Is Satan a defeated foe?

[David1701]

6 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Inspired by God and containing allusions to the individual's human worldview. God did not ZAP folk into unconscious automatic handwriting automatoms. He inspired them over many centuries. He used them as He saw fit and whichever way He determined. He LIKES to use humans this way. It is His desire to use us, and He does. He uses us IN SPITE of ourselves and not BECAUSE of ourselves and our brilliance and understanding.

Yes, of course God used them as He saw fit; but, he also ensured that HIS word (i.e. the Bible) was without error. 

No-one said anything about automatons.

[Justin Adams]

15 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Yes, of course God used them as He saw fit; but, he also ensured that HIS word (i.e. the Bible) was without error. 

No-one said anything about automatons.

The LXX is far larger. The reformed canon is a 'Calvin et co' rendition. The Masoretic is a watered down Hebrew text and the Qumran discoveries have unearthed quite a lot, especially the Aramaic Peshers. There is an awful lot of scripture not taught today. Since the rabbis dissed the LXX, it might be worth looking at in spite of is various forms. There is no ONE distinct text and some of the Eastern Orthodox editions are the oldest and most complete. Our 'bible' is fairly incomplete, but that does not limit the Lord, nevertheless, it might limit us. Augustine's latin version (Jerome) is what the textus receptus is based on and most of the KJV. Considering the limitations (and there are some) they did an excellent job of translation, even if it did have a slightly Papist and Royal overtone. Even the KJV was constrained by the original texts it was based on and the translator's bias.

And which 'bible' rendition is without error?

Edited June 29, 2020 by Justin Adams

[David1701]

7 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

The LXX is far larger. The reformed canon is a 'Calvin et co' rendition. The Masoretic is a watered down Hebrew text and the Qumran discoveries have unearthed quite a lot, especially the Aramaic Peshers. There is an awful lot of scripture not taught today. Since the rabbis dissed the LXX, it might be worth looking at in spite of is various forms. There is no ONE distinct text and some of the Eastern Orthodox editions are the oldest and most complete. Our 'bible' is fairly incomplete, but that does not limit the Lord, nevertheless, it might limit us. Augustine's latin version (Jerome) is what the textus receptus is based on and most of the KJV. Considering the limitations (and there are some) they did an excellent job of translation, even if it did have a slightly Papist and Royal overtone. Even the KJV was constrained by the original texts it was based on and the translator's bias.

And which 'bible' rendition is without error?

I have an English translation of the Septuagint.  Parts are very good (especially the parts quoted in the NT); but most of the additions are not.  Just read Psalm 151, for example, and you will instantly notice that it is inferior to all the psalms used in the Protestant canon.

The apocryphal books are mostly rubbish (e.g. Ecclesiasticus is an obviously sub-standard clone of Proverbs), although 1 Maccabees is quite accurate history.

The TR was not based on the Latin Vulgate, except in a very small number of readings (e.g. the last six verses of Rev. 22; Acts 9:5,6 and a tiny handful of other places).

[Justin Adams]

Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. Then, he polished the Latin, declaring, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."

In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."

Edited June 30, 2020 by Justin Adams

[Justin Adams]

11 hours ago, David1701 said:

The apocryphal books are mostly rubbish

It is sad that the 'establishment' has decreed its students should be protected from certain writings and thus they never can tell for themselves what is pertinent. Such is the edict of  some in the protestant hierarchy. Thus any supernatural content is probably strip mined along with this F451 mentality .

Example: 'monogenes' has been mistranslated to mean 'only begotten'. It in fact should be rendered as, THE ONLY UNIQUE ONE. (or similar) Later translations seem to get this corrected.

Funny that 'Greek rubbish' was found to be a very good teacher in regards to 'monogenese'. This is upheld by the later manuscripts and even Greek educational texts that were discovered this century and the last. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Justin Adams

[David1701]

6 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

It is sad that the 'establishment' has decreed its students should be protected from certain writings and thus they never can tell for themselves what is pertinent. Such is the edict of  some in the protestant hierarchy. Thus any supernatural content is probably strip mined along with this F451 mentality .

Example: 'monogenes' has been mistranslated to mean 'only begotten'. It in fact should be rendered as, THE ONLY UNIQUE ONE. (or similar) Later translations seem to get this corrected.

Funny that 'Greek rubbish' was found to be a very good teacher in regards to 'monogenese'. This is upheld by the later manuscripts and even Greek educational texts that were discovered this century and the last. 

There is plenty of supernatural content in the Bible (i.e. the Protestant canon), without including the highly dubious content of some of the apocryphal books.

I like the reference to Fahrenheit 451, only not in this context.

Monogenes means "one of a kind" or "unique".  I've known this for quite some time, thanks.

[Justin Adams]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

sources you've been reading subscribe

You have NO IDEA what I have been reading.

Our God is ONE God. There are no demi-gods, however one can learn a lot from ancient cultures even if wrong in many areas.

Annunaki stories are just that, but they were observant, so put their spin on it all.

When sons of God cohabited with women (watchers), the offsprings were not divine, but neither were they complete men. So those spirits roam around and are called demons.  Of course many will say Yeshua did not cast out demons, jut bad thought patterns etc. ad nauseum. Oh and the Augustine's 'sons of seth' idea is equally repugnant.

And the Deut 32 worldview is much frowned upon also. The list goes on.

[Justin Adams]

18 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Actually the word literally means "one origin" or "single source." Colloquially it means one of a kind or unique. 

Understanding monogenes in its proper sense--one that completely excludes any notion of “begetting” or “begotten”--has strong theological implications for the doctrine of Christ. It renders moot the whole heated theological debate of the third and fourth centuries concerning the so-called “eternal generation of the Son,” a term which always left me with the uncomfortable feeling that if we accepted such terminology at face value, we were admitting de facto that Christ was a created being and not God. It also makes the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Christ was “begotten but not made” (gennethenta, ou poiethenta) so much verbal nonsense. [21] Likewise, proposed translations of monogenes such as that noted in Arnt and Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon, namely “begotten of the only one” are exposed as wholly ludicrous and unfounded. [22] Christ is the unique Son of God; that is, in the sense in which He is the Son of God, He has no brothers.

Is it logical then to conclude that: If we conclude that monogenes should be translated as one-of-a-kind or unique and does not involves concepts of "begetting" then all of the Creeds and Confessions which speak of the Son as "eternally begotten" are then inadequate and need of revision and are (as the quote above states), merely "so much verbal nonsense."

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/monogenes-one-of-a-kind-and-unique-or-only-begotten.86287/

The controversy over the term “only begotten” was unnecessary because it was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the Greek word monogenems (used of Jesus in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9). For many years it was thought to be derived from two Greek terms: mono, meaning “only,” and gennaō, meaning “beget” or “bear.” Even the received version of the Nicene Creed understands it that way, since the explanatory phrases “begotten of the Father before all worlds” and “begotten, not made” both use the verb gennaō (beget) to explain monogenēs. But linguistic study in the twentieth century has shown that the second half of the word is not closely related to the verb gennaō (beget, bear), but rather to the term genos (class, kind). Thus the word means rather the “one-of-a kind” Son or the “unique” Son. (See BAGD, 527; D. Moody, “The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72 [1953],213–19.)

The idea of “only-begotten” in Greek would have been, not monogenēs, but monogennētos. However, it is not impossible that the Nicene fathers in A.D. 325 and 381 would have understood monogenēs to include the idea of “begetting,” since the word is used several times elsewhere to refer to someone who is an “only” child, and the idea of begetting could commonly be assumed to be present. The fact that the word does not mean “the only son that someone has begotten” can be confirmed by noticing its use in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenēs—but certainly Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, for he had also begotten Ishmael. The term there means rather that Isaac was Abraham’s “unique” son, that there was none other like him. (The word elsewhere means “unique” with no idea of begetting in view, in the LXX in Psalms 21[22]:20; 34[35]:17; Wisdom 7:22; 1 Clement 25:2.) Thus the NIV translates John 3:16, “he gave his one and only Son,” and the NASB margin reads “or, unique, only one of His kind.” The RSV translates, “he gave his only Son.” All of these versions have rightly omitted any idea of “begetting” from the translation. It is reassuring, however, to see that even though the early church had a misunderstanding of one biblical word, the rest of Scripture came to the defense of doctrinal purity and prevented the church from falling into the error of Arianism (although the struggle consumed most of the fourth centuryA.D.).

[Justin Adams]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I do. You have posted links to your sources. 

So.... 

Fail.

I occasionally post links to items of interest. They are NOT my sources. Some folk here actually like to read things. That is NOT to say anything I link is entirely correct. I like to leave it up to the reader and NOT tell them what to think or pass judgement. Scholarship require much reading. Peer review is open for discourse. None of them have ever hinted that I was less than fair in my assessments. And also, for the record, you will NEVER know what I really think. Those that are beleaguered by others and especially the 'young' and 'weak' and 'learners' need to be encouraged and NOT dictated to.

[Prycejosh1987]

On 5/31/2020 at 1:12 AM, JTC said:

I say yes he is, he was defeated 2000 yrs ago when Jesus died and then rose again from the dead. I thought all long time Christians knew this.

Well, let me see what all of you think.

I say he isnt, because if we was a defeated foe he would not have so much power over non believers lives and christian peoples lives too. He is defeated to God but not to us. God and Jesus have power over him and the devil cannot impede the holy spirits message. But there are millions and millions of souls going to hell. In terms of rebellion and soul winning, the devil is beating God.