|
Exactly. As to the English end of
it: Godhead does not, or at least did not when used by the KJV
translators, have the content that Judy and many others attach to it.
It did not refer to the unity-in-plurality, the three-personhood--the
internal structure of God, if you will. The -head has nothing to
do with head and adds no semantic content; it is just a noun
suffix (like -ity or -ness or -tude), an archaic
version of -hood. So Godhead meant no more than Godhood,
God-ness, the fact or quality of being God, or (as John suggests below) the
divine nature. Many other translations avoid it because (a) it is archaic (and
confusingly so, since its obsolete element is likely to be mistaken
for head by modern speakers), and (b) it has acquired extraneous
content over the course of 400 years and is now therefore potentially
misleading; to use such words in a translation of the Bible encourages
eisegesis.
None of this condemns the use of any
word among people who agree on a definition. It doesn't even argue that the use
of Godhead was a poor choice by the KJV translators at the time. And it
does NOT mean (please pay attention, Judy!) that translation is precarious or
well-nigh impossible, or that God's verbal revelation is unintelligible. But it
is one of many examples of the uneven correspondence between terms in different
languages and the evolution of terms within a language, showing only that
biblical terminology, as something anybody can identify and stick
to, is a vacuous concept. Judy's standard is untenable not only from a
performance point of view but first of all from a conceptual point of
view.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:38
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for
the eternal sonship of Christ
It is important to understand that the biblical language of the New
Covenant scriptures is primarily Greek. English is only one of
hundreds of translations of this original
language. In the biblical language, there are three
different Gk words
translated "Godhead" ------------
and translated "Godhead" in only a few of
our English translations. We see "Godhead" in three
passages: Acts 17:29, Rom 1:20 and Col 2:9
(KJV) . Each of the original
words is different. All three words are used on single occasions by
Paul; Peter employs (theios-
see Acts 17 comment s) as well, but the word is not translated
"Godhead" in Peter's writing.
Acts 17:29 , theios,
is the word used most often in common Greek. It is found in II
Pet 1:3 and is NOT translated "Godhead"
(in the KJV or any other Bible I am aware
of). It (theios)
is a word used by those in Athens to describe their god. The word, itself, has reference to
a living Emperor, a deified Emperor, in an abstract sense for "divinity," to
describe the course of providence
regardless of the contributing deity,
belong to a god, holy. Paul's use of this word, if
fully understood, supplies us with the very illustration needed to
defend the practice o f using wording from the popular vernacular to communicate a Divinely appointed concept. It is such because that
is exactly what Paul does in Acts 17. His presentation would
be condemned, I think, by several on this forum as being of liberal source, accommodating thoughts and syntax that is out of order for a
"bible believing scripture quoting man of
the cloth." He and Barth would be the best of friends if the use
of accepted and popular nuance is the basis of such judgment.
The words Paul uses when writing to the church are different from the
word used in Athens. In Romans 1:20 we have the
word theiotas, a word
used to express "divine nature or a title for Emperors."
And in Col 2:9 we have the
word theotas (the state of being
God, deity).
There is no hint of divine appointment in the translation
"Godhead." In fact, "Godhead" is perhaps the poorest
of translation because it - this English word - does not
capture the purest intentions of the Greek wording.
Example -- in the Acts 17 sermon, Paul is making a case
for the universality of
God. He is the God of all life and breath and all
things (v 25 KJV). Apart from
repentance (which Paul calls for in this sermon), this true God is the
very basis for the life of each and every nation (v26). Paul presents our God as one
who is ALREADY in relationship with all men
(For in Him we live and move and have our very existence -- we
are His offspring -- v 28). Such is the context for
verse 29 (where we find the translation "Godhead.") I believe
that, considering the context up to this point in the sermon, Paul's
word is better translated "divine
nature." Forasmuch
then as we are the of fspring of God, we ought not to think that the
Godhead (the divine nature) is like unto gold, or silver, or stone,
graven by art and man's
devises." God does not dwell in temples made by man (v 24 -- Paul's opening volley is tied
to the conclusion of his sermon --- verse 29) We are His
offsrping (v 29), We, then share in
His nature. He does not dwell in man made temples --
Paul believing that He indwells the human
spirit. We need to rethink
(repent) of our poorly thought out considerations, appreciating the
implications of what we know to be true -- that God is
something other than that of our own creation --
HE IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS. WE ARE
HIS Offsp ring
-- He is not our doing. As his
offspring, we are to share in His nature.
Anyway, whether you prefer "Godhead" or not, let us agree that it a
translation of the original wording -- that there may be other
applications that are better or, certainly, just as
expressive.
JD
-----Original Message----- From:
Judy Taylor < jandgtaylor1@juno. com> To:
[email protected]Cc:
[email protected]Sent: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:52:40 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic
for the eternal sonship of
Christ
Oh! So you were misusing scripture
to accuse me Bill; I would have expected better from you but then one never
knows does one?
You completely miss what I have been saying here - I
am not speaking of USING God's Word ever. We are to
examine ourselves in the light of it and personally obey rather than beat
others over the head with it. My personal
description of how I understand the Godhead is just that - personal and
subject to change if and when God shows me I am
wrong. I have not yet constructed a Virginian Creed; changed the
title of any member of the Godhead or threatened any person with
excommunication & heresy who will
not conform and measure up to my light.
Can you understand what I am saying and do
you see the difference?
judyt
Judy writes > Yes, Nathan was
the prophet and his words were inspired by God since this was the anointing
for his ministry - fourfold restitution was what is required under the law
of Moses.
So what is the problem Bill? . . .
BT > The problem is, Judy, you have
evidently missed the point. Without some "non-biblical"
input to place my answer in context, you
misunderstood my use of Scripture to say to you what "God says
using God's words." No problem, I will add some commentary of my own
to try to help you with the context.
You are guilty of doing the
very thing you expect others not to do. The pertinent statement in my use of
the Nathan/David account was this: "You are the man!" Yes, David could have
had Nathan killed -- but he didn't. Instead, not playing insinsate, he got the point of Nathan's parable and repented of his wrong
doing; that is, he was quilty as
charged; he knew it; and rather than skirt the issue, he took responsibility
for his actions.
How does
this pertain to you? You have yet to take responsibility for yours.
Concerning the use of non-biblical terminology to speak to biblical
concepts, you make the following claim: "You may all do this Bill but
one speaking as the 'oracles of God' says what God says using God's Words .
. . Reaping what we sow is God's righteous judgment."
Judy, you are complicit in doing the same thing; e.g., you
have written concerning the Godhead, "They were one in all aspects and
operated like a symphony," and "I would demonstrate the Godhead this way:
God the Father has the thought; God the Word speaks it into existence; and
God the Spirit carries it out. So you see the Godhead as one working in
harmony, like a symphony."
Debbie wrote this to
you: "When talking about God or what he is saying to us in the
Bible, I am sure I use terms which are not in any translation or
manuscript of Scripture." As do you, Judy, as witnessed above.
Hence, with her, why do you not also "find it strange and
arbitrary to make a rule of avoiding doing so"? You do not apply your own rules to yourself.
And as I said before, nor ought you have to. The problem here is
not with the language you use; it is with your unreasonable expectation
concerning the language of others, whether it be mine or Debbie's or
anyone else's. In other words, you need to change your
standards. They are untenable -- not even
you can meet them. And so, the question is, are you going to continue to
skirt the issue, or are you going to drop the attack on others, take
responsibility for you r actions and change your standards?
Bill (By the way, DaveH and G: I am preparing responses to your
requests. I will get them out when this conflict is resolved -- if, that is,
it can be resolved)
|
