by nicolaou 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
If 'b' then the definition of what is good is arbitrary - God could decide that child abuse was good and it would be because He said so.
Nicolau, I challenge that assumption. God determines the Good. God IS the Good.
To recognise this however is to accept that we do not need God to determine for us what is good and what is bad.
Certainly and a cursory overview of history demonstrates that humanity's moral judgement is excellent.
/sarcasm
Burn
Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and put it upon Isaac his son and took in his hands the fire and the slaughtering knife, and both of them went on together.
This is amazing. A prophetic type. The son, Isaac, carried the wood for his sacrifice to the place where he would be sacrificed. The Son, Jesus, did the same with the wooden cross. The Father laid the burden upon him and he bore it to the end.
Reading this account only strengthens my faith.
Burn
Does God lack so much confidence in himself that he constantly needs reassurance from "his servants" that they have faith and love for him?
Which one of us "made in God's image " would put our kids to that kind of test to prove their loyalty to us like he did with Abraham.
7 And Isaac began to say to Abraham his father: "My father!" In turn he said: "Here I am, my son!" So he continued: "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?" 8 To this Abraham said: "God will provide himself the sheep for the burnt offering, my son."
if Isaac knew he was the sacrifice why did he have to ask where the sacrifice was?
If he knew he wouldnt have asked and Abraham wouldnt have needed to skirt the issue.
B.A.
I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that the men who wrote the Bible were scribes who wrote God's thoughts.
Have you ever read The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman? These are two eminent archaeologists who have, in my opinion, done a great job in sifting fable from fact in the Hebrew scriptures. As far as I know, their findings have never been disproved with any worthwhile contrary evidence. The book certainly puts the scriptures in a whole new light and clearly shows the scribes wrote their own thoughts.
I'd just be interested to know your thoughts on the book.
Sincerely,
Ian
BA, I/we would be very interested in your understanding of "God-breathed."
Not just your usual bullshit handwaving, but a meaningful examination of the original language and usage.
Are you up to it?
Or will you pull out an OBVES defense?
BA, I/we would be very interested in your understanding of "God-breathed."
Would you now? Rather than reinvent the wheel, here's a definition of God Breathed for you:
In our working on the key text in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, we wish to add in this second week the Greek term qeo,pneustoj (theopneustos, thay-AH-noo-stos, or, if you are really picky and like spitting on folks, thay-AHP-noo-stos). I highly recommend memorizing the term so that you can explain why it does not, in fact, mean "inspired" in the common usage of that term. Here is what I mean.
"Inspired" comes from a Latin term that means "to breathe into." This is specifically not what Paul is talking about. He is not saying that the Scriptures are human words into which God has "breathed" something special, something "beyond" the norm. Neither is he saying that God did something special to the writers of Scripture, though this is a common usage of the term today as well. We all have slipped once in a while and said, "Paul was inspired to write..." or something like that. While all of that is true (holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21), that is not the meaning of the term here. As the NIV and ESV rightly handle the term, it means "God breathed" or "breathed out by God." As Warfield concluded in the article I linked last week:
The traditional translation of the word by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is no doubt also discredited, it we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached to it, whether among the Fathers or the Dognaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all the high attributes of Scripture are built.
And this is why I have so strongly emphasized this passage, for every single apologetic concern I have ever engaged has, in its final analysis, come down to this issue: has God spoken, and has He spoken with clarity? The number of those who continue to believe what Paul said here without qualification is relatively small, as far as I can tell, today. He is right, however, to say that "all the high attributes of Scripture are built" upon this divine truth, one reflected in the views of Jesus and His apostles. How odd it is that so many who claim to be following "apostolic authority" do not follow the Apostles' example in their view of Scripture; further, so many who claim to follow Christ seem to think they know better than He when it comes to the nature of the Word. How very odd indeed.
So I would suggest presenting this information in this fashion; upon citing the passage, you quickly add, "Now, it is common for folks to misunderstand what Paul is saying here, as if he is simply saying that the Scriptures exist on a slightly higher plane than the 'normal' words of men; that is not what he taught. He used the Greek term theopneustos, which means 'God-breathed' or 'breathed out by God,' and this tells us that the very Scriptures themselves are the creation of God, reflecting His very breath, His very speaking."
SOURCE: http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1193&catid=18
BA, thank you indeed for that c/p. Anybody who has Google could have done the same.
However, I asked you for your understanding of "God-breathed."
Perhaps to focus your possible response: Has God spoken to you?
Good source there BA
James White hit on that term a lot when he debated Patrick Madrid on the Sola Scriptura doctrine.
Burn
"Does God lack so much confidence in himself that he constantly needs reassurance from "his servants" that they have faith and love for him?
Which one of us "made in God's image " would put our kids to that kind of test to prove their loyalty to us like he did with Abraham."
So very, very true. I've always wondered why he constantly needed to make one of his servants suffer to prove a point.
