|
Debbie,
I asked a question. If you think it changes the
status quo then you are free to expound and if you make a good
argument that is scriptural - who knows? Why give
up so easily if you are so sure you have the right way?
judyt
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
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)
|
