For Bill Grover

Hey Dennis, as Ramiz Alia used to say, "Our Enver, who art in Tirane, Stalinist be thy name. Thy collective farm come, thy murder of priests and imams be done, in Durres as it is in Gjirokaster. Give us this day our daily five year plan, and forgive us our right revisionism, as we execute those who right-revise against us. And lead us not ino reality, but deliver us from Tito. For thine is the tractor factory, and the death warrants, and the first secretaryship, forever and ever. Amen.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover

 

Re: Bill says: Yes. I'm claiming Biblical scholarship.

===

Bill says:

Scholarship is not knowing everything. Neither is it riding hobby horses. Neither is it avoiding. Neither is it making assertations without proof.


I will do my best to answer their questions then INSTEAD of avoiding them.

But you see Jimmy what you are doing? I didn't come to you with new questions. I asked you for proof of what you had already said ; so rather than proving your claims you jabber on about Dan's ships and silver lips and the Lord's prayer in translation and things not connected at all to your assertions in order to vainly authenticate your schooling. But these schools do not ride the hobby horse of aramaic that you do.

Nice avoiding.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover

====


And the answer is :

Abwoon d bwash maya and kids mother's milk
and lips of silk* and did Dan have ships or not and what did someone say about Psa 104.

*Oh no, silver.

 

There you go again, Bill. Despite having been told that only academics care about these questions--but wait! your interlocutor claims a mess of degrees, as do you, and this is a distance education board--you insist on arguing. If only academics care about this stuff, why would you, insensitive, unfeeling clod of a doctoral student though you are, hash it out on the off topic forum of degreeinfo, with an audience comprised almost entirely of graduate and undergraduate students or teachers? Imagine! Discussing an "academic" question on such a forum with such an audience!
Have you no shame, o intellectual son of Shaka?

 

1) John 1:1 says He is God.

Jesus is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse DOES NOT state “In the beginning was Jesus.”

“The Word” is NOT synonymous with Jesus.

Even the John Lightfoot, a Trinitarian, says it denotes both “reason” and “speech."


1:3 says He is Creator

The pronoun in this verse is translated "it" and refers to the Word of God. Jesus was the Word of God made flesh, not God made flesh.

1:10 says He is Creator

This refers to God not Christ. You need to begin in verse six to fully understand this. Also, read the Racovian Catechism.

1:18 says He is God and at God's side even while on earth

There are theologians who believe that the "original" text was ho monogenes theos while others believe it was ho monogenes huios. I am sure you can translate these and see the differences.

20:28 says He is Lord and God

"I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God.

"This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

"I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only 'whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree'…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense.”

This was stated by Michaelis in In Concessions of Trinitarians.

There are numerous times where figures of authority in the Bible were called god (Acts 12:22 and 2 Corinthians 4:4.

 

Lots of red herrings in this fishing hole

Clifton: “Bill, do you really think anyone outside of academia really cares about any of this?”

I am almost always interested in what Bill Grover has to say. Not only does he use the authorized model of 1911, also known as the John Browning Version, he possesses two (sadly) rare qualities.

#1: Whether I agree with all Bill’s opinions or not, I think all the opinions he puts forth here are well informed.

#2: Bill has integrity. I have never seen him deceive, evade, or throw out the distractions that seem so common in some people's posts.

 

===

**Bill says: I think you are missing the significance of "Thomas said TO HIM." Further, as I recall, no one deified Lazarus. Then we have the fact that Jesus accepted this exclamation.

In regard to Acts 12:22, did you note there that because Herod did not deny that noun "god" applied to him, that God struck Herod and he was eaten of worms in 12:23? But Jesus dared to accepted Thomas' remark!

To me one of the strongest arguments for my Lord's full deity is that in Isaiah and elsewhere God says He will not share His glory with another and that only God should be served and worshipped. But NT writers urge us to glorify, worship, and serve Jesus! This discussion BTW fits exactly into my DL dissertatrion study.

In regard to 2 Cor 4:4, how nice is it you bring this up. Satan is the god of this world. He has his worshippers. He is the most important "person" to some. That is the very point. A "god" is what is most important to someone, so if Thomas calls Jesus God then, that means Jesus is most important. Jesus is important to Paul too since the apostles here calls Jesus God's image.




BTW--Ps 104-- like an Egyptian

 

Just For the Record, Bill

Bill,

Just for the record both Bethany and GSST espouse the EXACT same beliefs about the Trinity as you do and the Greek I learned on both ocassions coincides with your interpretations and the scholars you chose to quote.

I choose to not buy into the "party line." In EVERY study I do I engage in collateral study, research, and materials and the scholars I chose to follow in their interpretations of the Greek take contrary views to yours and your scholars.

As far as the Bible having been originally penned in Aramaic, you have your scholars and I have mine.

For instance, Dr. C.F. Burney says it was in THE ARAMAIC ORIGIN OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

F.C. Conybeare, in THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY, states this when it come to the Gospel of Mark.

So does the Biblical scholar Julius Wellhausen

So does Dr. Charles Cutler Torry in his book OUR FOUR GOSPELS.

You should also read what James Hastings says about this in his work DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE.

Then there are the works of that great Biblical scholar George M. Lamsa.

And to continue the claim the NT was not originally written in Greek are these words:

Finally, there are these words from Robert Taylor's DIEGESIS: "It is a false representation, or what would be called in common parlance--a lie, upon the title-page, whre it is represented, that the New Testament is 'translated out of the original Greek,' seeing there never was any original Greek.

"The original of Matthew's gospel is believed to have been Hebrew. The Epistle to the Romans, and indeed, the whole of the New Testament, existed in a barbarous monkish Latin (see why knowing Latin is critical, Bill?), from which the oldest Greek manuscripts in existence are but barbarous translations."

Now you mentioned Papias, the contemporary of John, and made some comment about Papias knowing Greek so why didn't John?

What were the educational levels of each man, Bill!

As I stated before, my major areas of concentration at GSST and BDCS (PhD) were in counseling.

But, since you are earning a ThD, how about describing the theology of counseling from the perspectives of Narramore, Adams, Minirth-Meier, Collins, Ketterman, Hart, et. al.?

Let's talk about the theology of didactic counseling. You are studying theology, right?

Let's talk about the theology of counseling based on the Greek word nouthesia.

Let's talk about the praxis of counseling from a theological perspective, okay?

Can the word kerygma have any practical application in the theology of counseling?

From a theological standpoint what is a "parataxic distortion" in counseling?

You stick to your areas of expetise and I to mine.

It's been fun. But to quote Gary Hart when Walter Mondale tried to discredit him during a 1984 presidential debate, "Yea, so."

This is my retort to the unproven counters, opinions, and circumlocutions you have posted to my posts.

By the way, you didn't catch that the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic was not accurate.

You are also wrong on "silver lips." The correct Ugaritic translation is "lips like silver."

Have a good evening, my dear, dear friend. I really mean that.

 

Re: Lots of red herrings in this fishing hole

 

Re: Just For the Record, Bill

===

Bill says: Thankyou, you too.

 

===

My wife says I do not when I watch Dolly Parton sing