Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 20:39:22 GMT
I have already addressed the difference between interpretation and translation with you in a previous post. Also, the Bible wasn't exclusively written in Hebrew. Why aren't you challenging my Greek? Do you understand Greek? Translation informs interpretation. No, I don't understand Greek. Translation informs interpretation to be sure, but I have faith that when the text was translated into English, it was the promotion of the global understanding that God promised within the text. So I trust it.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 20:43:09 GMT
Do you understand Greek? Translation informs interpretation. No, I don't understand Greek. Translation informs interpretation to be sure, but I have faith that when the text was translated into English, it was the promotion of the global understanding that God promised within the text. So I trust it. So your greek question is moot point, lets say you don't understand any of the original languages that they judeo -christian stream used. How do you explain the wildly different translations then, and the addition of modern words. Not to mention that we have not even touched on the content and who got to choose which Christian books were going to go into the bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 20:45:33 GMT
The best way I can describe is the same way you described the Father: Neither human nor angelic. The Son Is Human, but, He Has a Dual Nature: One Human & One Divine. Fair enough. Had you ever considered the angelic notion or listened to anyone else present the argument? We agree about the dual nature of the Son. I consider the Holy Spirit along those same lines. I even think that the Holy Spirit - who I believe has dual natures in divinity and the angelic - took on the form of a human as well. I'd be interested in reading your argument for that.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 20:49:42 GMT
I have already addressed the difference between interpretation and translation with you in a previous post. Also, the Bible wasn't exclusively written in Hebrew. Why aren't you challenging my Greek? Do you understand Greek? Translation informs interpretation. No, I don't understand Greek. Translation informs interpretation to be sure, but I have faith that when the text was translated into English, it was the promotion of the global understanding that God promised within the text. So I trust it. Ahh, the typical chatter diversion. Why aren't you challenging my Greek?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 20:53:06 GMT
No, I don't understand Greek. Translation informs interpretation to be sure, but I have faith that when the text was translated into English, it was the promotion of the global understanding that God promised within the text. So I trust it. So your greek question is moot point, lets say you don't understand any of the original languages that they judeo -christian stream used. How do you explain the wildly different translations then, and the addition of modern words. Not to mention that we have not even touched on the content and who got to choose which Christian books were going to go into the bible. I don't explain them, nor do I need to. I only regularly read one translation, so what the others say is a trifling matter for me and my understanding of the scriptures. I've read plenty of apocryphal books. Personally, and strictly from a textual perspective, I think Enoch belongs in Canon. But the overwhelming reason it was not is because of when it seems to have been written. Either way, it says nothing at all about the more important doctrines of Christian faith. As for the other apocryphal books I've read, they have no merit whatsoever as far I'm concerned, so it's no shock they were not included in Canon. In short, I'm okay with the books that were distinguished from others (based on the content) being excluded. It's not as though they were censored from my ability to read them, so the canonization has zero to with their credibility.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 20:56:12 GMT
So your greek question is moot point, lets say you don't understand any of the original languages that they judeo -christian stream used. How do you explain the wildly different translations then, and the addition of modern words. Not to mention that we have not even touched on the content and who got to choose which Christian books were going to go into the bible. I don't explain them, nor do I need to. I only regularly read one translation, so what the others say is a trifling matter for me and my understanding of the scriptures. I've read plenty of apocryphal books. Personally, and strictly from a textual perspective, I think Enoch belongs in Canon. But the overwhelming reason it was not is because of when it seems to have been written. Either way, it says nothing at all about the more important doctrines of Christian faith. As for the other apocryphal books I've read, they have no merit whatsoever as far I'm concerned, so it's no shock they were not included in Canon. In short, I'm okay with the books that were distinguished from others (based on the content) being excluded. It's not as though were censored from my ability to read them, so the canonization has zero to with their credibility. It is good to hear you have made an informed decision about the content itself, although I am still concerned you reject thinking from after the canonisation of the bible. Do you mind me asking you how you chose the translation you chose, what made it the correct translation in your mind?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 20:59:19 GMT
I don't explain them, nor do I need to. I only regularly read one translation, so what the others say is a trifling matter for me and my understanding of the scriptures. I've read plenty of apocryphal books. Personally, and strictly from a textual perspective, I think Enoch belongs in Canon. But the overwhelming reason it was not is because of when it seems to have been written. Either way, it says nothing at all about the more important doctrines of Christian faith. As for the other apocryphal books I've read, they have no merit whatsoever as far I'm concerned, so it's no shock they were not included in Canon. In short, I'm okay with the books that were distinguished from others (based on the content) being excluded. It's not as though were censored from my ability to read them, so the canonization has zero to with their credibility. It is good to hear you have made an informed decision about the content itself, although I am still concerned you reject thinking from after the canonisation of the bible. Do you mind me asking you how you chose the translation you chose, what made it the correct translation in your mind? I had no choice. The KJV was the only option in English when I started reading the Bible. Those other English translations are newfangled to my stodgy desire for the original. I'm not saying they're invalid. I'm only saying my personal copy is KJV. Always has been, always will be.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 29, 2018 21:18:32 GMT
Everyone h earing that expression already KNOWS the judicial system is not a living thing (same with "grievance to the power")
Much the opposite. I'm saying that since we DON'T know what those early Christians thought, then you can't just assert that "grieve" was meant figuratively, unless there is evidence that they would have taken it that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 21:21:25 GMT
Fair enough. Had you ever considered the angelic notion or listened to anyone else present the argument? We agree about the dual nature of the Son. I consider the Holy Spirit along those same lines. I even think that the Holy Spirit - who I believe has dual natures in divinity and the angelic - took on the form of a human as well. I'd be interested in reading your argument for that. HIGH FIVE! One piece of evidence at a time or it will turn into a very long-winded response. Jesus was referred to as "Son of God" by others. He seems to make a very big distinction, however, when he refers to himself. He constantly calls himself "Son of Man," not "Son of God." Why the very obvious distinction? After all, we know that he is truly divine and that his need to come in the flesh was temporal. My answer is twofold: The first, and most important, is to recognize that he came as a man and for the benefit of mankind; that he wanted us to know he felt our pain, so to speak, and went through the same weaknesses that we go through. This makes him much more palatable to a species that is inherently lonely and insecure. But the second reason in my estimation, is to distinguish this format from the other members of the trinity. For after all, the term "son of God" was a phrase already well-known to the Hebrews as representative of an angel: Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Are you with me so far? Part of the idea of going at a one-point-at-a-time pace is in order to give you th chance to question or disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 29, 2018 21:23:45 GMT
Much the opposite. I'm saying that since we DON'T know what those early Christians thought, then you can't just assert that "grieve" was meant figuratively, unless there is evidence that they would have taken it that way. Got it. Now what I will offer, as I said in my edit, is that there is evidence that also supports that the Holy Spirit isn't a person... One than has to balance those evidences and deem which one has the preponderance of the evidence... and deem which side is more likely to be true and which side is merely more poetic. edit:For instance: There is a lot of phrasing to suggest that The Holy Spirit is a liquid... It's "poured" out, it "flows", etc... but, nobody really thinks that there's a big jar of God juice lying around.. because it's mostly not referred to as such.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 21:32:38 GMT
I'd be interested in reading your argument for that. HIGH FIVE! One piece of evidence at a time or it will turn into a very long-winded response. Jesus was referred to as "Son of God" by others. He seems to make a very big distinction, however, when he refers to himself. He constantly calls himself "Son of Man," not "Son of God." Why the very obvious distinction? After all, we know that he is truly divine and that his need to come in the flesh was temporal. My answer is twofold: The first, and most important, is to recognize that he came as a man and for the benefit of mankind; that he wanted us to know he felt our pain, so to speak, and went through the same weaknesses that we go through. This makes him much more palatable to a species that is inherently lonely and insecure. But the second reason in my estimation, is to distinguish this format from the other members of the trinity. For after all, the term "son of God" was a phrase already well-known to the Hebrews as representative of an angel: Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Are you with me so far? Part of the idea of going at a one-point-at-a-time pace is in order to give you th chance to question or disagree. I'm following your line of reasoning, but I have to say that I don't agree with your conclusions (so far). But feel free to keep going, as I am interested in hearing you lay out the case.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 21:36:05 GMT
It is good to hear you have made an informed decision about the content itself, although I am still concerned you reject thinking from after the canonisation of the bible. Do you mind me asking you how you chose the translation you chose, what made it the correct translation in your mind? I had no choice. The KJV was the only option in English when I started reading the Bible. Those other English translations are newfangled to my stodgy desire for the original. I'm not saying they're invalid. I'm only saying my personal copy is KJV. Always has been, always will be. The one widely regarded has having the most translation errors?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 21:49:16 GMT
I had no choice. The KJV was the only option in English when I started reading the Bible. Those other English translations are newfangled to my stodgy desire for the original. I'm not saying they're invalid. I'm only saying my personal copy is KJV. Always has been, always will be. The one widely regarded has having the most translation errors? It hasn't let me down yet. It's the same KJV version that led me to Christ. And it was that I was led to Christ that allowed for the Holy Spirit to speak to me and give me commandments to follow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 21:50:14 GMT
HIGH FIVE! One piece of evidence at a time or it will turn into a very long-winded response. Jesus was referred to as "Son of God" by others. He seems to make a very big distinction, however, when he refers to himself. He constantly calls himself "Son of Man," not "Son of God." Why the very obvious distinction? After all, we know that he is truly divine and that his need to come in the flesh was temporal. My answer is twofold: The first, and most important, is to recognize that he came as a man and for the benefit of mankind; that he wanted us to know he felt our pain, so to speak, and went through the same weaknesses that we go through. This makes him much more palatable to a species that is inherently lonely and insecure. But the second reason in my estimation, is to distinguish this format from the other members of the trinity. For after all, the term "son of God" was a phrase already well-known to the Hebrews as representative of an angel: Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Are you with me so far? Part of the idea of going at a one-point-at-a-time pace is in order to give you th chance to question or disagree. I'm following your line of reasoning, but I have to say that I don't agree with your conclusions (so far). But feel free to keep going, as I am interested in hearing you lay out the case. Do you at least agree that the "sons of God" moniker was intended to refer to angels?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 21:51:17 GMT
The one widely regarded has having the most translation errors? It hasn't let me down yet. It's the same KJV version that led me to Christ. And it was that I was led to Christ that allowed for the Holy Spirit to speak to me and give me commandments to follow. Don't get me wrong I really like the KJV, it is written really poetically, it's just handy to have a good concordance with it so you can get around the outright failures of translation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 21:56:00 GMT
It hasn't let me down yet. It's the same KJV version that led me to Christ. And it was that I was led to Christ that allowed for the Holy Spirit to speak to me and give me commandments to follow. Don't get me wrong I really like the KJV, it is written really poetically, it's just handy to have a good concordance with it so you can get around the outright failures of translation. I can't think of a single instance where the difference between the KJV version and the other translations was enough to accurately describe it as wildly changing the context, at least, not as it pertains to believers. I'll not call them failures, but I will concede that there are differences in translation and that none of them are very meaningful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 22:03:30 GMT
I'm following your line of reasoning, but I have to say that I don't agree with your conclusions (so far). But feel free to keep going, as I am interested in hearing you lay out the case. Do you at least agree that the "sons of God" moniker was intended to refer to angels? In many cases, yes.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 22:04:46 GMT
Don't get me wrong I really like the KJV, it is written really poetically, it's just handy to have a good concordance with it so you can get around the outright failures of translation. I can't think of a single instance where the difference between the KJV version and the other translations was enough to accurately describe it as wildly changing the context, at least, not as it pertains to believers. I'll not call them failures, but I will concede that there are differences in translation and that none of them are very meaningful. Well at least you seem convinced. I still lament your lack of desire to assimilate new knowledge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 22:10:56 GMT
I can't think of a single instance where the difference between the KJV version and the other translations was enough to accurately describe it as wildly changing the context, at least, not as it pertains to believers. I'll not call them failures, but I will concede that there are differences in translation and that none of them are very meaningful. Well at least you seem convinced. I still lament your lack of desire to assimilate new knowledge. I assimilate new knowledge constantly. Nearly every day of my life. Just not when it comes to theology. I am convinced. Once you allow yourself to be led by the God of the Bible, evidence comes pouring in. I didn't even need the evidence of direct prophecy like I received from the Holy Spirit when I was given those two commandments. In fact it was my faith that activated that communication, not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 22:18:42 GMT
Well at least you seem convinced. I still lament your lack of desire to assimilate new knowledge. I assimilate new knowledge constantly. Nearly every day of my life. Just not when it comes to theology. I am convinced. Once you allow yourself to be led by the God of the Bible, evidence comes pouring in. I didn't even need the evidence of direct prophecy like I received from the Holy Spirit when I was given those two commandments. In fact it was my faith that activated that communication, not the other way around. as I say, lament your refusal to assimilate new knowledge, I think God would be depressed by it too.
|
|