No one is talking about "semantics alone." I would agree with your statement and was not making any claim to the contrary. Do you understand that "Godhead" has meaning to you - that you carry this understanding into discussion about "Godhead?" That this is the way it is -- nothing bad or evil about this. But others might be put on a better interpretive tract -- others who do not have your particular theological background.
Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:30:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ
I can understand both of you but can not agree with either because I do not believe that spiritual understanding hinges on semantics alone which is what both of you appear to be implying. The nature of God has nothing to do with flesh since God is a Spirit. His Words are Spirit and they are Life. His Spirit? - Well, enough said. So the "fullness of the Godhead" is a spiritual concept JD. Can you explain what you mean exactly by "the very nature of God in the flesh"?
judyt
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:21:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that as regards textual criticism, we have so much more to compare too in the work of translation than those of 400 years agaoi. Debbie's remarks most recently are, perhaps, more to the point of this discussion, here, than mine. Which communicates most effectively: "In Him is the fullness of the very nature of God, in the flesh," or " In Him is the fulless of the Godhead, in the flesh." I personally think the answer is obvious. Each translation would be legitimate. Why not chose the one that best communicates. JD
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
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 oftheir day from both Oxford and Cambridge. Has Greek changed in the meantime or do you believe mankindhas 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?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?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 - 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.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. DebbieHmmm - that doesn't say much for Jesus does it? 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 .....judyt----- Original Message -----From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:38 PMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of ChristIt 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 th e 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 consid erations, 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 ChristOh! 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?judytOn Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:16:36 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:From: <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>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)
