Saturday, November 24, 2007

My Reply to His Reply to My Reply to His Reply to My Reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You equivocated in your use of John 1:1 with Ps. 119:81.


There is no fallacy in my argument, as is evidenced by the use of the word logos in John 1:1:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God , and the Word was God .

The word used to describe the Second Person of the Trinity is the same word used throughout the New Testament to describe God's Word which was given to man. The following is an example of one of the many references to the Bible using the Greek word Logos.

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God , a workman that needeth not to be ashamed , rightly dividing the word of truth .

Based on the Greek, John chapter one makes the case that Jesus is the Word of God given by inspiration to man. The have the same relationship as water and ice. Fundamentally the same but manifested in different forms. The capitalization is present because in this case the word "Logos" is referring to the Second Person of the Trinity, who is also manifested in flesh:

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

and in the form of written revelation:

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew we don't have logos in Psalms 119:89, we have dabar:

Ps 119:89 ¶ LAMED. For ever <`owlam>, O LORD , thy word is settled in heaven .

As you say, this too refers to the written Word of God:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
In Ps. 119:81, "word" is a reference to God's special revelation, given to Israel via Moses (compare with vv. 91-95, where his "word" is also termed "ordinances," "law," "precepts," and "testimonies").

...however we see in John chapter one that the two references to "word" refer to the same thing. God's Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, in His verbal manifestation. I see no other way of reading these passages.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You then say, "It existed before the creation of the World." What is the referent of "it"? The second Person of the Trinity, or God's spoken revelation? These two things are not the same.

I think the fact that you make a distinction is leading you to some heresies (or at least wrong conclusions). John 1:3-4 says that it was the Word (Jesus) that created the world:

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

...so when God said, "let there be light" He was not at that moment creating the second Person of the Trinity, He was the second Person of the Trinity manifesting Himself in verbal form.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
Again, you equivocated when you said "The truth is the Word of God is Jesus in written form.”

Here, I think you misunderstood me and I will attribute it to the lack of a properly placed comma. The phrase was intended to mean, "The truth is, the Word of God is Jesus in written form." I wasn't saying that the truth is Jesus. Jesus did say, "I am the Truth..." however that wasn't the point I was trying to make.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You again used the same fallacy when you said, "They in effect, translated the Bible into human language to be available for all to read." For this statement to be true, you would have to admit that the Bible is Jesus Christ.

The above is only a fallacy like you say it is if my statements about Jesus and the Bible are false. John 1 indicates Jesus and the Bible are two different manifestations of the second Person of the Trinity. Because this is true, it's not wrong to say that the "Word" exsisted in Heaven before it was written in human language. In fact, the Bible indicates this in Psalm 119:89 and John 1 (not to belabor the point). You and I clearly differ on this point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You then say, "Because this was a translation, it does not take away its inspiration." This time you are again equivocating on the word "translation." The inspired words written down by the original biblical authors were not a "translation." A translation is a given text transformed into another language. When the biblical authors wrote the Scripture, they were not "translating" eternal truth (Jesus?) into another language. Your use of the word here may be used that way in a poetic sense, but that poetic sense of the word "translation" is not in accordance with the way the word is normally employed in speech.

The Bible is and eternal truth. It exsists outside of the boundries of human language, speech, and verbiage. It is not bound to the feeble limitations of a particualar language or group of languages. To limit God's eternal Word to the Hebrew, Greek, and Armamaic is to say that God isn't big enough to give us His Word, exactly the way He wants it, in any other language. That would be a feeble God indeed. In reality, we see God giving us His eternal, perfect Word through imperfect men using imperfect languages, and yet they produced a perfect Bible. If God did this to give us the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, why couldn't He do this when the Bible was translated into English, Spanish, Tagolog, etc.? It's true that the Greek doesn't translate word for word into English. We don't claim that it does. We do however believe that God has given us His Word in a perfect form in the English language. Because God is bigger than human language and He is ultimately the Author of the Bible, He has full liberty to direct the translation in order to ensure it says what He wants it to say.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
Would you say Pharaoh's words "existed before the creation of the World"? Of course not, and yet you have already said that since the "Word" did, so must the Bible have. All this confusion is the result of your numerous equivocations.

I believe the entire Bible existed before the creation of the world, and that would include the words Pharaoh spoke. God knew everything that would occur throughout history before He created the world. We can see this in 1Pet 1:19-20 where we are told that before the foundation of the world (prior to Adam and Eve's sin) God knew He would need to provide Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for our sin:

1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

If God was thinking this far ahead, it's not hard to believe that He already knew everything that Pharaoh would do and say.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
If any true preservation is taking place, it must be in the languages the Bible was originally written/inspired in (and that, obviously, cannot be English).

True preservation, in the sense in which you are speaking, takes place only in Heaven since that is where the Word of God originated (again, see Psalm 119:89). Because we are told in the Bible that God's Word will be preserved on earth, we can say it has been preserved. We mean that it has been protected from corruption and destruction, not that it has been maintained in the original language. The original human language is essentially irrelevent because even it is an intermediary, however it does aid us in study and research.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
Of course the manuscripts differ -- and thus, the discussion of preservation must surround the manuscripts. There are different views regarding preservation of God's word through the manuscripts, and one view is that the Textus Receptus represents the most appropriate preserved manuscripts. But then if that is true, any translation from the Textus Receptus would be faithful to God's word, and the Textus Receptus itself would be inspired.

Exactly. The difference between them all (for Riverwalkers sake since he is so bent on the Geneva Bible) is that the preceding Bibles were translated prior to the English language being standardized in it's spelling and grammar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
-- but, of course, the translations are not a preservation of God's word, the Textus Receptus is. And so, you have no ground to argue against the NKJV, for example, which is based on the Textus Receptus just as the KJV is.

Wrong. The NKJV is not based on the Textus Receptus. It is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just like the other modern versions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
You can talk about the preservation of the KJV, and that only since 1611 -- you cannot talk about the KJV preserving God's word, since God's word was written in the first century, and English didn't even exist as a language when God's word was inscripturated.

You're right. God has not always chosen to preserve His Word in English. It seems He has given the English speaking people a perfect Bible because of the prominence of the language. This does not mean He isn't also preserving His Word in other languages.

You say that you believe God preserved His Word in the original languages. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus upon which the modern versions are based are corrupt manuscripts. Men like Origen, Jerome, and others damaged God’s Word for the sake of the Catholic Church. The debate about whether God’s Word is preserved in the Textus Receptus or the KJV is among KJVO’s, because if you subscribe to either position, you must throw out all modern English translations. They all go back to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.

5 comments:

David T. said...

The buck stops here.
PROVE the NKJV doesn't follow the Textus Receptus.

David Scott said...

There is nothing to prove. Do your research and you will see it for yourself. It's no secret (unless your head is in the sand).

David Scott said...

BTW, If my blog bothers you, why do you read it?

Julie's Jewels said...

Amen Bro. David!! I've never quite understood people who argue and don't like things we post on our blogs yet the continue to come back and try to start trouble. They don't desire to learn...they only desire to start trouble. I for one say....GO AWAY!!

David Scott said...

Yeah, I agree. I was actually going to respond to this guy's first post until I visited his blog. He's a heretic, and not worth the time.

Disclosure Policy