[geocentrism] Re: [Geocentric] Pagan concepts
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:44:45 -0600
Philip,
My fault for using the NIV that one time (I usually go Authorised
Version or translate directly). It was a matter of convenience
because the NIV expressed verse 15 (my point of interest) so
clearly. You are, of course, completely correct in regards to verse
16 and "monogenes."
Which brings to mind an interesting circumstance that Warfield
discussed in relation to the Hort-Westcott text versus the Textus
Receptus on the matter of John 1:18. Warfield supports "only-
begotten God," or perhaps more syntactically correct, "God only-
begotten." He doesn't regard this as heretical (a usual knee-jerk
reaction) on the grounds that verse 18 is merely combining predicates
already affirmed in verse 1 (Jesus is God) and verse 14 (Jesus is
only-begotten). Because "only-begotten God" is a patently
extraordinary reading, it was Warfield's view that scribes softened
this to "only-begotten Son," and that the startling original was
consequently muffled. This means (surprisingly) that this is one
instance of where the revised version of the Bible supports the
divinity of Christ better than the Authorised Version. (Of course,
the question isn't, "which version suppports Christ's divinity
better," but rather, "what did the inspired author actually write?"
We shouldn't let the tail wag the dog.) Another curious miscue of
the Authorised Version is its handling of Joel 2:22-23, where a
Messianic prophecy is suppressed (substituting "send the rain
moderately" versus "send the Teacher of Righteousness"). And so it
goes...
Thanks, again, for the perceptive observation, Philip!
Martin
On Jan 31, 2007, at 6:14 AM, Phillip Stott wrote:
Martin,
I usually find little fault with your posts. However I have serious
objections to your translation:-
"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man
must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have
eternal life, for God so loved the world that he gave his one and
only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
eternal life."
Now the Greek for your "one and only" is "monogenes", which could
be translated in modern idiom as "one genetic", and which in the
Authorised is "only begotten". I do not see how it can be
translated "one and only" and if it were, then surely there is a
problem with the earlier promise in the same book that He gives the
power to become sons of God to all who believe in Him. Now if Jesus
is the only begotten Son there is no contradiction, with one and
only there is a problem.
Neville,
It appears that you reject the Old Testament, and particularly
Moses' contributions to it.
Do you accept the New Testament? In particular do you accept the
Gospels? If so, then how do you answer Jesus' warning that those
who do not believe Moses' writings will not believe Him either?
Now I am fully aware that there are "Higher Critics" who claim that
Moses wrote nothing - some claim that writing was not even invented
till well after his era. But it is clear that the five books of
Moses were part of the Hebrew scriptures in Jesus' lifetime, that
Jesus accepted them, and believed them to be written by Moses.
Blessings
Philip Stott
PS
Some of the recent posts have reminded me of a statement by a man
of God who I respect greatly. "Show me the God who acts the way you
think He should, and I will show you the fool of your imagination
Blessings
Philip Stott
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist
Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc.
8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100
The Woodlands, TX 77381
281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599
fax (512) 422-4919 cell
mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
