ISM Scale

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,05:30)

Quote (2besee @ June 08 2013,22:47) T8, I know that it takes Mike a long time to do his posts and I did read them all, but every discussion between two or three people on one particular topic needs to eventually come to an end. 2B, You are correct that I DID work long and hard on those posts – so I'm glad you read them. And you walking away from the discussion is not what bothers me.  What I fear is that, just like Ed always does, you'll walk away from the scriptural information I painstakingly laid out for you yesterday – only to start making the same exact claims in a month from now that I solidly and scripturally refuted yesterday in this thread.  (You'll notice how Ed himself said in one of his posts today, “we have been through this before, remember?”  That's because we HAVE been through this before, and like you, he walked away that last time just to pop up in this thread months later spouting the same unscriptural things – expecting me to go through all that work AGAIN.) So if you truly read my posts, then please take this scriptural knowledge with you: 1.  The words “el”, “elohim”, “theos”, and “god” simply mean “mighty one”.  The word “god” does NOT mean “Almighty Creator of All Things” – although the word many times refers to that One as the “mighty one” in question. 2.  God made mankind a little lower than the gods.  That right there tells you, without a doubt, that Jehovah is NOT literally the ONLY god in existence, and that passages like Is 44:8 are to be taken EMPHATICALLY – not LITERALLY. 3.  Since the word “god” simply means “mighty one”, and Jesus is the second most mighty being in existence, he has more right to be called a god than the thousands of angels he rules over.  (That was Jesus' point in John 10:34-36, 2B.  He was referring to the gods in Jehovah's heavenly counsel when he said, if He called them gods, then why not this one in front of you, who is more than any of them because he is the ONE who was personally set apart by God as His very own, and sent into the world?) Take those things with you.  Keep them safe in your head, because they truly are what the scriptures teach.

Points read and noted Mike thank you.
If I think of a good question to ask you, I will. If you have any questions to ask me, ask one at a time and please keep any replies brief because I only have a mobile now and the screen measures 7cm by 5cm and I'm having terrible difficulty quoting, copying and replying and reading as well! That would help immensely.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Ed J @ June 10 2013,03:39)

Hi T8, 1) Is your hope in Christ  **or**  in the doctrine you believe?    (<– please answer)

In Christ. I trust he leads me to God.

Christ was the perfect model of obedience and as his disciples, we should follow his example as well as his commands. Motivation for this obedience is love, thus if we love God, we love the one from God and we believe the message and doctrine of the one whom God sent.

So trust in Christ which has the fruit of believing the message of Christ.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,06:30)

And you walking away from the discussion is not what bothers me. What I fear is that, just like Ed always does, you'll walk away from the scriptural information I painstakingly laid out for you yesterday – only to start making the same exact claims in a month from now that I solidly and scripturally refuted yesterday in this thread. (You'll notice how Ed himself said in one of his posts today, “we have been through this before, remember?” That's because we HAVE been through this before, and like you, he walked away that last time just to pop up in this thread months later spouting the same unscriptural things – expecting me to go through all that work AGAIN.)

Yes that is not fair on anyone. Not fair on you for taking the time to make these posts and not fair on others who spend their time refuting again what has already been refuted.

That sort of tactic is not a good thing and the fruit is not good. It is practiced by those who have not emptied themselves of themselves and thus they have no room for truth because they are already filled with their own understanding.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ June 09 2013,14:25)

Angels are NOT gods……….

Yet your beloved AKJV (not to mention the Hebrew text) says they are.  Hmmmm………..

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,14:39)

Quote (Ed J @ June 09 2013,14:25) Angels are NOT gods………. Yet your beloved AKJV (not to mention the Hebrew text) says they are.  Hmmmm………..

Oh the KJV is perfect except that.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Ed J @ June 10 2013,03:39)

2) Since you say that Mike's difference in doctrine nothing to divide over, why attempt to divide over other doctrinal differences? Where do you draw the line? The bible says clearly there are no other “Gods” (Isa 44:8), to believe otherwise is to believe 'a lie'. 3) Do you believe that it OK to let others believe a lie?    (<– please answer)

You draw the line on the absolutes and allow license in the variables.

No it is not okay to believe a lie. If a believer believed everything right except to say that he believed that Jesus had blonde hair, then I am sure that it would be foolish to condemn this in the same way you would someone who said Jesus has already returned or that Jesus was just a man.

And yes it is a serious charge to say that someone believes in multi-persons as God or Gods. But acknowledging that there are those who are called theos/elohim/gods, and do not occupy or compete as the Most High God, then no problem with that. That is just acknowledging the reality of Greek and scripture.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ June 09 2013,14:38)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,03:01) Genesis 3:5 King James Version For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Who are these “gods”? No Mike, “IF” someone were to say: 'you are as dumb as an ox, would that mean you were an ox? So you see your logic collapses…………..

It's not my logic that has collapsed, Ed, but your ability to understand it.

For example, when King Nebuchadnezzar became “as an ox, eating grass”, was the reference to a REAL ox? Of course. He was compared to REAL oxen, who eat grass. It was not saying that Neb himself BECAME an ox, but only that he was LIKE a REAL ox in the one aspect of eating grass.

Likewise, Gen 3:5 does not say Adam and Eve will BECOME gods, but only that they would become LIKE the gods in the one aspect of knowing good from evil. But just like the ox Neb was compared to was a REAL ox, so the gods that Adam and Eve were compared to were REAL gods.

Are you up to speed now?

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Ed J @ June 10 2013,03:52)

Hi T8, Yes, and that is precisely WHAT YOU ARE DOING when you say men are called Angels – CERTAINLY NOT IN ENGLISH THEIR NOT! EL-o-heem (and “Theos” is similar) translates into English as each of the following:   1. GOD 2. Angels 3. Leaders. 4. Magistrates So I completely agree with: Taking a Greek concept and putting it into our English system                                           can be like putting a square peg into a round hole. …so for you to say men are called Angels is FALSE! (but you can believe it if you want)

Ed J. The Greek predates English, so it has the first say. We then translate into English as best as possible using what English offers us. English is not meant to take an original truth and put a different spin on it.

So yeah I said it is like putting a square peg into a round hole. I am glad you agree. But I am not sure what your point is. You sound like you are trying to find fault in my words by your tone, but end up agreeing with me.

As for your last point. I think 'messenger' is the best English word to choose.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,04:51)

I think you are confusing “qualitatively” with “metaphorically”. You can metaphorically be called an angel because you did something good, and angels of God are generally considered to be good.

If you call someone as a thing because they are displaying the qualities of that thing, how is that not qualitative. Yes 'metaphorically' works in many situations too. But it doesn't rule out the practice of calling someone something when they display the quality of that thing.

You hear that all the time. “You are superman”, “she is a dog”, “one of you is a devil”. This happens in both English and Greek, so it is not a hard concept to grasp IMO.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,04:51)

Qualitatively, on the other hand, refers to you having the qualities that an angel has. IMO, you would have to be a powerful spirit being who dwells in the heavenly realms to qualitatively be an angel.

Depends on what quality you are highlighting.

When most people say, “you are an angel”, they say it because you are good. And we know that the elect angels are good because they have chosen God instead of rebelling against him when they had the opportunity. We usually do not say that sentence to a human if the person is strong or a spirit.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ June 09 2013,17:00)

……Mike does not do that, instead he will ask (sorry Mike) ridiculous questions………

Hi 2B,

What is your definition of a “ridiculous question”? One you have no answer for?  

I didn't make up any of the stuff I posted, 2B. I never do. If you see it in one of my posts, it came straight from scripture.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,04:51)

Nobody would say, t8 is angel. Instead, they would say, t8 is AN angel. (BTW, I believe you ARE an angel.

Or you could say, “Mike is angelic”. That is what some translators did when they said, “The Word was divine”, or “What God was the Word was”.

Yes in English you can also say, Mike is an angel. But a Greek person translating that English phrase might render it. “Mike is the angel” because it is referring to a specific angel in that case.

But yeah, I think most would understand that “Mike is an angel” is not saying that Mike is a seraph or cherub.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,04:51)

Can you give me an example of someone being qualitatively something, but we are not allowed to say that person is “a something”?

That is a good question.

But here is the dilemma.

If Greek to English translates verses like, “there is no God but one” and Greek to English also uses the noun theos/elohim/god also in a qualitative way, then to respect the intent that there is truly one God but others like him that are described like him using the same noun but as a descriptive instead, then given the whole counsel of scripture, IMO it is best to translate in a way that causes no confusion or contradictions which only lead to divisions and false doctrines to explain the dichotomy.

Further if people who lack understanding are easily offended and then perhaps it is not smart to eat meat when they are around. In other words, if they cannot fully understand the message you are conveying given your license in Greek to English, then it might be time to translate it in a way that agrees with the rest of scripture from their point of view. In doing that, you teach them something without having to offend them.

[mikeboll64]

Okay, but let's forget about “divine”, since the word “theos” in John 1:1c is a noun, not an adjective.

So here are our choices:

1. The Word was THE very god he was WITH.

2. The Word was qualitatively THE very god he was WITH.

3. The Word was a god OTHER THAN the god he was WITH.

I don't know if you know this, but if you choose “qualitatively”, you are saying Jesus was qualitatively GOD MOST HIGH. That, my friend, is why you'll find Trinitarians who choose that kind of a translation. In this way, they cannot be laughed out of school for saying the Word was the very God he was WITH, but can still slant it to support their view that “everything God Almighty was, the Word was too”. That is THEIR understanding of “qualitatively God”.

Here, I'll show you from NETNotes:

John 1:1
In the beginning 1 was the Word, and the Word was with God, 2 and the Word was fully God. 3

Footnote #3 says:
Or “and what God was the Word was.”

Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.

Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God.

The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too.

I've only posted bits and pieces of their footnote, but you can get the idea from it. They choose a “qualitative” rendering so they can feel justified in saying everything God was in essence, the Word was too.

But that's not quite true, is it?

I guess what I want you to understand is that IF you use a “qualitative” understanding, then you are NOT saying Jesus was qualitatively any old god. You are saying he was qualitatively GOD MOST HIGH.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,15:17)

Okay, but let's forget about “divine”, since the word “theos” in John 1:1c is a noun, not an adjective.

But nouns are used as adjectives and maybe vice versa too.
That happens. Descriptives can be achieved by removing the definite article in Greek.

“Eve was adam.”

[Proclaimer]

In English we say mankind for the word adam. So that was one way to get around saying “Eve belongs to adam”. “Eve belongs to mankind”. Notice how both those sentences are the same, but mean different things? This is why John 1:1c is so confusing. If you are unfamiliar with the rules, you can read it in the wrong way.

So if we can use the word mankind for adam, then theos could be godkind. However, we don't have that word in English. I wonder if the word 'mankind' was invented to differentiate between man as male and man in kind. Yet in Hebrew it is the same word.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ June 09 2013,19:15)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,04:51) Can you give me an example of someone being qualitatively something, but we are not allowed to say that person is “a something”? That is a good question.

Of course it is, t8.  I only ask “good questions” – despite what 2B just said.  

Let me know if you ever find an instance where one is qualitatively something but can NOT be called “a something” in English.

Quote (t8 @ June 09 2013,19:15)

Further if people who lack understanding are easily offended and then perhaps it is not smart to eat meat when they are around.

Okay.  I will take that under advisement.  Personally, it seems to me that understanding this “qualitative” thing is more like eating meat than understanding the VERY SIMPLE scriptural teaching that there indeed exist MANY gods, and Jehovah is the Most High God OF those other, less high gods.

One calls for some heavy reasoning, while the other can be plainly read in simple terms all throughout the scriptures.  But I'll consider the possibility that 2B, Abe, Ed, and the others just aren't ready for this meat.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2013,15:27)

Let me know if you ever find an instance where one is qualitatively something but can NOT be called “a something” in English.

Eve is a adam.
Eve is a man.

[Proclaimer]

bob is a devil.
You are a rock.
You are an angel.

You said it yourself, you are not a spirit being.

But you can use this if you know the rules and how it is applied.

Unfortunately most do not know this when it comes to theos.

[mikeboll64]

All of your examples DO have the indefinite article “a”. I'm asking for an example of someone being “qualitatively something” where we CANNOT, in English, use the indefinite article “a”.

[Author]

Posts