Where the King James needs updating ...

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

(KJV)  Ps 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Interestingly, the modern translations agree with the King James translators that the Septuagint should be used here. 

Nope. This is in fact a minority reading in the Masoretic text manuscripts, and has strong auxiliary Hebraic support (to which DSS support is added in modern times). 

I'm not sure about the many Masoretic Text printed editions, it would be a good research project.  Christian David Ginsburg often tells us what was in Joshua 21:36-37, where there are Masoretic Text variation, he may have some indications on Psalm 22.

The antiquity Hebraic support includes midrashic and grammatical, it is a long discussion that has been held here and there.

This is an important variant, perhaps the single most important in the Hebrew Bible, and when discussed deserves careful attention.  It is the only variant I know where there are indications that the Hebrew Bible copyists might have been influenced (negatively) in their textual majority-minority decisions by the Messianic aspect. Physically, the actual variant issue is very minor, between a vav and a yod, then you get into the translation and grammatical issues.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[biscuit1953]

Hi,

The founder of the Jehovah Witnesses used the KJV

Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) railed against the heavenly witnesses verse, calling it a "spurious interpolation", and recommended a number of other alternate versions.

He was like Daniel Wallace on the Mark ending, at a time when there not as many dupes.

"Elder Russell teaches that the last part of the sixteenth chapter of Mark is spurious"
http://books.google.com/books?id=hqzaBAKnk34C&pg=PA150

See also p. 179.  If Russell at times "used" the AV it was not with any more belief and respect for its majesty and authority and excellence than the modern versionists today who "use" the AV.

and it was the one use by JW's up until the 1950's.

Wrong.

"The ASV has been used for many years by the Jehovah's Witnesses."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version#Usage_by_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses

The New World Translation came about as a result of "clarifying" archaic words and updating the name of God.

More nonsense.  They worked up a version from the Westcott-Hort recension.

An important example was their literal translation of John 1:18, along with the NASV and Emphasized, in order to support the concept of Jesus as a "begotten god", the Arian view.

the Jehovah Witnesses are King James Onlyists also.

 
This is either total ignorance or a bald-faced lie.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery 

If I am wrong on this particular point I will stand corrected.  I stand by the other points concerning the perversion of Ruckmanism and the idol worship of a translation that is over 400 years old.  It is a cult mentality and I know how hard it is to break free from it.  I have not read but a couple of your threads and don't know where you stand on the issue but it doesn't matter.  Thank you for the correction.

 

[Ransom]

Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) railed against the heavenly witnesses verse. . . . He was like Daniel Wallace on the Mark ending, at a time when there not as many dupes. . . . Wrong. . . . More nonsense. . . . This is either total ignorance or a bald-faced lie.

Why is it that you have so much to say in criticism of everyone else's beliefs, Avery, but are afraid to say a single word to explain your own?

What do you believe concerning the Trinity?  Answer the question.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

If I am wrong on this particular point I will stand corrected.

Why the "if"?  You were wrong, on a number of points, and accusations, and you are corrected.

The rest of your thread shows your close-minded spirit about issues around the pure word of God, with:

....  I have not read but a couple of your threads and don't know where you stand on the issue but it doesn't matter.

Thank you for the correction.

That is clearer. Most welcome.

And in answer to Scott, my negative words above were not to your beliefs, they were against:

a) the textual errors and blunders of Charles Taze Russell and Daniel Wallace.

Especially their opposition to the traditional ending of Mark with the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus. Supported by 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts, ECW back to Irenaeus and other Ante-Nicene supports, and powerful internal and Bible-faith considerations.  If someone wants to defend the attempted mutilation of the Bible by snipping out the Mark ending and the Pericope Adultera sections, they clearly can do so on this forum.

b) your historical errors above, now corrected. So we move on.

We could go into other issues touched on in your post, like the bogus Granville Sharp attempt to change the pure Bible, however you indicate such things don't matter, you prefer just to make accusations of TR-AV defense being a Ruckman cult, stuff like that.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[subllibrm]

Steven, answer Scott's question in your next post. It is obvious to all that you saw it and ignored it.  ???

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Steven, answer Scott's question in your next post. It is obvious to all that you saw it and ignored it.  ???

Nothing was ignored. There is a 30 page thread about "the Trinity" where I have clearly said I do not use the term, and why.

And I have also tried to get the self-professed trinitarians, orthodox or not, to say whether they believe God exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses, so at least we can know the basics of the belief, rather than engage in pablum terminology slinging.

It is a deficient posting technique, common to those with no tangible, readable, pure scriptures to embrace and defend, to interrupt every thread for politics.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Ransom]

And in answer to Scott, my negative words above were not to your beliefs, they were against:

My point exactly.  You do nothing but post against everyone else's beliefs.

You have yet to tell us, positively, what you believe concerning the Godhead.

Stop with the filibustering, Avery, and show us you are actually capable of a little clarity now and then.

Nothing was ignored. There is a 30 page thread about "the Trinity" where I have clearly said I do not use the term, and why.

You did ignore my question. I didn't ask why you didn't use a certain term.  We want to know, positively, what you believe is the nature of the Godhead.  Why is this question so hard for you to understand? Do you see anyone else being as obfuscatory about what they believe, as you do by habit every single time you post?

And I have also tried to get the self-professed trinitarians, orthodox or not, to say whether they believe God exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses, so at least we can know the basics of the belief, rather than engage in pablum terminology slinging.

There you go again, critiquing others without posting anything of your own beliefs.

By all means, please continue to prove my point, ObfuscAvery.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You did ignore my question. I didn't ask why you didn't use a certain term.  We want to know, positively, what you believe is the nature of the Godhead. 

Actually, the historic use of the term Godhead (from Godhood) is a term that is itself about the nature of God:

1. Divinity; godhood.
2. Godhead
a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/godhead

(1) and (2.b) are the traditional uses, and this can be seen in the three pure Bible AV verses:

Colossians 2:9 
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God,
we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold,
or silver, or stone,
graven by art and man's device.

Romans 1:20 
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead;
so that they are without excuse:

If you try to substitute a Trinitarian conception into the use of the word, it is awkward at best. So your question is redundant, as your usage implies a later circular Trinitarian adoption of the word Godhead, 1A.

One basic use of the word Godhead is akin to deity and divinity.  I am using this example of the early use because "Godhead" is used in an auxiliary yet clearly distinct manner to the "Trinity" question. Godhead being akin to deity and divinity.

The History of the Works of the Learned
Rittangel review by Vander Wayen
http://books.google.com/books?id=PfwvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74

Rittangelius ... those places out of the most ancient of the Jewish writings; by which he proves, that the Jewish Church did both believe the Holy Trinity, and the Eternal Godhead of the Messias.

The Christian Hebraist Johann Stephan Rittangel (1606–1652) is the author who discussed ancient Hebraic conceptions.

Notice, back in the definition, how some uses of Godhead are themselves meant as a definition of the Trinity.  That usage, stated or implied, would simply be circular in our discussion.

btw, I do plan, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, to travel a bit, so my posting and discussion will likely be reduced for about one week.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[rsc2a]

Hi,

You did ignore my question. I didn't ask why you didn't use a certain term.  We want to know, positively, what you believe is the nature of the Godhead. 

Actually, the historic use of the term Godhead (from Godhood) is a term that is itself about the nature of God:

1. Divinity; godhood.
2. Godhead
a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/godhead

(1) and (2.b) are the traditional uses, and this can be seen in the AV verses...

bwhahahahahaha

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

bwhahahahahaha

Thank you for showing the level of modern version "insight" in discussing the precision of the Bible language about the nature of God.

========

To his credit, and quite unlike days of yore, FSSL is the contra poster who has actually limited some the bwhah quotient in writing, and on occasion expressed interest in substance in these threads.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery]To his credit, and quite unlike days of yore, FSSL is the contra poster who has actually limited some the bwhah quotient in writing, and on occasion expressed interest in substance in these threads.[/quote]

Well, I've realized your only objective is to spread heresy so I've decided not to give you the platform with my comments. Clearly you aren't interested in a reasoned argument based on facts since you would rather make up your own and show a child-like ability at reading comprehension when discussing the views of others. (I don't buy it though...I think you are extremely deliberate in your misreading so you can continue to spread your heretical views.) But thanks for the concern.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Clearly you aren't interested in a reasoned argument based on facts since you would rather make up your own

This is simply a fabrication. 

And I realize that the professed trinitarian crew (this phrase is a reference to those who are aggressive in trying to force me to conform to their wording and concepts outside the scripture) was a bit stung to learn that orthodox trinitarian doctrine says clearly that Jesus is not a human person.  Get over it.  It is only a secondary issue, compared to basic questions like:

"Does God exist in three distinct eternal consciousnesses?"

Which at least tells us what a person really believes.

If I remember, rsc2a was the only poster to (indirectly) address this question, by saying that 3dec is standard trinitarian fare.  I pointed out this is not correct, some say yes, some say no, quite energetically, and there the matter rests for now.

Note that the covenant of agreement, or the eternal counsel of redemption, doctrine is an offshoot to a yes answer to the above, in which the three determine which one of the persons would incarnate.  None of the professed trinitarians have touched that one as well, although the more basic question is simply:

"Does God exist in three distinct eternal consciousnesses?"

I have full respect, and doctrinal disagreement, for those who give a "yes" answer to the above. At least we know where we stand and what is the basic ontological issue.  I would say their belief veers toward tritheism, and is not scriptural, yet also that they are in decent doctrinal writer company.

From modern writers, yes to that question is the Millard Erickson and John Scott Horrell position. And recently James White has weighed in with a "yes" in a debate discussion.  It is taking the immanent or ontological trinity forward (or backward) to its must dubious construction, where the social trinity consists of three consciousnesses (minds) in God, while still trying awkwardly to give lip service to the basic truth that God is one.

The professed trinitarian that says no the the 3dec, and who is truly an economic trinitarians, is likely fairly close to my understanding. And we definitely are far closer than either of us are to the social trinitarians. We would struggle to find substantive differences.

And the professed trinitarian who can not give a yes or no to the question should at least give an honest answer why not. Such as considering the question invalid for some reason (e.g. category error), or simply not having come to a determination yet. 

They should stop making excuses (the most humorous one was from FSSL, who said he could not answer that question from some one who did not acknowledge the persons in the Godhead concept. Thus forcing himself into a circular box where he simply can not study the basics of the discussion, such as whether persons is a valid Bible word for God.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Ransom]

Actually, the historic use of the term Godhead (from Godhood) is a term that is itself about the nature of God

I'm not illiterate, Avery, I know the etymology of the term.

What we don't know, however, is what your belief is concerning the nature of the Godhead.  This is on account of you refusing to offer any positive explanation of your beliefs. Why are you afraid to tell us what you actually believe?

 

[subllibrm]

Actually, the historic use of the term Godhead (from Godhood) is a term that is itself about the nature of God

I'm not illiterate, Avery, I know the etymology of the term.

What we don't know, however, is what your belief is concerning the nature of the Godhead.  This is on account of you refusing to offer any positive explanation of your beliefs. Why are you afraid to tell us what you actually believe?

Maybe he doesn't know.  :-\

 

[FSSL]

Maybe he doesn't know.  :-\

He did get the sine-qua-non of the Trinity wrong.
He did argue against the right placement of the Trinity in the theologies.
He did argue, wrongly, that Trinitarians do not use the phrase "human person."
He offers typical, oneness proof-texts of oneness without explanation.
He is hung up on dividing economic Trinitarians from social Trinitarians and tries to identify with the socials.

AND he is unwilling to give us his own beliefs. I think you are right, subllibrm.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

He did argue, wrongly, that Trinitarians do not use the phrase "human person."

Thans for a good example (again) of how you deliberately misquote and distort, with multiple distortions in one sentence.

In these threads I showed that orthodox Trinitarianism uses the phrase "human person" in a specific denial that "Jesus is not a human person".  This was demonstrated on the thread by multiple references.  You got upset because this shows that your trinitarianism is not orthodox trinitarianism.  Deal with it.  (Personally, I would not care less, if I actively considered myself a trinitarian, whether I was orthodox or not.)

Eclectic and aberrant and heretical trinitarians may or may not use the phrase. As I showed in Michael Lodahl's writing that Jesus is a human person, contrary to orthodox trinitarianism.  To confirm this, I even engaged Lodahl in a nice conversation.  Unlike FSSL, he acknowledged, after researching, that what he wrote was not trinitarian orthodoxy.

Yours in Jesus,. 
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

In these threads I showed that orthodox Trinitarianism uses the phrase "human person" in a specific denial that "Jesus is not a human person".  This was demonstrated on the thread by multiple references.  You got upset because this shows that your trinitarianism is not orthodox trinitarianism.  Deal with it.  (Personally, I would not care less, if I actively considered myself a trinitarian, whether I was orthodox or not.)

What an obscurant... you completely ignore the multiple sources I provided of sound Trinitarians. Your selective snipping was hardly credible.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

... you completely ignore the multiple sources I provided of sound Trinitarians.

Not at all.  You simply gave sources, generally fluff and puff, where if you saw something even close to "human person" in any context you thought it was an aha!  Dumb.

I'll be happy to discuss each any source you supply, either extracted from the earlier fluff-and-puff crew or new.  Let's go one or two at a time. 

Here is the issue, stay on point:

"orthodox trinitarian doctrine asserts that Jesus is not a human person"

Eschew word-parsing trickery. Place directly any supposed refutation or counterpoint of that specific point.  Remember, I have shown the affirmative from about five different sources. 

Your turn.

=======

Beyond that, here are three major deficiencies in your assertions.  These are actually more important than the above in the big scheme of doctrinal discussion.

1) You accuse of unbelief, but give no sine qua non of Christian faith involving the trinity.

2) You never tell us if you believe in:
    a) three distinct eternal consciousness in God
    b) the covenant of agreement (aka the eternal counsel of redemption) ala Warfield, the three persons deciding which one will incarnate

3) You blithely claim to be an "economic trinitarian" without:
    a) noticing that this makes you much closer to oneness than to social trinity
    b) even telling us if you are also an immanent, ontological or social trinitarian

And I am beginning to sense that you do not even know if you are an immanent, ontological or social trinitarian. So you avoid even trying to answer the question.  And clearly you are then in muddy doctrine land.

And with 1-3 above, it is clear that for all your posturing, we know basically nothing of your actual beliefs.  You are skilled only in throwing out little catch-terms (economic trintiarian, persons in the Godhead) without saying anything substantive. 

Why not show some integrity and simply address the four points of this post?  For awhile, I was complimenting you on being untricky, compared to earlier days.

Respond to point, and help to make my compliments substantive to the current discussion.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

PS.
When I offered Michael Lodahl as a potential counterpoint (since he was writing a Trinitarian apologetic that did call Jesus a human person) we discussed it, he researched and Michael graciously acknowledged that he was not giving orthodox Trintiarian doctrine, and thanked me for supplying sources to research.

 

[FSSL]

"orthodox trinitarian doctrine asserts that Jesus is not a human person"

Eschew word-parsing trickery. Place directly any supposed refutation or counterpoint of that specific point.  Remember, I have shown the affirmative from about five different sources. 

Your turn.

I thought you insisted that only the the language of Scripture be used? If so, then what is your problem? Why do you insist that Trinitarians use the phrase "human person?" Have you found it in Scripture?

EVERY Trinitarian believes that "...the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. (Lk 2:40).

You have already lost. You have been shown to be in error and deceptively taking Berkhof and Lane out of context. Need I say more?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Unanswered:

1) You accuse of unbelief, but give no sine qua non of Christian faith involving the trinity.

2) You never tell us if you believe in:
    a) three distinct eternal consciousness in God
    b) the covenant of agreement (aka the eternal counsel of redemption) ala Warfield, the three persons deciding which one will incarnate

3) You blithely claim to be an "economic trinitarian" without:
    a) noticing that this makes you much closer to oneness than to social trinity
    b) even telling us if you are also an immanent, ontological or social trinitarian

I thought you insisted that only the the language of Scripture be used?

Feel free to quote what I actually wrote.

Why do you insist that Trinitarians use the phrase "human person?"

Once again, you err.  You commonly make the same error again and again.

As pointed out many times, I simply said that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine makes a point that Jesus is not a human person. That was shown from many sources, including Berkhof and Lane, who simply stated it 100% clearly. Nothing was out of context, the context was fine and changed absolutely nothing about the basics of what is insisted upon by orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.

And I understand that you are not happy to be opposing orthodox trinitarian doctrine, yet probably it is far better than embracing orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

See the reference to my conversations with Michael Lodahl, who was in somewhat of the same orthodox pickle as FSSL. However unlike FSSL, whose modus operandi is politics, posturing, obscurantism and accusation, Michael Lodahl was forthright in acknowledging the distinctions, and discussing them iron sharpeneth.

Here are some more examples of how trinitarian authors tackle this conundrum of orthodox trinitarianism not considering Jesus a human person.  Whether you like what they say or not, the purpose first is simple, to show you that they (unlike FSSL) recognize the orthodox trinitarian position.

Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus
Gerald O'Collins
http://books.google.com/books?id=3XHXFmxq8KoC&pg=RA1-PA79
In short, since personhood is not as such a perfection of human nature, Jesus is not defective or less human through not being a human person.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery