cksalmon Posted January 11, 2009 Posted January 11, 2009 FYI- The Jews were Henotheistic before they were taken to Babylon.CQUIRK--It is precisely against the evolutionary view of Israelite theology that Heiser argues so forcefully. His "Divine Council paradigm" of reading the biblical texts should be of interest to all those (both LDS and non-LDS) who are anxious to understand the biblical data in more depth--whether or not one comes down on his side in all particulars. In presenting his perspective, which I find quite cogent and well-argued, he avoids both the secularization of OT scholarship (the denial of a coherent and consistent OT theology) as well as the simplistic (mis)readings of what can only be described as 'problematic' OT (as well as some NT) texts for traditional Christians. You...Ignorance, hypocracy, and bigotry are the 3 main ingredients in a argument against the LDS faith....have never struck me as one of those persons, however, to be sure. cks
russianwolfe Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 angels and pinhead questions.Is this going to be a new segment on the O'Reilly Factor?Marvin
Billy Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 What is meant by "the beginning?" What is "the beginning" the beginning of? If God the Father created His Son outside of time, then it has be "before" the "beginning" since a beginning, any beginning demands the existence of time.Can you point out where it says that Christ was created?
urroner Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Can you point out where it says that Christ was created?From a previous post of mine from another thread, the "John 1" thread:I was poking around on the web, looking for some info on John 1:1 when I came across a site that talked about a language that many scriptures had been translated to from the Greek.The Sahidic Coptic was translated in the 3rd century, about a hundred years before the Trinity became official church doctrine.This is what I have read, and once again, I don't know if this is the truth, but it makes sense and if I'm wrong, please correct me. http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2934While Koine (common) Greek was still the lingua franca of the Roman world, the New Testament was translated in three languages: Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. Scholarly attention has usually been given to the first two languages. However, the Coptic New Testament texts, and especially those written in the Sahidic dialect, are arguably far more rewarding to study....the Old Latin and Syriac are represented by two extant manuscripts each, which can be dated as being from before the fifth century (400 AD). All four are of the Gospels only. Sahidic manuscripts dating from the same period are more numerous, more complete, and represent many more books of the Bible.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...13161836AASBOMFThe Sahidic Coptic was translated in the 3rd century, about a hundred years before the Trinity became official church doctrine. The Sahidic Coptic calls the Word in John 1:1 "a god," not "god" or "the god."http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/2007/05/sah...article-at.htmlâ??The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.â? â?? Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5The following is from the New World Translation and Coptic Version site. I usually wouldn't quote from this site, but I have looked at several other sites and all seems to be in order. http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/09/t...-years-ago.htmlThis earliest Coptic (from an Arabic/Greek word for â??Egyptianâ?) translation was in the Sahidic dialect, approximately 1,700 years ago. The scribes who were translating the Gospel of John from Koine Greek into their own Egyptian language encountered an issue that still faces translators today. It is the question of correctly translating John 1:1.The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1Literally, the Coptic says:1. a. In the beginning existed the word1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god1. c. And a god was the word Note: Bolding is mine- UrronerWe can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or â??in the presence ofâ? (nnahrm): p.noute, â??theâ? god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just â??uâ? following the vowel â??eâ?): ne.u.noute, â??was a god.â?Many ancient Coptic manuscripts were collated and translated into English by Coptic scholar George W. Horner. In 1911, Horner published an English translation of Johnâ??s gospel. He rendered John 1:1c as: â??In the beginning was being the word, and the word was being with God, and [a] God was the word.â? 2 He encloses the indefinite article â??aâ? within brackets, which might indicate that he considered that here its translation is not required in English. However, in his own translation of the same Coptic sentence structure in other verses in John, Horner himself does render the indefinite article in English as â??aâ?, without any brackets, which is entirely proper at John 1:1c also.Well, it seems that the Trinity reading of "Jesus was with God and Jesus was God" of John 1:1 isn't doing all that well.So, here is a valid Bible saying that Jesus, the Word, was with the god (God the Father), but he wasn't the god (God), rather he was a god.So let me ask again, when was this beginning? What was "the beginning" a beginning of?
Billy Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 From a previous post of mine from another thread, the "John 1" thread:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...13161836AASBOMFhttp://copticjohn.blogspot.com/2007/05/sah...article-at.htmlThe following is from the New World Translation and Coptic Version site. I usually wouldn't quote from this site, but I have looked at several other sites and all seems to be in order. http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2008/09/t...-years-ago.htmlWell, it seems that the Trinity reading of "Jesus was with God and Jesus was God" of John 1:1 isn't doing all that well.So, here is a valid Bible saying that Jesus, the Word, was with the god (God the Father), but he wasn't the god (God), rather he was a god.You are in good company, that is the way the JW's translated it, namely "a god".So let me ask again, when was this beginning? What was "the beginning" a beginning of?Even if you consider "the beginning" to be the beginning of time. Christ was already existent at that point per John 1:1. It never says he was created at the beginning or that he was created at all in this verse. You are reading this into the passage.
urroner Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 You are in good company, that is the way the JW's translated it, namely "a god".So Billy, was this a valid or invalid translation? Remember, this comes from writings older than most writings in the western Christian Church. BTW, nice attempt to poison the well, and then try to avoid the issue.Even if you consider "the beginning" to be the beginning of time. Christ was already existent at that point per John 1:1. It never says he was created at the beginning or that he was created at all in this verse. You are reading this into the passage.Let's see, I ask you what you think "the beginning" refers to and you ask me if I have ever considered something. Once again Billy, what do you think the "beginnning" refers to?
jerryp48 Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Even if you consider "the beginning" to be the beginning of time. Christ was already existent at that point per John 1:1. It never says he was created at the beginning ...You do know that we believe Christ existed before time right? The verse in question disputes nothing in our beliefs.
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Let's see, I ask you what you think "the beginning" refers to and you ask me if I have ever considered something. Once again Billy, what do you think the "beginnning" refers to?Either the beginning of time or it could be endless eternity, which really is saying the same thing. Either way the Word was already there. So in endless eternity, Jesus existed with the Father. Again nothing is said about Jesus being created in this verse, that is something that you are trying to interject into this piece of scripture.Note one of your previous postsWhat is meant by "the beginning?" What is "the beginning" the beginning of? If God the Father created His Son outside of time, then it has be "before" the "beginning" since a beginning, any beginning demands the existence of time.
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 You do know that we believe Christ existed before time right? The verse in question disputes nothing in our beliefs.Yes, I think I know what we you believeThat we all existed as intelligences, co-eternal with God, but he was more advanced than us. At some point God the Father and one of wives--who have physical bodies--produced a spiritual child (not physical, despite them having physical bodies) by somehow taking this pre-existent intelligence and packaging it into your pre-earth spiritual body, via some sort of procreative process. And it just so happens that Jesus and Lucifer are YOUR older brothers.
LeSellers Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 esus and Lucifer are YOUR older brothers.I'm sure you can certify that Lucifer is our elder brother. I know of no definitive statement that identifies Lucifer as being older or younger than the rest of us. Jesus, then known as Jehovah, is our Elder Brother. But that means nothing in regards to Lucifer.Lehi
Notquitewetyet Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 So Billy, was this a valid or invalid translation? Remember, this comes from writings older than most writings in the western Christian Church. BTW, nice attempt to poison the well, and then try to avoid the issue.Let's see, I ask you what you think "the beginning" refers to and you ask me if I have ever considered something. Once again Billy, what do you think the "beginnning" refers to?I think Billy is going to the Nicene creed, which says, "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" that is, the Son is eternally begotten by the Father in a special proces, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That is, if you don't believe in Calvin's teaching that Christ is self-begotten, an autotheos. I don't know if most Protestants accept that particular tenet of Calvinism.
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I'm sure you can cerify that Lucifer is our elder brother. I know of no definitive statement that identifies Lucifer as being older or younger than the rest of us. Jesus, then known as Jehovah, is our Elder Brother. But that means nothing in regards to Lucifer.LehiYou are right, Christ is the oldest, that is clear, but I couldn't find any official statement about Lucifer being older than the rest. If I find anything I will be sure to post it.
LeSellers Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 You are right, Christ is the oldest, that is clear, but I couldn't find any official statement about Lucifer being older than the rest.So why did you make the claim that he was "YOUR older brother" (your emphasis)?Lehi
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Literally, the Coptic says:1. a. In the beginning existed the word1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god1. c. And a god was the word Note: Bolding is mine- UrronerWe can see at the outset that the Coptic translators used the Coptic definite article (p) in referring to the One the Word was with or â??in the presence ofâ? (nnahrm): p.noute, â??theâ? god, i.e., God. And we can see that in referring to the Word, the Coptic translators employed the Coptic indefinite article (ou; just â??uâ? following the vowel â??eâ?): ne.u.noute, â??was a god.â?Why do you think that the scholarly translators use "WAS GOD" verses you proposed translation and the JW translation of "was a god"? John 1KJV 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.NASB 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.ESV 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. NIV 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 So why did you make the claim that he was "YOUR older brother" (your emphasis)?LehiLet me make this perfectly clear, Satan and Jesus are NOT my spiritual brothers, that is a LDS teaching which NO other Christian Church to my knowledge supports, except the LDS offshoots like the FLDS.I retract my statement "Jesus and Lucifer are YOUR older brothers."I restate that LDS believe that Jesus is YOUR (not my) older brother and Lucifer is YOUR BROTHER.
urroner Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Let me make this perfectly clear, Satan and Jesus are NOT my spiritual brothers, that is a LDS teaching which NO other Christian Church to my knowledge supports.Hallelujah, Billy admits that Mormons are Christians. We are slowly winning him over.
cksalmon Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I'm sure you can certify that Lucifer is our elder brother. I know of no definitive statement that identifies Lucifer as being older or younger than the rest of us. Jesus, then known as Jehovah, is our Elder Brother. But that means nothing in regards to Lucifer.LehiHi Lehi--YHWH is the God of Israel, LeSellers. Jehovah is a German transliteration of the OT Hebrew divine name. YHWH is the God of the Bible. Elohim is not the "name" of a god (it is a term of category), though the noun is used as the ultimate relevant naming noun in OT to refer to YHWH, in certain places, to be sure. All "gods" are "elohim." But only YHWH is YHWH. I've never understood the LDS preoccupation with naming God the Father "Elohim." I believe it must stem ultimately from the manifest ignorance of OT exegesis on the part of early LDS leaders. You can correct me if I'm wrong, here. At any rate, it's just a rather silly, unbiblical tradition that God the Father's name is "Elohim." Some of the LDS scholars I've read on this subject have relegated "elohim" to the position of title, rather than name. Which is, to be sure, certainly more apt. But, your suggestion that Jesus was once known as Jehovah suggests that you haven't come to terms with the relevant discourse (even among LDS). Best.cks
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 So why did you make the claim that he was "YOUR older brother" (your emphasis)?LehiAbraham 327 And the aLord said: Whom shall I bsend? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And canother answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first bestate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Hi Lehi--YHWH is the God of Israel, LeSellers. Jehovah is a German transliteration of the OT Hebrew divine name. YHWH is the God of the Bible. Elohim is not the "name" of a god (it is a term of category), though the noun is used as the ultimate relevant naming noun in OT to refer to YHWH, in certain places, to be sure. All "gods" are "elohim." But only YHWH is YHWH. I've never understood the LDS preoccupation with naming God the Father "Elohim." I believe it must stem ultimately from the manifest ignorance of OT exegesis on the part of early LDS leaders. You can correct me if I'm wrong, here. At any rate, it's just a rather silly, unbiblical tradition that God the Father's name is "Elohim." Some of the LDS scholars I've read on this subject have relegated "elohim" to the position of title, rather than name. Which is, to be sure, certainly more apt. But, your suggestion that Jesus was once known as Jehovah suggests that you haven't come to terms with the relevant discourse (even among LDS). Best.cksLet me see. Are you saying that because "god" in English is noun, that "God" in English can't be a proper noun? How do you know Elohim is never a proper noun in Hebrew. How could you tell the difference? How could a Hebrew? Is, for example, the word "el" in 'el 'elohe yisra'el in Gen 46:3 a proper name or not?By the way, what is the name of the God the Father in the biblical tradition? Abraham 327 And the aLord said: Whom shall I bsend? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And canother answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first bestate; and, at that day, many followed after him.Pleeeeeze, Billy. The term "second" in no way implies second oldest in this passage. It refers to the second of the two mentioned in 3:27.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Let me make this perfectly clear, Satan and Jesus are NOT my spiritual brothers, that is a LDS teaching which NO other Christian Church to my knowledge supports, except the LDS offshoots like the FLDS.I retract my statement "Jesus and Lucifer are YOUR older brothers."I restate that LDS believe that Jesus is YOUR (not my) older brother and Lucifer is YOUR BROTHER.In Job 1:6 it states that "the sons of the gods (bene ha-elohim) came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them. See also 2:1 which says exactly the same thing with the same language.So, Billy, is Satan one of the bene elohim or not?
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Abraham 327 And the aLord said: Whom shall I bsend? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And canother answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first bestate; and, at that day, many followed after him.Pleeeeeze, Billy. The term "second" in no way implies second oldest in this passage. It refers to the second of the two mentioned in 3:27.How do you know that? It doesn't seem to be all that clear in context.Especially since the Lord refers to Jesus as THE "first"-- who just so happens to be the firstborn which I don't think is a coincidence --it does not say the one who came to the Lord with the first plan or the person who came to the Lord with the second plan. It refers to them as THE "first" and THE "second".
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 In Job 1:6 it states that "the sons of the gods (bene ha-elohim) came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them. See also 2:1 which says exactly the same thing with the same language.So, Billy, is Satan one of the bene elohim or not?Yes, if you mean that Satan was an angel or heavenly being as translated in the NIV, Amplified, or NRSV. No, if you mean that Satan was our spiritual brother, a product from the union of God the Father and his wife.Job 1:6 KJV Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.NIV One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.Amp Now there was a day when the sons (the angels) of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan (the adversary and accuser) also came among them.NRSV One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.additionhttp://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Job&am...ab=commentaries3 sn The â??sons of Godâ? in the OT is generally taken to refer to angels. They are not actually â??sonsâ? of Elohim; the idiom is a poetic way of describing their nature and relationship to God. The phrase indicates their supernatural nature, and their submission to God as the sovereign Lord. It may be classified as a genitive that expresses how individuals belong to a certain class or type, i.e., the supernatural (GKC 418
Tanyan Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 http://www.thedivinecouncil.com In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 How do you know that? It doesn't seem to be all that clear in context.Because I can read and understand English.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Yes, if you mean that Satan was an angel or heavenly being as translated in the NIV, Amplified, or NRSV. No, if you mean that Satan was our spiritual brother, a product from the union of God the Father and his wife.Job 1:6 KJV Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.NIV One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.Amp Now there was a day when the sons (the angels) of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan (the adversary and accuser) also came among them.NRSV One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.The Hebrew does not say "angels" or "divine beings." The Hebrew says bene ha-elohim, which means "sons of the gods." The other options are a theological interpretations masquerading in the guise of a translation. So, again, I ask you the question: according to the Bible, is Satan one of the bene ha-elohim? No equivocation, please.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.