|
Oh! Sorry, I forgot - it must be the enlightenment
thing and our inability to understand. Do you think we even
agree as to what the Word of God consists of
Debbie? jt
I don't think I said the problem was with the
Word of God, Judy. It isn't. Debbie
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 though
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
|
