a problem with the phrase "biblical terminology". What exactly is its referent?
 
Debbie 
 
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 08:40:25 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John wrote:
An eternal Son only CONTINUES  to be a son.
 
DM: Bill Taylor seems to see something more than this.  Did you read about how 
he thinks the phrase, "this day I have begotten you" applies to the ressurection?
 
judyt: BT gets this from Acts 13:32,33 and he must be using one of the newer translations because the KJV includes the word "again" ie:
 
"And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the 2nd psalm 'thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (fathered, sired, procreated; produced) thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to curruption, he said on this wise (in this way), I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he said also in another psalm, 'thou shalt not suffer (permit, allow, tolerate) thy holy one to see corruption"
For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption; but he, whom God raised again saw no corruption.  (Acts 13:32-37)
 
The word "again" to me means that he was raised up once and then God did it again - otherwise it is meaningless and redundant and I don't believe that this is so.  Do you?
Blessings
Judyt
 

Reply via email to