|
What does it change? I understand, without
surprise, that it changes nothing at all for you, Judy. You are
welcome to ignore the content of any message, as you have done in this and
many other cases, but then it would be better not to pretend to respond to
it.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for
the eternal sonship of Christ
Thanks for the effort Debbie and JD - but what does it change?
Had you considered that you might not be 'on the same page' as the 1611
translators who were the experts of
their day from both Oxford and Cambridge. Has Greek changed in the
meantime or do you believe mankind
has gotten smarter??
Debbie writes:
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.
Why not Debbie? The same 50/47
translators worked on both testaments; are you saying that they did not
understand that there were three aspects involved back then but we do
now?
No, I'm not.
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,
Yes, that is what I understood it to
mean and this is the understanding that fits the context, so where is the
problem?
No, you were adding
content.
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 encou rages
eisegesis.
Give me a break - one would have to be a
complete idiot to try and read "physical head/skull" into those places -
there are more meanings than that to "head".
Are you telling me that you knew it was the same as
-hood?
do you or don't you believe the Promise
has been sent to help lead us into all truth? I know of illiterate ppl
who can understand the KJV of the Bible.
You wrote this before reading the paragraph
below.
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
Hmmm - that doesn't say much for Jesus
does it?
As usual the point has escaped
you.
He apparently didn't know all this and
when confronted by Satan in the wilderness with a proposition He was
naive enough to counter with "It is written" Vacuous concept
huh?? Moses had written it a couple of thousand years before the
incarnation and Jesus had to learn the
same way we all do. His advantage was the Promise in fullness.
So IOW you are saying that it would be presumptuous for we (who have had the misfortune to be born into
the English tongue) to have the same kind of authority and faith in what has
been written .....
Ditto.
judyt
----- 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 Offs p 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)
|
