Q
(Surely Matthew and Rufus have already responded better than I
can.)
dell12345 wrote:
> In the last phrase, "the human judge was theos" NOT "ho theos", will you
> translate the "theos" to God or god? Definitely, a Christian will
> translate the "theos" in the last phrase as "god"
Why do you say this? How many Gods/gods are there? One, right?
I suppose that Christians don't understand what you mean by "god",
since, as Muslims might say, there are no Gods but God.
> not "God" because if you
> translate it to "God" it means that you have two Gods and that the human
> judge is THE GOD.
That is the point, isn't it? That there is one God and the 'human
judge'
(in your example) is THE GOD.
> (This is the same with the Word was with God, If Word is
> God, then God is with God, this is wrong because there is only one God).
Again, isn't this the point?
Is the (small-w) word translated as "with" the confusion?
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
news:133.45.15.05.110405000@srcbs.org...
>
snip
> >
> But your basic presumption is that God, who was able to
inspire the
> writers infallibly, cannot infallibly inspire its
readership.
That God does NOT infallibly inspire the readership of
Scripture
would seem self evident, don't you agree?
All of the best theologians throughout history have
understood
at least some portions of Scripture differently.
Gary
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
So we are into Jehovah's Witness doctrine at this juncture. Might not
self-identity be in keeping with integrity here?
Burl Ratzsch
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>>Rather, I don't think you've drawn a certain distinction.
>>There "canonize" and then there's "canonize". You know that
>>the books in the NT have a ranking
>
> Do they? I thought you were paying enough attention in this NG to
> notice that not all agree.
I know they don't agree. The fact that there are different
rankings makes no difference to my point.
>>We read James as informed by John, and not vv.
>
> Again, a very Lutheran way of reading the NT.
And a very RC view. But it doesn't matter here. The point
is that the Apocrypha fell