|
I don't think I said the problem was with the Word
of God, Judy. It isn't.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:15
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Eternal
Sonship
Debbie the problem is not with the Word of God.
We have had ppl trying to change it to fit different doctrines
for years along with ppl like Westcott & Hort who
were agnostic, Universalist, Unitarian along with belonging to a Ghost Guild
(with supernatural phenomena going on around them). In 1881 they claimed
to have found 30,000 OT and 6,000 NT mistakes making it a leavened gospel and
this is what some of us are working with today. Even through the newer
versions have truncated Luke 4:4 as spoken by Jesus - Deuteronomy 8:3 is
still so and "every word" means just what it says - why would you want to
change it to certain concepts? judyt
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
Who uses the
phrase? jt
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
|
