The Distant Starlight Problem

[Guest shiloh357]

 

considering the difficulty in changing Hebrew and Greek to English, it seems to me that the personal opinions show up anyway.....  

Not really. Translation teams are very objective and the reason versions are translated in teams, usuall interdenominationally, is to avoid the temptation of a translatoer assigning his own opinion to a given text.   Translation isn't guess work, and the places where there are difficulties are never in parts of the Bible where any major doctrine is affected.

 

 

it may be in some instances easier to paraphrase it than to try and find a single English word to express the Greek.  

 

It might be easier, but is far less accurate and parphrases are generally pretty worthless. I put no stock in the Ampilfied for that reason.

 

The many different levels of "love" in Greek all translated as love is a good example and all the words translated "hell".  

 

The reason for that is that both biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek are far more nuanced languages than English.  

 

 

I've not studied in a paraphrase Bible, but lately in using literal translations I've been cross checking and finding it interesting to see how some things are expressed.

 

The first major paraphrase on the market was the Living Bible.   The author had originaly written it for his children, but it ended up being published and was very popular back in the 70s.     I would never use a paraphrase for study.   It is usually just authored by one man and is nothing but the Bible restated in his own words and in slanted toward his personal convictions.

[OldSchool2]

I think John deliberately avoided any parables of Jesus in his gospel so as to avoid any possible confusion by some readers as to what is and isn't a literal, miraculous and historical event.

 

Your words are very sad to read ...

Apparently you didn't read this:

"By definition, miracles are 'miraculous' as they are extraordinary events revealing divine intervention in human affairs. Although John's Gospel contains no parables, there are 7 miracles, 5 of which are original to John."

Very sad indeed.

John didn't include parables because John's purpose was entirely different, as John was writing to Gentile readership where the synoptic Gospels were written to a Jewish readership.

 

John's purpose was not to show Jesus as Messiah, but to reveal Jesus as the Son of God in the flesh in order to counter the gnostic heresies that were infiltrating the church at the end of the first century.

Matthew 16:16 American Standard Version

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I believe Christ is Greek for Messiah.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

On more secular forums I have often argued with scientists who insists on evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon independent from God, but now I find myself stuck between that and a biblical literalist who would make an evangelical fundamentalist blush.

For both of the above, from the International Bible Commentary:

"We must never think that this world's wisdom and knowledge give a believer an advantage in the understanding of God's revelations, nor that ignorance is an aid to spirituality".

 

 

You are encountering a biblical literalist who honors God Word and recognizes that God  honors His word above His own Name. 

 

The issue here is not how much of a fundamental literalist I am.  The issue here is that you mock parts of the Word of God as being akin to fables and fairytales.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Matthew 16:16 American Standard Version

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I believe Christ is Greek for Messiah.

 

Okay.... So what???   I didn't say that Jesus is not revealed as the Son of God at all in the synoptics.  So your comment doesn't really address my previous response.

[OldSchool2]

On more secular forums I have often argued with scientists who insists on evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon independent from God, but now I find myself stuck between that and a biblical literalist who would make an evangelical fundamentalist blush.

For both of the above, from the International Bible Commentary:

"We must never think that this world's wisdom and knowledge give a believer an advantage in the understanding of God's revelations, nor that ignorance is an aid to spirituality".

You are encountering a biblical literalist who honors God Word and recognizes that God  honors His word above His own Name. 

 

The issue here is not how much of a fundamental literalist I am ...

... but how much of a fundamental literalist I am not?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

On more secular forums I have often argued with scientists who insists on evolution as a naturally occurring phenomenon independent from God, but now I find myself stuck between that and a biblical literalist who would make an evangelical fundamentalist blush.

For both of the above, from the International Bible Commentary:

"We must never think that this world's wisdom and knowledge give a believer an advantage in the understanding of God's revelations, nor that ignorance is an aid to spirituality".

You are encountering a biblical literalist who honors God Word and recognizes that God  honors His word above His own Name. 

 

The issue here is not how much of a fundamental literalist I am ...

 

... but how much less of a fundamental literalist I am not?

 

No, how much you mock and denigrate the Bible. 

[OldSchool2]

Matthew 16:16 American Standard Version

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I believe Christ is Greek for Messiah.

Okay.... So what???   I didn't say that Jesus is not revealed as the Son of God at all in the synoptics ...

But you did say that "John's purpose was not to show Jesus as Messiah, but to reveal Jesus as the Son of God in the flesh ..."

According to Peter, they're one and the same.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Matthew 16:16 American Standard Version

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I believe Christ is Greek for Messiah.

Okay.... So what???   I didn't say that Jesus is not revealed as the Son of God at all in the synoptics ...

 

But you did say that "John's purpose was not to show Jesus as Messiah, but to reveal Jesus as the Son of God in the flesh ..."

According to Peter, they're one and the same.

 

Yes Jesus is the Messiah and He is the Son of God.   But Messiah doesn't mean, "Son of God."   Messiah is a political title, not a redemtive title.   Messiah doesn't reference deity.

 

John's purpose was to show Jesus as the Son of God "IN THE FLESH."   He is countering the gnostic view that Jesus was a spirit, and not fully human.  The end result in believing Jesus was not fully human is would be the notion that Jesus didn't really die, since a spirit can't be crucifed on a cross.

 

So "Messiah" and "Son of God" are not identical terms.  Peter was simply referring to Jesus' human role as Israel's Messiah and His divine role as the Son of God.

[a-seeker]

 

I confess I am getting tired of these types of questions; not because they are not good questions, but because there seems to me to be something below the surface....a sub-floor.  The issue is the nature of Scripture and what it means for Scripture to be inspired, yet we make it a scientific question.  It is not.  No one here would give a wit about the scientific claim that the earth is old if Genesis did not tell us it was made in 6 days--no one gets fired up about scientific claims regarding digestion, or diabetes, or how to get a rocket on the moon!

 

So, if someone can help me out, I will present my position (not a scientific one, but a matter of faith) for scrutiny.

 

I believe Scripture is inspired.  I believe the earth to be very, very, very old.  I am a OEC.  According to many people this is a contradiction.  I do not think it is.  Tell me how I am contradicting myself.  Don't appeal to science.  Science is not the issue. The issue is "the inspiration of Scripture" and what it means to be "inspired".

 

Perhaps this is a topic of its own, but I do not know how to start one and doubt (since I am still deemed a seeker) I could start one.

 

clb

 

"no one gets fired up about scientific claims regarding digestion, or diabetes, or how to get a rocket on the moon!"

 

I find it interesting that nobody "gets fired up" about how much time Jonah was in the Fish or How may days the Hebrews marched around Jericho.  They only question it in Genesis

 

"I will present my position (not a scientific one, but a matter of faith)"

 

then, and only...... "I believe the earth to be very, very, very old."

 

And....?  What is your "Faith" based on?

 

"Don't appeal to science.  Science is not the issue."

 

So you're attempting to set the Ground Rules?  "Science isn't the issue, eh?  OK. answer the question above concerning "What is your "Faith" based on?" and I will answer your question.

 

"The issue is "the inspiration of Scripture" and what it means to be "inspired"."

 

That seems to be your issue and not mine.  "Inspired" is GOD BREATHED.

 

I find it interesting that nobody "gets fired up" about how much time Jonah was in the Fish or How may days the Hebrews marched around Jericho. They only question it in Genesis

 

Not sure what point you were making here—people do get fired up over the question of a historical Jonah…which is based on science, which brings into question the definition of inspiration.

So you're attempting to set the Ground Rules? "Science isn't the issue, eh?

 

Of course I am!  So are you when you question my ground rules.

 

That seems to be your issue and not mine. "Inspired" is GOD BREATHED.

 

No, it is your issue as soon as you say that the Genesis account of creation is incompatible with an old earth….for you are claiming that “to be God breathed” means that Genesis must give a literal, chronological account of creation--thus you are superimposing your definition of God-breathed.

"God-breathed” is a rather vague term; in its context (Timothy 3:16) it seems to pertain not towards historical or scientific questions but moral conduct, i.e. “training in righteousness”.  The only word in the sentence that might connote historical or scientific aspects is "for our instruction".  So the question arises, “when it tells me that Scripture is “useful for instruction” does that mean “instruction in history?  Instruction in cosmology?  Instruction in nutrition?  Instruction in how to survive a winter in Tibet?  Instruction in how to repair a burnt out alternator? Instruction in how to properly interpret Scripture?"  

 

Now I will concede this to you: if you believe the earth to be young “purely on scientific evidence” without one single appeal to Genesis, then my post was not for you.  But if the chief reason why you believe scientists to be wrong is Genesis, and your scientific retorts come secondary---in other words if it is the Genesis account that sends you researching the scientific “claims” so as to refute them, then it is merely an issue of the meaning of “inspiration”.  The scientific claims threaten your definition of “God-breathed”.

 

"What is your "Faith" based on?" and I will answer your question.

Typically I would say that is a cop out, putting the pressure on me and saving yourself from exposure; I would simply say, “hmm.  Nope.  Nice try.  My question remains, now answer it”….but I will indulge you.

 

I will tell you one thing my faith is NOT based on.  It is NOT based on a blind (uncritical) acceptance of 1 Tim 3:16 or anything amounting to “because the Bible tells me so.”  The very first sentence of the Quran demands as much; and to say that the Quran’s demand is invalid because it is not inspired is circular reasoning. I am not a fundamentalist.  I believe the Scripture is inspired because the more I read it the more I find it to “make sense”.  I am not going to get into a full blown apologetic….that would take a book and since you are a Christian no souls are at stake.  In short I have “tasted” and “I have seen” that Scripture is true; God says “come, let us reason together”.  Well I have reasoned with Scripture, and found the Scriptures trustworthy.  What have I found to be trustworthy?  To me Scripture reveals a story; a story about how a world created by God went sour, and how God set about to fix that problem: Scripture reveals to me that overarching story whose climax occurs over an empty tomb.  That is what I cling to.  That is what I have found trustworthy.

 

Does this subordinate Scripture to my own authority?  I don’t know.  Did Jacob subordinate God’s sovereignty to his own when he prayed “If God will bring me back to this place, then the Lord shall be my God”?  If he did he received no correction; the Lord granted his prayer. 

 

But I maintain that everyone to some degree subordinates Scripture to his or her reasoning.  As soon as you begin defending Scripture against its critics you are presuming that Scripture needs your defense.  The only absolutely subordinate posture to Scripture is assumed when that man or woman responds to every single assault with nothing more than scriptural quotes: no exegesis, no science, no history, no “explanation”, no “well you see, in those days”; no C.S. Lewis or “Evidence Demands a Verdict” or refutations of carbon dating and how the speed of light does not prove an old Universe; no commentaries ….just quotes. For only then are you truly letting Scripture speak as the sole authority. Once you step into apologetics you are placing Scripture in the dock, and claiming yourself as its defense attorney.  The only person I have ever met that truly does not subordinate in any way Scripture to his own authority, I met on this forum.  FresnoJoe……all he does is quote Scripture.  And I admire his approach, just as I admire the absolute Skeptic who will not even attempt to defend skepticism.  But that could never be my approach.

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

Now I will concede this to you: if you believe the earth to be young “purely on scientific evidence” without one single appeal to Genesis, then my post was not for you.  But if the chief reason why you believe scientists to be wrong is Genesis, and your scientific retorts come secondary---in other words if it is the Genesis account that sends you researching the scientific “claims” so as to refute them, then it is merely an issue of the meaning of “inspiration”.  The scientific claims threaten your definition of “God-breathed”.

 

So in a match up, science wins over Scripture??