|
I'm not giving up as easily as you think. I've
already posted more than once on the same topic, in more detail each time. I'm
also recalling previous experience on TT, from which I've learned that I can
rarely make myself understood by you; attempts to re-expound only elicit
new non-sequiturs from you. I am prepared to see that as my failure; I
am not putting you down, I'm just thinking that we do not make good sparring
partners, you and I, so I am conserving energy. Thanks for the invitation,
though.
Debbie
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 10:33
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for
the eternal sonship of Christ
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)
|
