Is Science and scientific theory against God and Theology? Is it God versus science?

This little paragraph shows you aren’t applying the concept of polysemy correctly. ἔξοδος can mean departure and it can mean death. That does not entail that any time the word is used, both meanings apply at the same time. That is called illegitimate totality transfer, and it is bad linguistics. You actually have to make a case from context why the sense ‘death’ is the correct sense instead of ‘going forth’ in this instance; you can’t just point to another use of a polysemous word and assume it has the same meaning in both contexts.

My brain is exploding right now. You most definitely do need to know the source language to evaluate the accuracy of the translation. You cannot compare “corresponding thoughts” across languages by looking up individual words in lexicons. The fact that you think this is valid undermines any claim you are making of trustworthy analysis.

3 Likes

So what leads you to accept that the Church father’s were led by the Holy Spirit to discern the canonical Scriptures, but reject that they were led by the Spirit to accurately formalize the apostles’ teaching in the creeds? It seems to me they are either trustworthy or they aren’t. If they aren’t trustworthy on the creeds, how do you trust their discernment on the canonicity of the Scriptures?

Proof-texting is a notoriously bad way to do theology.

1 Like

Well put. It’s the old word-to-word mapping fallacy. A good book for beginners on such fallacies including the infamous illegitimate totality transfer is D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies.

Sadly, even some of the famous radio preachers are guilty of starting sentences with “If you are following along in your X modern English Bible translation, you may find the following reading… but it SHOULD say… The Bible translators got it all wrong.” The vast majority of the time, the preacher is clueless and the translators weren’t. (Yes, Bible translators make mistakes, but the average preacher is usually not well equipped for finding them.)

At least we haven’t had to explain the problems of “the aorist tense meaning once-and-for-all”, “on this ROCK I will build my church”, and “There are three kinds of love in the Bible and the truly godly love is AGAPAO!” Fortunately, the books explaining the fallacies of amateur exegetes usually do.

3 Likes

No. I couldn’t disagree more. But there was a time when I was 100% committed to that assumption.

I think almost all of us have been prone to make that mistake (at some point in our early growth in grappling with the scriptures), that sincerity and honesty are all that is necessary to get the “right answers” from the scriptures and to avoid the “wrong answers.” I too was guilty of thinking that because I was a Holy Spirit indwelt child of God—and that my university religious studies professor “obviously” wasn’t, because he failed to embrace the doctrinal beliefs of my church background and “true beliefs”— God had rewarded me with a correct and certainly superior understanding of the Bible. In my mind, my professor’s Ph.D. and many years of research counted for nothing. So I was sure that I could destroy him in any debate, although we always had very positive interactions. In my mind, he was a “dangerous liberal”.

I even applied “Seek and ye shall find” to my academic questions. I assumed that as long as I prayed with sincerity and humility, God would never allow me to hold to a wrong doctrine or get hold the wrong position on evolution or the age of the earth!

So, Theophilus Book, I hope you will not feel treated harshly. Truly, we’ve all “been there” to some degree. We all had to negotiate these kinds of hurdles and very gradually sort through what we had gotten wrong or simply misunderstood. With language translation issues, most of us truly did have to sort it out on our own as best we could until we finally got into an appropriate educational environment. There we could finally get some good answers and systematically learn about the art of translation, including the complex nature of languages and cultures which can view the same realities of life in very different ways.

For me, despite having studied four languages previously, tackling Ancient Hebrew was my first experience with a non-IndoEuropean language, and it was such a shock! I had never given much thought to the existence of a language where verbal tense and temporal considerations in general were such a low priority! The mysteries of psycho-linguistics swept over me for the first time. I found myself becoming far more empathetic towards translators (and Bible translators especially) and becoming far less dogmatic about virtually everything I’d once so proudly propounded to those who I assumed were far less endowed with Divine insights.

I’m not suggesting that once you find the right linguistics doctoral program or theology curriculum, you just soak in the truth and everything falls into place. No, I’m saying that the more you learn, the more you are humbled and the more you become aware of how little you know. And that’s what I appreciated most about my favorite professors. I certainly hope that my students would say the same about me.

I’ve been fooled in the past by anti-theists on forums who have mocked Christians by portraying what they see as an easily derided stereotype. Considering how I once made the very same translation mistakes with my proudly carried interlinear Greek-English Bible, I should be more compassionate to this sincere but misinformed view of the translation of the Biblical text. And because Americans generally have far less exposure to bilingualism in daily life than many Europeans, for example, it is easy to see why we tend to be left to our own assumptions and misunderstandings where we think translation is some kind of mathematical equivalency process where one simply substitutes everything one-to-one.

Of course, there can be many reasons why we as humans are so drawn to such simplistic conclusions. The fact that Jesus said that we must have a child-like faith can so easily be distorted into a misguided anti-education and even a misapplied “anti-elitism” bias. In the small town community where I attended seminary so long ago, many of the locals openly expressed their hostility towards anyone “guilty” of reading “the teachings of men” (also known as theological textbooks!), even though they were quite willing to sit through weekly sermons which were somehow mysteriously devoid of such taint! (When I asked for an explanation of the difference, I got an angry retort and the conversation was over.) There was the common presupposition that any sort of overt effort at systematic study and careful dissection of the original language of the scriptures somehow interfered with the more “natural” and “purer” guidance of the Holy Spirit. We see this same type of bias on many Internet forums where people appeal to a child’s “natural reading” of the Biblical text, as if it is inherently superior to the careful study of Biblical scholars. Perhaps we just naturally love the idea of evening the playing field and pretending that the young child or the new Christian is every bit as well prepared for understanding a particular Bible passage. We hate to think that any truth in the scriptures might not be readily available–and equally—to everyone at every time, even though the Bible often speaks of mystery and the disciples complained to Jesus that he didn’t speak plainly. Instead of telling them what they wanted to hear, Jesus explained that some truths are intentionally withheld by God. Keeping things cloaked in mystery is part of the plan of God.

@Theo_Book, I do hope you will read and study some of the introductory linguistics primers mentioned above. (Moises Silva and David Allen Black have also produced some outstanding introductions to Biblical linguistics and an understanding of translation issues.) There are also countless summaries of such basic translation principles online. Most of us here have gone though this same learning process, after finding ourselves getting little guidance on translation principles from our churches. (I’m not necessarily implying failures on the part of busy pastors and youth leaders. They are usually overworked and overpressed as it is with a long list of expectations which no mere human can ever meet.)

Of course, you can also learn a lot from the articles, essays, and forum posts on Biologos.org. Hopefully it was your reason for coming here. It certainly was for me. I do hope that you will find this a productive experience.

1 Like

[quote=“Christy, post:20, topic:5323”]
Greek has an optional copula. In (standard) English a copula is obligatory, so one has to be supplied in translation[/quote]

The problem begins when scholars begin to change terminology that only confuses. What was once called “copulating verb” is now called an “equalizing verb.” The problem is, nothing is “made equal” by an "equalizing verb. It is a reference to the fact that in the Greek, when you have two nouns, one of which is articulated, The articulated noun is easily identified as the subject, and the non-articulated noun is called the predicate noun.

There are actually scholars out there who are teaching that an equalizing verb is a verb that equalizes nouns. They then begin to exegete in accord with that perspective, when nothing could be further from truth.

The best example I know of is John 1:1 where it is claimed “…and the logos was God” is comprised of two nouns, one of which is articulated, and they are made equal by the equalizing verb “was,” as the verb that makes them “equal.” Argument then follows using the argument of equality between the nouns as proof “The Logos” was in eternity with God as Jesus, who became flesh and dwelled among Men.

The truth is, it was not John, but Paul who identified and defined :The logos" for us. John wrote much later than Paul, and by the time John wrote his prologue, Paul had already preached to the whole world about “THE LOGOS OF GOD.”

If the books of the New Testament are studied in the approximate order in which they were inspired to be written, “The Logos Of God” takes on an entirely different meaning.

In 48 a.d. Paul wrote “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but [color=red]]Christ liveth in me[/color]: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]

And -

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” [Gal 4:4-7]

Paul also said in that same letter - “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]

So Paul had an expectation of seeing a change come over the newly converted as their Phileo (affection) turned to agape (devotion). In their proccess of growing to mature Christianity, a maturity that sometimes included giving up one’s life, the saints began to express, not in words, but by a new and living way that far exceeded all expectation as pertains to a changing of a lifestyle. The bold and sometimes brash became humble; the occasionally vulgar became pure of speech; the selfish became subtlely concerned for the downtrodden and the poor.

Why?

Because Christ lived in them, in their flesh, bringing about a change so obvious that when observed by others, it seemed as though, to those others, the original was replaced with a completely new person. It was as though one became a newly born only begotten son of God.

So Paul introduces a concept to the saints, of “Christ living in you;” but does not make any further defining remarks to the saints in Galatia.

Then, in In 55 a.d. paul, writing to the saints in Corinth, said -“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” [II Cor 13:5]

Paul begins to introduce some finer points of definition when in 60 a.d. he said he had “fully preached the Logos Of God” to the whole world, and explained what it is - “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;”

“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to (fully preach) fulfill The Logos Of God [/u]; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you , the hope of glory:” [Col 1:23,25-27]

So Paul tells us “Christ is in you” and further, he tells us there is a name for this phenomena, “The Logos Of God.” Now, “logos” is simply one of several words that carry the meaning of “word” or “message.” This becomes “The message of God” to you is “Let Christ take over your life.” Let him in. Let him completely renovate the dwelling he has discovered in you. Let him clean the inside and the outside, and make all things new as pertains to your identity, so that instead of the person you once were, is now replaced by that person you have become in Christ Jesus.

We need to remember several things that are explained by Paul; 1) there was a mystery hidden from ages and generations, 2) it is now to be made manifest to the saints; and 3) there is glory somehow connected to this “soon to be manifested” mystery; and 4) Paul tells us this mystery has a name “The Logos Of God;” and 5) further, he tells us that this mystery, this manifested “logos of God” is “Christ in you” and yet further again, 6)it constitutes for us “the hope of glory.” This is quite a mouthfull.

So, let’s see if this theme is picked up for verification anywhere else in scripture.

What we are looking for is some reference to “Christ in you” while you are “living” and “in your flesh,” and further, we are looking for some indication that this is available for a very long time, that this is not just for the saints of Paul’s day, to last only as long as he continues to preach it.

Paul expresses his exposition of a theme with - “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” [Gal 4:4-7]

So Paul jumps from the birth of a newborn baby, Jesus of Nazareth, to the complete transition of the saints to newly adopted full grown children of God, in one short phrase comprised of 4 verses.

Now I realize that much has been preached about the saints being adopted into God’s family as sons, thereby making Him our Father, and we his children. But that is not what scripture actually says. Scripture tells us we are adopted by Jesus Christ to himself, and since the saints are “baptized into” Christ, and have put on Christ, because He is 'God’s son, those who are adopted into Jesus, are “equal heirs” with him. “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,” [Eph 1:5]

All of this ties together but it was not all written in the first book of the new testament. It began there, and morphed into the truth of the gospel, as it ws developed by Paul, limited only by the people’s state of preparedness, as they had to modify their lives so that they no longer were the focus and scope of what “living” means.

Finally, another Apostle picks up on the theme introduced and defined by Paul’s writings. It is John’s turn to talk about the saints in whom the spirit of Christ has been sent by God to dwell in the saints; (that “Logos Of God” which was introduced by Paul - “Christ living in me”) - John speaks of it this way: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the logos was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his (the one who received Christ) glory, the glory as of an only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” [John 1:11-14]

John does not say “as many as received him, them he made sons of God.” No, John says “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become(no article in the Greek) sons of God.” John is telling us there is something required beyond believing, to qualify one for being a son of God. And that requirement has been being spelled out by Paul the Apostle since Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father, so many years ago.

Why does John fail to say “We beheld the glory of the only begotten son?” Instead, he says “We beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten son.”

That little Greek expression “os” is what is called a “particle of comparison.” Why would John be comparing the glory of Jesus to the glory of Jesus? The truth is, he is not. He is comparing The glory of the saint in whom the logos of God is personified, with the glory of the only begotten son of God dwelling in that saint.

Jesus did not “become a man” in John 1:14. The only reason there is even a mention of Jesus at all in John’s first chapter, is because in 96 a.d., John tied his gospel to the person of Christ and to “the logos of God” referenced in Rev 3:12 and in 19:12-13 with reference to the new name he is to be given, as “the logos of God.”

Jesus was not “the logos of God” in 30 a.d; He was not “The logos of God” in 33 a.d. when he was ascended, and he was not “the Logos of God” when John prophecied about his gift-name, as of 69 a.d. it was still a future event.

In 96 a.d. John is speaking in 1:14 ofhis gospel, about an event in the life of a saint, a personification, and recalling his remarks he wrote in 69 a.d, about Jesus, and here ties the two events together.

But the personification of the logos of God takes place, according to Paul, everytime some saint or other, so lives his life that he can say “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” [Gal 2:20]

When this saint aknowledges “Christ Jesus” in his life, the logos of God is personified in the life of that saint. And “we behold the glory as of an only begotten son of God” all over again, in that saint, through Christ living in him.

Paul spent a lifetime convincing the saints about this subject of “Jesus Christ living in me” and said, “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,” [Gal 4:19]

So to recap what the Apostles have introduced and defined.
Paul introduced “Christ in you;” Paul defined “Christ in you” and said it is “the hope of Glory.” He also defined it as “[u]The Logos Of God[/u[.”

Then John picked up on a new name which is to be given Jesus, and that new name is “The Logos of God;” Finally John brings together, in his prologue, the saints in whom can be said “Christ lives in you,” and “hope” and “glory” just as Paul had already introduced and defined. And John did not change a thing paul already said.

Jesus was born, at which time he received a name, “Jesus,” which served to identify him while he grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and men, and when he was fully grown, and had died, had been resurrected, and had ascended by 33 a.d., received a name, “The logos of God” between the time when it was published in 69 a.d., and 96 a.d. when John ties the personification of The Logos Of God in the saints, to Jesus, who received the name; but it was not who and what he was; it was a name received. Jesus was never “the logos of God” but was given the name after he successfully completed his mission and was extolled and made very high [Isa 52:13], and given a name above every name.[Phil 2:9-11][Eph 1:19-23]

People have him already pre-existing as “the logos of God” and recognized as the personification of “the logos of God” at his birth when in fact, the terminology did not even exist until 69 a.d.

When I look at a saint in whom Christ lives, I see the logos of God personified, and “behold the glory as of glory of an only begotten son of God.”

When John in his epistles [1st and 2nd John] speaks of “Jesus Christ came in flesh,” he is not speaking of the birth of Jesus, he is speaking of “Christ living in me, in my flesh” spoken of by Paul - “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”[Gal 2:20]

There is no way you can find a place to separate Paul’s life in the flesh after his conversion to Christ, from Jesus Christ living in Paul.

Furthermore, John himself said “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:” [I John 4:2]

John did not use the article, and neither should we if we are going to understand exactly what John is saying. He is not speaking of Jesus own body of his flesh, for then he would have said “Jesus came in the flesh,” and everybody would be in agreement. But John did not say that , he said “Jesus Christ came in flesh,” which he did when he lived in Paul “in the flesh.”

And to show it is no mistake of language, John repeats in II John 7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”

In neither verse does John use either the aorist tense or imperfect verbs, which would be necessary if he was speaking of the life of Jesus in his flesh; but John used first, a perfect active participle when he said - “… Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in flesh is of God:” and second, he used a present middle verb which tells us it is not something Jesus actively does to take over your life, but it is something he is allowed by you, to do.

The significance of the “perfect active” [I John 4:2] is that Jesus has accomplished to the fullest, the fact of “com[”-ing"] in flesh" as he lives in the lives of the saints. It is not a reference to his having been born “in the flesh.”

This becomes significant when we consider Paul’s words -“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”[Rom 5:10]

The present participle in II Jn 7, which if you know anything about Greek participles, they are “-ing” words, and being present tense, means that in 85 - 90 a.d., John is saying Jesus is still com["-ing"] in flesh. Check it out with any Greek scholar you wish, if he knows what he is doing, and is honest, he will lay aside all doctrinal bias and admit the truth of this.

This is the mystery of the kingdom of God, part of which Jesus began to teach his disciples as he walked and talked among the Jews of his day. He gave his disciples clues and hints that later, helped them understand as bits and pieces of the doctrine of “The Logos Of God” became fully developed under the capable hands of Paul the Apostle.

And John, in 96 a.d., wrote his gospel, alluding to this doctrine by writing, In the beginning (of the gospel) was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God, and the logos became flesh and dwelled among us; which Jesus did not do during his lifetime in Galilee and in Jerusalem of his day. He was often remote, and elusive, often sought by the crowds, which is not necessary if he is in fact “among” them. But later, after the “Logos Of God” was fully developed and lived by the saints, Christ indeed lived among the saints, as they were hauled off to the slaughter of the Roman Coliseum, to serve as sport for the masses.

And that, my friend, is the “Mystery of the ages” which Paul spoke of, to the whole world, then wrote of it for later generatIons to discover for themselves, and understand and pursue.

So until at least 69 a.d., the saints had no idea of Jesus being named “The word of God” at some future point in time. It was NEVER a first century issue.

Then, by the time John wrote his epistle in 96 a.d., and began with “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,” There was absolutely NO issue of Jesus being the word of God, because it was already understood for over sixty years, that the saints, living so that it was not they who lived, but Christ living in them, was the personification of the word of God, and the word of God was personified in the saints, and dwelled among men. The logos concept was already understood prior to John’s gospel.

It was left to later generations, who studied the new testament from the standpoint of “life of Christ” FIRST, who began to understand John’s gospel to reference an preexistent Jesus who somehow became a human.

If the books are studied in the order in which they were revealed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they CANNOT be understood to reference a preexistent Jesus.

How does it matter what order you use to study God’s word? Look at the vast difference in concept if you approach the meaning attached to “the logos of God, which is Christ living in me” by starting with the earliest books written, as opposed to beginning with the last book written.

Verbs don’t have sex, so I assume you mean copulative verb? And do you mean equative verb? A copula links a subject with a predicate, an equative verb links a nominal clause with a subject that has the same referent, they are not always the same thing. I have two MAs in applied linguistics, one focused on English and one focused on Bible translation, and I have never heard of anyone speaking about nouns being equalized by equalizing verbs.

Again, you are not really giving any evidence that you know what you are talking about when it comes to Greek, linguistics, or exegesis

1 Like

[quote=“Socratic.Fanatic, post:15, topic:5323”]
When boasts are made of debates won against professors, I make a gracious exit.[/quote]

There is a great difference between an idle boast, and a humble explanation.

I have had two debates with my former professors, in a public forum, both of which resulted in the college where I studied, reversing their own curriculum of presentation to reflect changes resulting from those debates.

One such debate was on the issue of church treasure/treasury, and how the money should be collected and spent. It brought changes that are needed throughout both the Christian practice and Politic.

The other debate was on the Eldership and its application in the post introductory era of Church History. My professor concluded on that issue, “I cannot answer your question.” The reality was, he refused to answer in opposition to what he had always understood and taught on the issue.

And I do not relate this as “boasting” for it was not my own effort that brought it to my attention. It was the errors of doctrines and creeds that cause much confusion, resulting in some exercising authority over others, where it is not substantiated by scripture.

Peter learned this from Jesus; - “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”[I PET 5:1-3]

And where did Peter learn this? “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; Neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. 17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”[John 13:14-17]

Which college? Which denomination?

LOL! There are a lot of copulating verbs, most not repeatable.

3 Likes

Well said.

In wading through Theo’s Theo-book posted above, I had multiple flashbacks to the pseudo-exegetical nuggets promulgated by The Way International on university campuses in the 1970’s. The misuse of terminology and the copious misunderstandings of articular and anarthrous phenomena—often accompanied by yellow highlighter Greek-English Interlinear justifications—claimed conclusions that virtually all Bible translators were allegedly conspiring to hide from the Christian world. There was also a lot of strained applications of MONOGENES and LOGOS. At the time it was gaining followings on many state university campuses (probably about 1974 to 1977??), it brought to my mind the Gnostic movement in the early Church, claiming to have a “secret knowledge” that, if fully embraced, would allegedly unlock “the truth” which most Christians knew nothing about.

Does anyone else here have these Seventies flashbacks of familiarity?

1 Like

@BeagleLady, based on your Like vote of my post about reminders of the strange teachings and pseudo-exegesis of The Way back in the 1970’s on many university campuses, do you perhaps have similar memories of them? I never investigated how pervasive they were on campuses outside the Bible Belt and perhaps overseas but I’d love to hear the observations and memories of others on this topic. My impression was that The Way recruited “lone wolf” types who were very committed and energetic—but I never saw groups of them. The actual numbers on campuses may have been negligible, but their influence was quite impressive.

Oh my gosh, my sister got messed up with The Way when she was in high school. It was just a cult, teaching that the church has been wrong all these years and The Way was, well, the way. Their founder was Victor Paul Wierwille, who actually burned his theological library when he went off the rails. I remember my sister paid $80 to join the group, and all she got was several paperback books and the chance to listen to some audio tapes. Back then, $80 was a lot of money, and the faithful were told that coming up with the cash was a sign of “right believing.” Fortunately, my sister got out.

Anyway, thanks for the bad memory! Speaking of charlatans, I just watched a documentary called “Marjoe” about Marjoe Gortner the Evangelical revival preacher. Highly recommended! I actually blame his parents for the way he turned out.

@Beaglelady, you brought back two names I hadn’t heard mentioned in decades: Victor Wierwille and Marjoe. I remember how Marjoe was able to leverage his 15 minutes of fame into some TV show hosting gigs and general celebrity. I should investigate what ever happened to him.

I’m struck by Theo’s quirky but strangely familiar “exegesis”. The similarities to The Way’s favorite topics makes me extremely curious: sheer coincidence or something else at work?

1 Like

See The Marjoe Documentary which you can stream from Amazon for a few bucks. Eventually, his conscience got to him and he gave up his scam and turned to acting in movies. It would be inaccurate to say that he went into acting since he had been putting on an act for his entire life!

I have nothing to say about Theo. Did you know that Joseph Smith obtained an Egyptian papayri, decided that it was by Abraham, and proceded to “translate” it? Trouble is, scholars eventually translated it and said that Smith was full of it.

Smith translated his Book of Mormon by putting a “peep stone” in a hat and then sticking his head inside the hat to get the right translation.

It is very easy to decide which translation applies in the case of prophecy, simply by eliminating the one that responds to doctrine or creed, instead of to prophecy .It cannot be used to prove a pre-existent Christ did anything, because the only place Christ “pre-existed” was in prophecy. Therefore, you simply apply the usage what responds to prophecies of his death. Because “His goings forth” is a reference to pre-existence, which did not happen…

[quote=“Christy, post:22, topic:5323”]
So what leads you to accept that the Church father’s were led by the Holy Spirit to discern the canonical Scriptures, but reject that they were led by the Spirit to accurately formalize the apostles’ teaching in the creeds? It seems to me they are either trustworthy or they aren’t. If they aren’t trustworthy on the creeds, how do you trust their discernment on the canonicity of the Scriptures?[/quote]

Why would I trust the ECF to get ANYTHING right? They were the ones who concocted Trinity doctrine, in spite of what scriptures had to say to the contrary. In fact, some of the Early Church Fathers (ECF) even resorted to using an Egyptian myth as a proof for the resurrection; they used the “Phoenix” - a mythical bird which supposedly died every 500 years, was burned, and rose from its ashes, I seriously doubt THAT was by inspiration.

Then they messed up the “Canon of scripture” so badly nothing is understood as it should be, because once you get the books of the New Testament out of chronology, everything is changed. 'The logos of God" is just one example of how messed up the “canon of scripture” has become.

Everyone begins the story of Christ with John 1:1, which was the LAST book written, not the first. So the “canon” misfired. If truth is ever to be gleaned from scripture, begin with Paul’s identification and definition of “THE LOGOS OF GOD” wherein he explains how there is a plan in the mind of God, which is given a name “THE LOGOS OF GOD;” which tells how when a Christian is conformed to the image of the son of God, CHRIST liveth in that Christian, in such a way others will observe and see a change and see glory as of another son of God. THAT is where John joins Paul in declaring to the saints what “THE LOGOS OF GOD” is.

And I do not trust the ECF for the canon, I trust God who inspired it to be able to keep it straight.

[quote=“Christy, post:22, topic:5323”]
Proof-texting is a notoriously bad way to do theology.[/quote]

I do not “do theology by proof-texting.” I destroy doctrines and creeds by debunking THEIR proof-texting.

Then I look at the way the scholars continue to contest with each other to see who can come up with a new and different category of classification for Verbs, or some important segment of grammatic principle. The latest nonsense is labeled “Historic present” which completely alters the design of language by interpreting instead of translating.

I have offered two scriptural references where the translators have used “was” where there is no justification for it in the GREEK. And It was suggested “Historic present” in koine Greek would make it all clear.

It is one thing to apply “historic present” to a Greek verb; it is quite another to invent a verb where it does not exist, and claim “Historic present” ffor what “should have been in the GREEK.” In other words, the scholars supply what God SHOULD HAVE SAID, then apply a nonsensically invented category to explain how it works.

In just two examples John 1:29-42 & John 20:1-18, a total of 43 words have been declared “Historic Presents.”
Of those 43 words,
11 AORIST ACTIVE = VIAA
2 IMPERFECT ACTIVE = VIIA
2 PLUPERFECT ACTIVE = VILA
21 PRESENT ACTIVE = VIPA
4 PRESENT MIDDLE +VIPN - (+ OR PASSIVE DEPONENT)

No one has explained how a “Present” Active verb becomes a “Historically” present active. Isn’t “past, present. future” already a reference to historical time? Is there any time that is outside of Historical reference? Even ETERNITY is recognized as a time prior to when time was measured by sun, moon, and stars. It is “Historically eternal time before chronos time.”

And how does a Greek word that does not reference time, but activity, suddenly become “Historic present” which most definitely abandons the Greek reference to activity, to present a proof-text in English translation, to time?
AORIST ACTIVE , IMPERFECT ACTIVE, PLUPERFECT ACTIVE,
PRESENT ACTIVE.PRESENT MIDDLE +

Then when I question the insertion of “Was” into John 17:5 and Philippians 2:5 I am told to study koine “Historical present.” The problem is three-fold; 1st) “Was” is not “Present” it is “PAST” - 2nd) even “Historical Present” requires a Greek word for justification and 3rd) The Greek verb “eimi” is NEVER used as an historical present in all of Greek literature.; And “Was” is another form of “eimi;” The Greek form of verb meaning “To Be.” (I AM).

So that argument has no merit whatsoever. It is simply a doctrine displayed as a translation.

You don’t understand Greek grammar. You don’t understand translation. I have zero interest in continuing a conversation with someone whose stated goal is to “destroy doctrines and creeds.” I reject all of your premises as based on ignorance. Go ahead and count this in your mind as another “debate” you won. Peace, out. :relaxed:

3 Likes

It is not God vs science, but God vs an evolutionist interpretation of creation…errrr…I mean Actually evolution has no beginning :slight_smile:

What do you mean by this? No scientist I have ever heard claims evolution has no beginning.

1 Like

Did you mean "The debate we never had? Because Debates have rules. And premises. And evidence.

I’m very saddened by your post. Not because of your jaw-dropping ignorance of the fundamentals of language and translation but because you appear to be proudly and deliberately immune to learning from the scholarship of others.

You “destroy doctrines and creeds”? Hardly. Yet in the process, I suspect that there is much that you have destroyed.

Even this statement alone convinces readers that you’ve not a clue as to what a translator must understand in order to convey meaning in another language.

Frankly, I tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. I actually still wish I could suspect that I was being pranked. If not for gaper’s block, I would already have moved on.