Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Welcome back, David!
    Thank you Richard. I will finish off our other discussion soon. I have not forgotten that I need to rebut some of your statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    We both know that it doesn't matter what any particular translation says.
    Yes. I agree. However, since I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, anything you put forward to me from the Greek or Hebrew text has to be supported by other scholars and according to the text they are using. However, I will be inclined to go with what I consider is the more consistent with all of God's word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    What matters is what the Greek or Hebrew says, and most importantly, means. Here is a literal word for word translation:

    ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

    who - is over all - God - blessed - unto the ages - amen

    The meaning of this sentence is ambiguous. It can be read either as saying that Christ is "God over all" or that Christ is "God blessed over all". The NIV gives an example of the first possibility:
    NIV Romans 9:5: Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
    But there is nothing that proves it either way, it can't be used as a "proof text" of anything.
    The words are not ambiguous to me. With the order of words as they are written and translated, the "who" is obviously referring to Christ. It is he (Christ), who "is over all". This is with the understanding that God has delegated his authority to his only begotten son. I do not accept there is an ambiguity in the words of Romans 9:5.

    The Greek text you use is the same as found on; http://www.greekbible.com/index.php When consulting the text, the following pop-up comes up.
    * Please Note: Because of limitations in our source data (our lexical database does not have accents) the information on this page may be inaccurate. At this time there is no way for us to improve this precision. In many/most cases this data is correct, but always consult another lexicon before relying on this data.

    I use the diaglott only for convenience and not for any other reason. The dialglott has the same wording in Greek and an almost identical translation. Here is an image taken from the diaglott.
    Name:  diaglott_Rom9_5.png
Views: 8
Size:  101.9 KB
    Again, I see no ambiguity. If Timmy has objections to me using the Diaglott, and if he can give me a more authoritative source text which can be accessed by computer, then I do not mind switching to that text.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The fact that the words "over all" refer to Christ coheres well with the doctrine that Christ is God because Ephesians 4:6 uses exactly the same words, saying that God is "over all".
    Yes, God is overall; even over Christ. This is confirmed by 1 Cor 15:27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (God or Jesus) saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
    The passage you cite from Ephesians goes on to speak of Christ and does not infer that Christ is God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    But you counter that Christ did not always have the authority "over all" but was given it after his resurrection. That's a pretty good point, but it can be explained away by anyone who wants to believe that Christ is God, so there is no way anyone could ever know if their beliefs are correct since they could just as well believe the opposite and "explain away" all the verses that contradict what they want to believe.
    Christ has certainly been given all authority which will be demonstrated when he returns to set up the Kingdom. Before this, we do not see Jesus having any power until he was baptized and given access to the Holy Spirit. Jesus was given access. God gives, Jesus receives. We are told that God performed the miracles (by God's power through Jesus. (Acts 2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I found this helpful post that lists the interpretations of the most prominent scholars, which gives about 2 to 1 in favor of the interpretation that says Christ is God:

    Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does not ascribe deity to Christ (not that Paul doesn't but that this verse doesn't):
    Meyer (1872), Abbott (1881), Burkitt (1903-1904), Lietzmann (1933), Gaugler (1952), Luz (1968), Reicke (197?), Kuss (1976), Schweizer (1976?), Robinson (1979), Kaesemann (1980), Wilckens (1980), Zeller (1985), Luebinkg (1986), Dunn (1988), Schmithals (1988), Ziesler (1989), Stuhlmacher (1994), Byrne (1996)

    Scholars concluding that Rom 9:5 does intend to call Christ God:

    Calvin (1540), Haldane (1958), Stuart (1862), Dwight (1881), Hodge (1886), Liddon (1893), Shedd (1879), Gifford (1886), Moule (1887), Sanday and Headlam (1902), Denney (1904), Zahn (1910), Sickenberger (1923), Dodd? (1932), Lenski (1936), Nygren (1944), Lagrange (1950), Huby (1957), Leenhardt (1957), Schlatter (1959), Schmidt (1963), Fahy (1965), Murray (1965), Michel (1966), Best (1967), Schlier (1977), Althaus (1978), Cranfield (1979), Metzger (1980), De Villiers (1981), Bruce (1985), Morris (1988), Harris (1992), Fitzmyer (1993), Stott (1994), Mounce (1995), Moo (1996), Schreiner (1998)
    This might help your case in support of what you once believed, but I am happy to to go along with the minority in this case. Call Romans 9:5 moot if you want to by claiming it ambiguous, but I am confident we can find more evidence to support the claim that Jesus is not God. Once this is done, it means we have to come back and accept Romans 9:5 is also saying the same thing.

    I appreciate this method of discussing the Bible to get to the truth.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 12-20-2013 at 01:32 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Thank you Richard. I will finish off our other discussion soon. I have not forgotten that I need to rebut some of your statements.
    Good afternoon David,

    Maybe we should let that other conversation rest for a while since it seems we can't find agreement about things that seem to me to be extremely basic, such as how to state a logical contradiction. The choice is up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I will be inclined to go with what I consider is the more consistent with all of God's word.
    And that tangles you up in the problem of the hermeneutic circle:
    The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context.
    This is a real problem for folks who seriously want to believe what the Bible really teaches rather than some "man-made doctrines" they may have learned from some fallible human teacher. I find it fascinating because of its self-referential nature: we can't understand the parts without understanding the whole, and we can't understand the whole without understanding the parts. And more to the point:
    1. Folks who begin by believing that Christ is God will explain away all the verses that say he is not.
    2. Folks who begin by believing that Christ is not God will explain away all the verses that say he is.

    So the question is this: How is a person supposed to know which belief to start with? This is the problem of the hermeneutic circle. It's a "chicken and egg" kind of problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The words are not ambiguous to me. With the order of words as they are written and translated, the "who" is obviously referring to Christ and it is he (Christ), who "is over all" who is referred to. I do not accept there is an ambiguity in these words.
    You don't understand the Greek language so there is no way for you to judge if they are ambiguous or not. The fact that they are ambiguous seems pretty obvious from the divided opinions of the experts. If they were not ambiguous, the scholars would be forced to agree with one interpretation or the other. As it stands, the scholars are against your interpretation two to one. I think it is significant that most scholars disagree with most of your opinions about the Bible. This seems to suggest that you are basing your opinions on something other than the facts of what the Bible actually says. I would think this would concern you very much, since you want to believe what the Bible really says, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Yes, God is overall; even over Christ. This is confirmed by 1 Cor 15:27 For he (God) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (God or Jesus) saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus).
    The passage you cite from Ephesians goes on to speak of Christ and does not infer that Christ is God.
    I quoted the passage from Ephesians to show that Christ and God are both "over all". But if there is only one who is "over all" then this would imply that Christ is God. You counter that God the Father is over God the Son. That's fine. It consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    This might help your case in support of what you once believed, but I am happy to to go along with the minority in this case. Call Rom 9:5 moot if you want to claiming ambiguity, I am confident we can find other evidence that once supoorted, means we can come to accept Romans 9:5 as supporting evidence that Jesus is not God.
    It doesn't prove things either way. The only thing it proves is that the passage is sufficiently ambiguous to divide many scholars.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I appreciate this method of discussing the Bible to get to the truth.
    Me too. That's why I'm more interested in having these kinds of conversations rather than rehashing old conversations that we couldn't resolve.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good afternoon David,

    Maybe we should let that other conversation rest for a while since it seems we can't find agreement about things that seem to me to be extremely basic, such as how to state a logical contradiction. The choice is up to you.
    The thread needs to be closed along the lines that we cannot agree on the basis of the difference between English-English and and American-English. A couple of points came out of a recent programme I watched dealing with the search for the original language(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And that tangles you up in the problem of the hermeneutic circle:
    The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context.
    Do you not think that God inspired his word to be written down in a way that all cultures would be able to understand it. What if God wrote in on the basis of the culture God wanted people to follow and not the culture they have developed for themselves? The Ten Commandments can apply to all cultures, hence it is your Golden Rule for mankind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This is a real problem for folks who seriously want to believe what the Bible really teaches rather than some "man-made doctrines" they may have learned from some fallible human teacher. I find it fascinating because of its self-referential nature: we can't understand the parts without understanding the whole, and we can't understand the whole without understanding the parts. And more to the point:
    1. Folks who begin by believing that Christ is God will explain away all the verses that say he is not.
    2. Folks who begin by believing that Christ is not God will explain away all the verses that say he is.

    So the question is this: How is a person supposed to know which belief to start with? This is the problem of the hermeneutic circle. It's a "chicken and egg" kind of problem.
    There has to be a beginning and not a repeating cycle. That used to be the theory about the universe; that it would stop expanding and would contract again to a singularity and then expand again. There is no proof or evidence of that.
    I would rephrase your sentence and say that we could know the big picture without seeing all the smaller pictures making up the big picture. It is like a collage in which from a distance you see the image, but as you get close, you cannot see the big picture, but instead can only see smaller pictures. We can only see as much as God has revealed. God knows things that have not entered the mind of man. God is outside the bubble looking in and can see the big picture, whereas man is on the inside of the bubble looking out and can never see himself from the perspective God has.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You don't understand the Greek language so there is no way for you to judge if they are ambiguous or not.
    Does not your understanding of the Greek language depend on what you have learnt or been taught and that might vary according to where you got your learning. Are you adept at keeping up with the changes in the Greek language as it changed over the years?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The fact that they are ambiguous seems pretty obvious from the divided opinions of the experts. If they were not ambiguous, the scholars would be forced to agree with one interpretation or the other. As it stands, the scholars are against your interpretation two to one. I think it is significant that most scholars disagree with most of your opinions about the Bible. This seems to suggest that you are basing your opinions on something other than the facts of what the Bible actually says. I would think this would concern you very much, since you want to believe what the Bible really says, right?
    I would probably be agreeing with the majority if the ratio had been say 1000:1 for Jesus being God. The fact is the case for saying Jesus is God is not overwhelming. Whatever we think is the nature of Jesus, it does not alter God's plan of salvation and what God has in store for those who love and fear him.
    It would be good to see all the different renderings of the Greek text that the different scholars are using and the different words used in the translation of each text.
    As it the case of the exposition of Job, I highly recommend you watch the six-part series and see the Biblical exposition used by the speaker's to come to his conclusions. The speaker has studied over 40 expositions on the Book of Job and still can come up with an explanation and conclusion that all of those studies seem to have missed. 40:1 still makes the possibility of the one being right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I quoted the passage from Ephesians to show that Christ and God are both "over all". But if there is only one who is "over all" then this would imply that Christ is God. You counter that God the Father is over God the Son. That's fine. It consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
    From what you are saying, please now explain to me 1 Corinthians 15:27, which I have quoted showing Jesus is subordinate to God and not equal. While on the subject, do you disagree with Timmy who thinks Jesus and God are one of the same and God morphs between the two?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It doesn't prove things either way. The only thing it proves is that the passage is sufficiently ambiguous to divide many scholars.
    The passage in Romans 9:5 is quite clear unless you bring forth another Greek text with different Greek words. The Greek words as presented in the Greek text you presented and confirmed with the two Greek texts I have seen elsewhere are highly similar in the English words used in translation. That verse by itself if not ambiguous. Unless you deliberately slant the translation that you have presented as Timmy has done by quoting from a translation that significantly changes the sense to fit in with the idea that Jesus is God, then that is adding confusion that is otherwise not there. This is all part of the perverting of God's word by the same people who pervert the word of Paul which they fail to understand. Anyone who thinks Paul is a false prophet clearly does not understand Paul's writings and his in depth knowledge of the ancient Jewish scriptures. If Paul was seeing the signs then of the corruption creeping in, then we are witnessing far more corruption nowadays. I think we can weed out the corruption by those who no way can be considered to be scholarly by rightly dividing the word of scripture. God has told us that there will be those blind to God's word. God has told us that the Jews will remain blind until the spiritual veil is lifted and they can see clearly. The Jews are blind now the same as when they were blind to who Jesus was 2,000 years ago. God knows why and God tells us as it is. God also tells us that the veil causing their spiritual blindness will be taken away. God tells us what will happen to cause the veil to be lifted. You want proof, maybe you might be alive to see the Jews brought to the point where they have to call on God to deliver them. That is when God will respond and they will recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the one who they killed and failed to recognize as The Prophet spoken of by Moses. The veil will be lifted, God has said it will and his promise is sure. How do you explain how the lifting of the veil will come about? If you think that all prophecy has been fulfilled, when was the veil lifted and why do the Jews today still wait for the Messiah to come?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Me too. That's why I'm more interested in having these kinds of conversations rather than rehashing old conversations that we couldn't resolve.
    Are we likely to resolve any problem in the Bible if you conclude everything is ambiguous? You replied to my saying; "God is ONE" by saying that is ambiguous. I disagree. One is one and not three. Isaiah 45 could not state this any more clearly. There is none else beside God. There is nothing cyclic about minus infinity to plus infinity. There is nothing cyclic about a beginning and an end. God's plan is not cyclic, so any cyclic interpretation cannot be. It is the failing of man, if we do not understand what God has written and made know to us. If you think everything is ambiguous, then you have given yourself an excuse for never coming to understand.

    If you start from Genesis 1 and study the Old Testament only, where does it talk of God being three in one?

    Great chatting,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 12-20-2013 at 05:31 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    The thread needs to be closed along the lines that we cannot agree on the basis of the difference between English-English and and American-English. A couple of points came out of a recent programme I watched dealing with the search for the original language(s).
    Hey there David,

    I don't see how I could close the thread on that basis because I don't recall any of our differences being based on British English vs. American English. On the contrary, my use of the words "and yet" and my definition of a contradiction conform perfectly with the definitions given in the Oxford Dictionary (produced by authorities on British English). As far as I can tell, the points which I have been pressing for well over a year are entirely valid and have been proven beyond question. I suggested we take a break from discussing it because it seems you are simply unwilling to admit the truth and I don't see any value in haranguing you about such basic errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Do you not think that God inspired his word to be written down in a way that all cultures would be able to understand it. What if God wrote in on the basis of the culture God wanted people to follow and not the culture they have developed for themselves? The Ten Commandments can apply to all cultures, hence it is your Golden Rule for mankind.
    I can't see how we could think that God inspired his word to be "understood" by anyone in any culture, given the outrageous controversy and division it creates among those who most fervently claim to believe it.

    The Ten Commandments are highly specific to the Hebrew culture. They command obedience to the Hebrew God Yahweh and the Hebrew custom of the Sabbath. They are nothing like the Golden Rule which is the true basis of universal morality. And worse, the Ten Commandments are literally immoral in as much as they teach teach that women are property owned by men.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    There has to be a beginning and not a repeating cycle. That used to be the theory about the universe; that it would stop expanding and would contract again to a singularity and then expand again. There is no proof or evidence of that.
    I would rephrase your sentence and say that we could know the big picture without seeing all the smaller pictures making up the big picture. It is like a collage in which from a distance you see the image, but as you get close, you cannot see the big picture, but instead can only see smaller pictures. We can only see as much as God has revealed. God knows things that have not entered the mind of man. God is outside the bubble looking in and can see the big picture, whereas man is on the inside of the bubble looking out and can never see himself from the perspective God has.
    Well, you don't really know if there is a God, let alone what he "knows". We should probably begin with things we both know we know. I get the impression you didn't really "get' the problem of the hermeneutical circle. We were discussing one verse - Romans 9:5 (a small picture) - and whether or not it implied that Christ was God. You said you preferred the interpretation which would be "more consistent with all of God's word". That's what made me think of the hermeneutic circle. You based your rejection of the small picture because of the big picture you assume is true. And why do you think the big picture is true? Because of the way you have interpreted many of the small pictures. I tried to make this clear for you by comparing the two different beliefs:

    1. Folks who begin by believing that Christ is God will explain away all the verses that say he is not.
    2. Folks who begin by believing that Christ is not God will explain away all the verses that say he is.

    As I said, the question is this: How is a person supposed to know which belief to start with? This is the problem of the hermeneutic circle. It's a "chicken and egg" kind of problem. It would be interesting if you could explain why you think a person should start with one belief over the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    You don't understand the Greek language so there is no way for you to judge if they are ambiguous or not.
    Does not your understanding of the Greek language depend on what you have learnt or been taught and that might vary according to where you got your learning.
    Are you suggesting that my understanding of this particular Greek passage could have been influenced by biased scholarship? Why would you suggest that? I haven't even begun to explain the meaning of the verse. I only demonstrated that it is sufficiently ambiguous to cause a HUGE division among the scholars. Where's the bias in that?

    You, on the other hand, declared quite adamantly (and with no foundation in the Greek text) that there was no ambiguity. That seems odd since the ambiguity can be seen even in the English translation. It's ambiguous because its meaning can be totally changed by the mere placement of a comma which doesn't exist in the Greek text. I get the impression you don't understand what "ambiguous" means. In this context, it refers to a single sentence that could legitimately have two or more interpretations. For example, "I saw a girl with a telescope." Does that mean used a telescope to see the girl, or that I saw a girl who possessed a telescope?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I would probably be agreeing with the majority if the ratio had been say 1000:1 for Jesus being God. The fact is the case for saying Jesus is God is not overwhelming. Whatever we think is the nature of Jesus, it does not alter God's plan of salvation and what God has in store for those who love and fear him.
    If the ratio were a 1000:1 then the verse would certainly not be ambiguous. The fact that the ration is not so clear indicates that the verse is ambiguous. That was my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It would be good to see all the different renderings of the Greek text that the different scholars are using and the different words used in the translation of each text.
    As it the case of the exposition of Job, I highly recommend you watch the six-part series and see the Biblical exposition used by the speaker's to come to his conclusions. The speaker has studied over 40 expositions on the Book of Job and still can come up with an explanation and conclusion that all of those studies seem to have missed. 40:1 still makes the possibility of the one being right.
    Here's a good explanation about the various interpretations I found in Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the NT. He was a Harvard professor of Greek.

    ====== BRUCE METZGER ON ROMANS 9:5 =======================
    Since the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament are without systematic punctuation, editors and translators of the text must insert such marks of punctuation as seem to be appropriate to the syntax and meaning. The present passage has been the object of much discussion as to whether or not Paul intended to refer qeo,j to o` Cristo,j. The chief interpretations are the following:

    1. Placing a comma after sa,rka and referring the following words to o` Cristo,j (“… who is God over all, blessed for ever”).
    2. Placing a point (either a colon or a full stop) after sa,rka and taking the following words as a clause independent of o` Cristo,j. (Several translations are possible: “God who is over all be blessed for ever!”; or “He who is God over all be blessed for ever!”; or “He who is over all is God blessed for ever.”)
    3. Placing a comma after sa,rka and a point (a colon or a full stop) after pa,ntwn. (This, which is a modification of (b), is to be translated, “… who is over all. God be [or, is] blessed for ever!”)

    In deciding which punctuation should be used, the Committee was agreed that evidence from the Church Fathers, who were almost unanimous in understanding the passage as referring to o` Cristo,j, is of relatively minor significance, as is also the opposing fact that four uncial manuscripts (A B C L) and at least twenty-six minuscule manuscripts have a point after sa,rka, either by the first hand or by subsequent correctors. In both cases the tradition, whether patristic or palaeographical, originated at a time subsequent to Paul’s writing (i.e. dictating; cf. 16.22) the passage, and is therefore of questionable authority.

    On the one hand, some members of the Committee preferred punctuation (a) for the following reasons:

    1. The interpretation that refers the passage to Christ suits the structure of the sentence, whereas the interpretation that takes the words as an asyndetic doxology to God the Father is awkward and unnatural. As Westcott observes, “The juxtaposition of o` Cristo.j kata. sa,rka and o` w'n k)t)l) seems to make a change of subject improbable.”3
    2. If the clause o` w'n k)t)l) is an asyndetic doxology to God the Father, the word w;n is superfluous, for “he who is God over all” is most simply represented by o` evpi. pa,ntwn qeo,j. The presence of the participle suggests that the clause functions as a relative clause (not “he who is …” but “who is …”), and thus describes o` Cristo,j as being “God over all.”
    3. Pauline doxologies, as Zahn points out, are never asyndetic but always attach themselves to that which precedes: with o[j evstin (Ro 1.25); with o` w;n (2 Cor 11.31); with w|- (Ga 1.5; Tm 4.18; cf. He 13.21; Pe 4.11); with auvtw|/ (Ro 11.36; Eph 3.21; cf. 1 Pe 5.11; 2 Pe 3.18); with tw|/ de. qew|/ (Php 4.20; 1 Tm 1.17).
    4. Asyndetic doxologies, not only in the Bible but also in Semitic inscriptions, are differently constructed; the verb or verbal adjective (euvloghto,j, Heb. %WrB', Aram. %yrIB.) always precedes the name of God, and never follows it, as here.
    5. In the light of the context, in which Paul speaks of his sorrow over Israel’s unbelief, there seems to be no psychological explanation to account for the introduction of a doxology at this point.

    On the other hand, in the opinion of others of the Committee, none of these considerations seemed to be decisive, particularly since nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate o` Cristo,j as qeo,j. In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever. As between the punctuation in (b) and (c), the former was preferred.
    The Committee also considered the possibility that by accident in transcription o` w;n had replaced an original w-n o` (cf. the preceding ver. 4 w-n h` ui`oqesi,a … , ver. 5 w-n oi` pate,rej), but was unwilling to introduce a conjectural emendation into the text.
    ========== END OF BRUCE METZGERS COMMENTARY ======================

    I think it would be great if you would try to explain what you think of Bruce Metzger's review of this topic. If nothing else, I would hope you now will admit that there is plenty of ambiguity in the Greek.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    From what you are saying, please now explain to me 1 Corinthians 15:27, which I have quoted showing Jesus is subordinate to God and not equal. While on the subject, do you disagree with Timmy who thinks Jesus and God are one of the same and God morphs between the two?
    It appears you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not say that the Father is "equal" to the Son. That wouldn't make any sense at all. I will answer your other questions after you indicate that you understand and have corrected your error, or explain why it's not really an error. Obviously, it would be pointless to dispute the Trinity if you don't understand what the doctrine teaches.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The passage in Romans 9:5 is quite clear unless you bring forth another Greek text with different Greek words. The Greek words as presented in the Greek text you presented and confirmed with the two Greek texts I have seen elsewhere are highly similar in the English words used in translation. That verse by itself if not ambiguous. Unless you deliberately slant the translation that you have presented as Timmy has done by quoting from a translation that significantly changes the sense to fit in with the idea that Jesus is God, then that is adding confusion that is otherwise not there.
    Your assertions are simply false. Anyone who knows anything about the Greek text knows that it is very ambiguous. I quoted an extended discussion of this by scholar Bruce Metzger. You need to address the ambiguity of the text. It is meaningless to merely assert that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation when scholars are divided two to one against your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Anyone who thinks Paul is a false prophet clearly does not understand Paul's writings and his in depth knowledge of the ancient Jewish scriptures. If Paul was seeing the signs then of the corruption creeping in, then we are witnessing far more corruption nowadays. I think we can weed out the corruption by those who no way can be considered to be scholarly by rightly dividing the word of scripture. God has told us that there will be those blind to God's word. God has told us that the Jews will remain blind until the spiritual veil is lifted and they can see clearly. The Jews are blind now the same as when they were blind to who Jesus was 2,000 years ago. God knows why and God tells us as it is. God also tells us that the veil causing their spiritual blindness will be taken away. God tells us what will happen to cause the veil to be lifted. You want proof, maybe you might be alive to see the Jews brought to the point where they have to call on God to deliver them. That is when God will respond and they will recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the one who they killed and failed to recognize as The Prophet spoken of by Moses. The veil will be lifted, God has said it will and his promise is sure. How do you explain how the lifting of the veil will come about? If you think that all prophecy has been fulfilled, when was the veil lifted and why do the Jews today still wait for the Messiah to come?
    Maybe I am the one who is blind. Maybe you are. The only way to tell is to see who is dealing with what the Bible actually says and who is supporting their position with evidence. I have presented much evidence that the text is ambiguous and all you have done is assert your personal belief without any evidence at all. By an objective standard, you appear to be the one who is blindly, that is, without evidence, following a preconceived belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Are we likely to resolve any problem in the Bible if you conclude everything is ambiguous? You replied to my saying; "God is ONE" by saying that is ambiguous. I disagree. One is one and not three. Isaiah 45 could not state this any more clearly. There is none else beside God. There is nothing cyclic about minus infinity to plus infinity. There is nothing cyclic about a beginning and an end. God's plan is not cyclic, so any cyclic interpretation cannot be. It is the failing of man, if we do not understand what God has written and made know to us. If you think everything is ambiguous, then you have given yourself an excuse for never coming to understand.
    David, YOU are the one who said that the word "one" can be "used in different ways" which means it is ambiguous. You have been confused on this point for a long time. Here is the summation of our conversation that I presented in post #592 in the thread Jesus is not God:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You are the one who says the Bible is "ambiguous"! You constantly say words don't mean what they obviously mean because that is how you force your dogmas upon the Bible. You twist words so that Satan is not a personal being and "angels" doesn't mean angels, etc., etc., etc. We've covered a hundred topics where you twist words. Here is one of my favorite examples:

    David: Either God is ONE or he is not.

    Richard: Not true! The word "ONE" is ambiguous.

    David: "One" in the sense of united, I agree with.

    Richard: Thanks for proving my point. When the Bible says that "God is one" you take it one way, and when Jesus says he and the father are "one" you take it in another way. Your doctrine requires that the meaning of the word "one" be quite ambiguous, so you can not insist that the Trinity contradicts the fact that God is one. It all depends upon how you interpret the meaning of the word "one". All Trinitarians believe God is One. It is a fundamental aspect of the Doctrine of the Trinity. So if you want to prove that the Doctrine of the Trinity contradicts the Bible you will have to prove which definition of "one" is intended and show that the Trinity contradicts that definition. Good luck with that!
    You are also playing with words which is what you like to do as a wordsmith. What if we look up the word "one" in the dictionary, how many uses of the word will we find? I shall now go off and look up the word in an online dictionary.... I am back here is the definition from Websters;

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1382953561
    Full Definition of ONE
    1: being a single unit or thing <one day at a time>
    2a: being one in particular <early one morning>
    b: being preeminently what is indicated <one fine person>
    3a: being the same in kind or quality <both of one species>
    b (1): constituting a unified entity of two or more components <the combined elements form one substance> (2) : being in agreement or union <am one with you on this>
    4a: some 1 <will see you again one day>
    b: being a certain individual specified by name <one John Doe made a speech>
    5: only 2a <the one person she wanted to marry>
    See one defined for English-language learners »

    See one defined for kids »
    So there you have it. Proof that the word "one" can be used in different ways. When God says be is ONE. That means a singularity of 1. When Jesus uses the word "one" he is not referring to a singularity because he says; "I AND my Father..", which is referring to two people and not a singularity of one person as God is saying.
    Wow. That's really, really weird David. You proved MY point, and when I thanked you for proving my point, you went and proved it again as if you didn't understand a word I wrote. So let me spell it out for you: Look again at our interaction. YOU are the one who implied that there is only one possible meaning of "one" when you said that "Either God is ONE or he is not." That statement implies that there is only one meaning of "one" in that context. The word "either" would not apply if there were more than one possible meaning. This struck me as ridiculous because I knew that you base most of your doctrines on the ambiguity of words, so I brought your inconsistency to your attention, saying "Not true! The word 'one' is ambiguous." And how did you answer? By choosing one of the many different meanings of "one" and so you CONFIRMED the truth of my comment without even realizing it. And then when I thanked you for confirming my point, you ignored what I wrote and confirmed it yet again! Dude, don't you see what you did?
    It would be good if you could write something that indicates you understand what we have been talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    If you start from Genesis 1 and study the Old Testament only, where does it talk of God being three in one?
    If you start from Genesis 1 and study the Old Testament only, where does it talk about the messiah being killed for our sins and resurrected on the third day?

    Many NT teachings are not found in the OT. That's why the Jews are not Christians.

    Great chatting, my friend!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I will answer your other questions after you indicate that you understand and have corrected your error, or explain why it's not really an error. Obviously, it would be pointless to dispute the Trinity if you don't understand what the doctrine teaches.
    I am stopping right here. I am prepared to respond as you have requested before reaching this point. I have complied against my will in the past in other threads and I am not doing so again. I expect you to answer my question first and I will respond to your reply. I am not letting you dictate when you will answer my questions. Unless you answer the question now, we stop this conversation here.

    This is why we need a rule book to guide our conversations. The rule is; we answer each others questions at the time asked and not answered only if we ask a question to be answered first.

    I shall wait for your answer before continuing to read on.


    David

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

    Quote Originally Posted by David M
    From what you are saying, please now explain to me 1 Corinthians 15:27, which I have quoted showing Jesus is subordinate to God and not equal. While on the subject, do you disagree with Timmy who thinks Jesus and God are one of the same and God morphs between the two?
    It appears you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not say that the Father is "equal" to the Son. That wouldn't make any sense at all. I will answer your other questions after you indicate that you understand and have corrected your error, or explain why it's not really an error. Obviously, it would be pointless to dispute the Trinity if you don't understand what the doctrine teaches.
    I am stopping right here. I am prepared to respond as you have requested before reaching this point. I have complied against my will in the past in other threads and I am not doing so again. I expect you to answer my question first and I will respond to your reply. I am not letting you dictate when you will answer my questions. Unless you answer the question now, we stop this conversation here.

    This is why we need a rule book to guide our conversations. The rule is; we answer each others questions at the time asked and not answered only if we ask a question to be answered first.

    I shall wait for your answer before continuing to read on.


    David
    Good morning David,

    I did answer your question. I explained that it was based on the false assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father is "equal" to the Son. The only correct answer to a question based on a false assumption is to expose the false assumption.

    It seems to me that my response conforms to your rule. I asked a question that had to be answered before I could respond further.

    As for your refusal to respond to all my other long and detailed answers, that's your choice. It looks like a dodge to me, but if you are happy behaving this way then who am I to tell you what to do? I dictate nothing. You are free to reply as you please.

    All the best to you my friend,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •