ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[themuzicman]

I thought you said the Bible was God's word? The Bible
has 66 books, all in one. Which Bible is God's word?

Thank you, Mr. Deliberately Obtuse.

Is God unable to preserve his word through translations?
How about when Luke records Paul's Hebrew words in Greek in the latter part of Acts?

Again, the inerrancy in the transmission of God's word occurs in the moments promised by Scripture, which is the time when the Holy Spirit carried the Scripture writers along.

Who are these Scripture writers? Those who were eyewitnesses of Christ's glory (2 Peter 1:16-21).

Now, if someone in 1611 could make the claim of having been an eyewitness of Christ's glory, we can talk about them being carried along as they translated.

Do any of the translators make this claim?


Now, to address your point more clearly, the Word of God is preserved, and has been preserved. Any individual may come and learn the original languages and read the original Word of God, if they wish.

But, many do not wish to do so. So, the Word has been translated, so people may read a translation in their own language to read and hear the meaning of the original in their own language.

Is God capable of inerrant translation? Yes. Are translations of the Original Word of God inerrant? I have no Scriptural basis for making this claim.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Is God capable of inerrant translation? Yes.
Muz

Thank you.

 

[tetelestai]

I don’t see the KJV as having errors, I see the problem being more of how the English language has changed since the 1600’s. Words no longer convey the same meaning they once did. Let me explain:

In the year 1611, “Enter into thy closet” (Matt. 6:6) referred to a private room or a bedroom. Today we think of a closet in terms of a clothes closet. Although it is ridiculous and hard to believe, today many people occasionally still pray in their clothes closet. This is not what that verse says at all.

Let’s take another example: “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” (1 Cor. 13:13). Today “charity” means simply an expression of benevolence toward those who are less fortunate. In 1611, “charity” was the strongest English word for “love.” When you said, “I cherish thee” in 1611, you put yourself on the line. If you merely said, “I love thee,” you were just flirting; therefore, no one took you seriously. So you can see that the meaning of the word “charity” has changed considerably over the years.

We find many of these anachronisms in Scripture. Since they tend to make the King James Version a bit obscure, they need to be corrected. This in no ways indicates that there was any error in the manuscripts: it only indicates that language has changed.

P.S. Don't you think God was smart enough to have His word recorded by "dead languages" that cannot change?

 

[Lon]

Well, at least, thanks to you, I can stop thinking about the Wrath of God. I have some non Christian friends that will be glad to know he's not angry with them.

In what book, chapter, and verses can I find a reference to this Hypostatic union of Christ's two natures.

--Dave

The doctrine is that Christ is fully man/fully God Philippians 2:5-11
(in Greek, just for you).

 

[Lighthouse]

Very good. Too bad you can't see that God is also not a human being.

Where did passion come from, twit?

Nice try Super Dave.

Jesus in His Hypostatic Union was one person with two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature. In His human nature He had feelings like us and He also had arms and legs like us.

However, His Divine nature does not only not have arms and legs, but it also does not repent, or feel sorry, or get angry.

I assumed you were smart enough to see that I was refering to "Divine" God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, not God the Son's human nature. Sorry I was not more clear as to who I was talking about. Hope this clears things up for you.

Hypostatic Union?:doh:

The doctrine is that Christ is fully man/fully God Philippians 2:5-11
(in Greek, just for you).

Still no mention of a Hypostatic Union.

 

[tetelestai]

Still no mention of a Hypostatic Union.

twit?

Your short sophomoric posts do nothing but build your post count. Sometimes I think you only make such posts in an effort to catch Godrulz so you can be #1 on the “most posts” list. At least Godrulz can do better than just posting “idiot”, “moron”, “twit”, etc.

You will not find the word “Hypostatic Union” in the Bible. Neither will you find the word “Trinity” nor the word “Rapture”. They are theological terms to explain what is in the Bible.

Grow up!

 

[Lighthouse]

Your short sophomoric posts do nothing but build your post count. Sometimes I think you only make such posts in an effort to catch Godrulz so you can be #1 on the “most posts” list. At least Godrulz can do better than just posting “idiot”, “moron”, “twit”, etc.

You will not find the word “Hypostatic Union” in the Bible. Neither will you find the word “Trinity” nor the word “Rapture”. They are theological terms to explain what is in the Bible.

Grow up!

This is why I call you an idiot and a moron. I never said anything about the words not being there. What I said was that there was no mention of the Hypostatic Union. Which means there is no mention of anything that even resembles, or leads one to conclude, the idea that Christ had two distinct natures.

 

[godrulz]

Very good. Too bad you can't see that God is also not a human being.

Jesus is the God-Man. Saying that God can think, act, and feel does not mean we are saying God is a mere human.

 

[godrulz]

This is why I call you an idiot and a moron. I never said anything about the words not being there. What I said was that there was no mention of the Hypostatic Union. Which means there is no mention of anything that even resembles, or leads one to conclude, the idea that Christ had two distinct natures.

Door/sozo would pat you on the back, but your position is heterodox.

 

[Lon]

Hypostatic Union?:doh:

Still no mention of a Hypostatic Union.

Hypostatic Union: "the essence of His being."
Philippians 2:6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Two-forms, one-nature/essence.

 

[DFT_Dave]

God disiplines His children. How else can God convey disipline to us?

Think about it, if you were God, and you were immutable, and impassable, how could you let the finite creatures you created know that if they disobey you, that you were going to disipline them?

To us disipline feels like wrath. Therefore God tells us that we will feel His wrath. It is not wrath to God, it is only wrath to us.

Where in the Bible are we told that God does not really have wrath, even though there are many verses that say he does? The wrath of God destroys sinners, so we're not talking about discipline.

In his book, Process Theology, Ronald Nash says of immutability and impassibility;

"Immutability suggests that God does not change, while impassibility refers to the impossibility of God's being acted upon. Impassibility also suggests that God cannot be "moved" in an emotional sense: God cannot be hurt, grieved, saddened, and so on. While Scripture sometimes speaks of God as subject to such emotions, many interpreters take these passages as metaphorical. As Griffin sees it, the attributes of immutability and impassibility conflict with passages in the Bible that speak of God changing His mind or being affected by the prayers of His people."

Impassibility means that God cannot relate to us nor even communicate with us.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hypostatic Union: "the essence of His being."
Philippians 2:6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Two-forms, one-nature/essence.

Originally Posted by tetelestai
Jesus in His Hypostatic Union was one person with two natures, a Divine nature and a human nature. In His human nature He had feelings like us and He also had arms and legs like us.

However, His Divine nature does not only not have arms and legs, but it also does not repent, or feel sorry, or get angry.

I assumed you were smart enough to see that I was referring to "Divine" God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, not God the Son's human nature. Sorry I was not more clear as to who I was talking about. Hope this clears things up for you

Two forms or two natures, which is it? Can Jesus be "fully" God if he occupies time and space, experiences change when the "Word became flesh", and has emotions. Doesn't Jesus stand in contradiction to God's timeless, immutable, and impassible nature/form?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

The doctrine is that Christ is fully man/fully God Philippians 2:5-11
(in Greek, just for you).

Thank you for the Greek, I didn't know that we could us it here, it'll become useful.

--Dave

 

[tetelestai]

Two forms or two natures, which is it? Can Jesus be "fully" God if he occupies time and space, experiences change when the "Word became flesh", and has emotions. Doesn't Jesus stand in contradiction to God's timeless, immutable, and impassible nature/form?

--Dave

HERE

 

[godrulz]

HERE

There are several incarnational heresies. The best statement of orthodoxy is that He is one person with two natures.

A toast to my rival AMR: Here Here! (I still can't underline links like he could).

 

[DFT_Dave]

HERE

Ask Mr. Religion
Theologian - Calvinist
AMRA-BEQ16 - September 25th, 2007, 06:01 AM

"God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality"

I looked over the sites and found this. I'm well acquainted with the divinity issues in the early church and the reason for the controversy is Greek philosophy.

Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Adopting Augustine, Aquinas, or Anselm (who were all tainted by unbiblical philosophy at times) is not the same as having biblical views. AMR was too 'smart' for his britches and missed the forest for the trees.

Dave: Out of 1000s of North American destinations, I think we may come to New York to see you (stay tuned Fall, 2009). Perhaps we can treat you at an ethnic restaurant that would typify NY?

 

[Delmar]

Okay, do it. Use temporal terms to show me how God is atemporal in the past: i.e. that He is eternal. It cannot be done.

Try it and I'll show you the logical holes left in the wake. God explains to us in temporal terms because that is all we understand.

You cannot explain to me in any words, the scope of an eternal past.

This again is a huge hurdle. I could never become OV because you conceive of a God who is limited to your understanding and comprehension.

Take this challenge, I can prove God exceeds your ability to grasp this because He does mine. Therefore, no words will convey the truth of this one thing adequately.

I believe God is able to explain things, so that even I, can understand them!

 

[tetelestai]

Dave: Out of 1000s of North American destinations, I think we may come to New York to see you (stay tuned Fall, 2009). Perhaps we can treat you at an ethnic restaurant that would typify NY?

I predict a food fight when you say this at dinner:

The best statement of orthodoxy is that He is one person with two natures.

 

[tetelestai]

Ask Mr. Religion
Theologian - Calvinist
AMRA-BEQ16 - September 25th, 2007, 06:01 AM

"God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality"

I looked over the sites and found this. I'm well acquainted with the divinity issues in the early church and the reason for the controversy is Greek philosophy.

Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

--Dave

Somehow you believe that every thing Aristotle said about God was wrong.

You do know that he could have been right about some things?