The Inescapable Trinity

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Inescapable Trinity

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:28 am

Paidion wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:32 am
So Dwight, when Jesus said the folowing words to the scribes and Pharisees, he meant just what He said:

Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Mathew 23:24)

It must have been pretty fascinating to have been there and watched the Pharisees swallowing camels!
Dwight - Really Paidion, I am not so dense that I don't understand a figure of speech. You must think I'm really dumb.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Inescapable Trinity

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:58 am

darinhouston wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:13 pm
dwight92070 wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:27 pm
That's not how the world operates. In the real world, words mean things.
That IS how the world operates. It is usually more subtle and natural in casual conversation because you have a 2-way exchange and often share a context and culture and can ask follow up questions and "engage" with words in different ways to infer meanings. But, even then, having teenagers you do have to sometimes parse words even in that context because of differing perspectives and fewer words than might be more helpful at times. And so forth and so on. But, with ancient texts from other languages and milieus and centuries/millenia of presuppositions and denominations and the sort, it is even harder and does require that you reason and test the words against unfamiliar cultures etc. Reading with "Modern" and "Western" eyes will almost always mislead, especially if we default to the most literal English meaning possible.

Notably, even in the 4th century those Nicene bishops did this very thing to come up with these positions that people hold as unquestionable dogma based on these very sorts of parsing and debating. The question is do we have the same warrant as they to do it for ourselves? Or do we merely follow their conclusions? (and same with subsequent councils).
Dwight - So you think the translators didn't take into account the ancient texts, the other languages and milieus and cultures, the presuppositions and denominations? There's nothing wrong with "double-checking" their conclusions, if possible, but neither is there anything wrong with coming to their same conclusions, having studied the text ourselves. It has been said that "he who will not use the brain of another man, is not using his brain". But that does not mean that we simply "follow their conclusions" either. I disagree with Augustine, Calvin, Luther, R. C. Sproul, the church "fathers", etc. on many issues, primarily because I have heard what other godly men have told me about their beliefs - not because I have studied their beliefs extensively.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Inescapable Trinity

Post by Paidion » Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:07 pm

Dwight wrote:Really Paidion, I am not so dense that I don't understand a figure of speech. You must think I'm really dumb.
No, I don't think that at all. You have often demonstrated intellect in your posts.

I was just trying to emphasize that some of the statements of Jesus that you insist are to be taken literally, are actually figures of speech.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Inescapable Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:37 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:58 am
darinhouston wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:13 pm
dwight92070 wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:27 pm
That's not how the world operates. In the real world, words mean things.
That IS how the world operates. It is usually more subtle and natural in casual conversation because you have a 2-way exchange and often share a context and culture and can ask follow up questions and "engage" with words in different ways to infer meanings. But, even then, having teenagers you do have to sometimes parse words even in that context because of differing perspectives and fewer words than might be more helpful at times. And so forth and so on. But, with ancient texts from other languages and milieus and centuries/millenia of presuppositions and denominations and the sort, it is even harder and does require that you reason and test the words against unfamiliar cultures etc. Reading with "Modern" and "Western" eyes will almost always mislead, especially if we default to the most literal English meaning possible.

Notably, even in the 4th century those Nicene bishops did this very thing to come up with these positions that people hold as unquestionable dogma based on these very sorts of parsing and debating. The question is do we have the same warrant as they to do it for ourselves? Or do we merely follow their conclusions? (and same with subsequent councils).
Dwight - So you think the translators didn't take into account the ancient texts, the other languages and milieus and cultures, the presuppositions and denominations? There's nothing wrong with "double-checking" their conclusions, if possible, but neither is there anything wrong with coming to their same conclusions, having studied the text ourselves. It has been said that "he who will not use the brain of another man, is not using his brain". But that does not mean that we simply "follow their conclusions" either. I disagree with Augustine, Calvin, Luther, R. C. Sproul, the church "fathers", etc. on many issues, primarily because I have heard what other godly men have told me about their beliefs - not because I have studied their beliefs extensively.
I believe that many scholars have been blinded by dogma on many issues and the demonstrable translation issues particularly surrounding many of these texts shows that this is clearly the case by translators over the years in this area. Scholarship from Qumran and elsewhere has also given us a lot of information about the hellenization of this period and the gnostic influences that were unavailable to many of the translators over the years. This is simply an area ripe for reformation and restitution.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Inescapable Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:37 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:58 am
darinhouston wrote:
Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:13 pm
dwight92070 wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:27 pm
That's not how the world operates. In the real world, words mean things.
That IS how the world operates. It is usually more subtle and natural in casual conversation because you have a 2-way exchange and often share a context and culture and can ask follow up questions and "engage" with words in different ways to infer meanings. But, even then, having teenagers you do have to sometimes parse words even in that context because of differing perspectives and fewer words than might be more helpful at times. And so forth and so on. But, with ancient texts from other languages and milieus and centuries/millenia of presuppositions and denominations and the sort, it is even harder and does require that you reason and test the words against unfamiliar cultures etc. Reading with "Modern" and "Western" eyes will almost always mislead, especially if we default to the most literal English meaning possible.

Notably, even in the 4th century those Nicene bishops did this very thing to come up with these positions that people hold as unquestionable dogma based on these very sorts of parsing and debating. The question is do we have the same warrant as they to do it for ourselves? Or do we merely follow their conclusions? (and same with subsequent councils).
Dwight - So you think the translators didn't take into account the ancient texts, the other languages and milieus and cultures, the presuppositions and denominations? There's nothing wrong with "double-checking" their conclusions, if possible, but neither is there anything wrong with coming to their same conclusions, having studied the text ourselves. It has been said that "he who will not use the brain of another man, is not using his brain". But that does not mean that we simply "follow their conclusions" either. I disagree with Augustine, Calvin, Luther, R. C. Sproul, the church "fathers", etc. on many issues, primarily because I have heard what other godly men have told me about their beliefs - not because I have studied their beliefs extensively.
I believe that many scholars have been blinded by dogma on many issues and the demonstrable translation issues particularly surrounding many of these texts shows that this is clearly the case by translators over the years in this area. Scholarship from Qumran and elsewhere has also given us a lot of information about the hellenization of this period and the gnostic influences that were unavailable to many of the translators over the years. This is simply an area ripe for reformation and restitution.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Inescapable Trinity

Post by darinhouston » Thu Dec 30, 2021 11:23 am

dwight92070 wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:10 am
...the author of Hebrews says the Father speaks of the Son and says "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." and "Therefore God, your God has anointed You ..."; ...

There's no conjecture here. The evidence speaks for itself. You may be uncomfortable or unbelieving, calling Jesus "God", and identifying Him as God, but the Bible authors had no problem whatsoever with it. You can explain away all the scriptures, but the scriptures remains and your "explanations" fall to the ground.
I came across this article and thought it was very interesting -- written by a well respected Trinitarian author/translator (CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 120 books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version).

It addresses one of the verses Dwight frequently raises but is also a very good example of how difficult some of these translation issues can be and why we need to be very careful proof-texting with some of these verses which are often quite challenging in this area.
https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2019/11/30/hebrews-18-your-throne-o-god-is-forever-or-god-is-your-throne-forever/?fbclid=IwAR0QVlXZJYLETgpEIU9Imq38EM-kPL4YKiI0Ah-eNLUshAeU1yLYlxJlWe8 wrote:
Hebrews 1:8 is one of those verses that bring out the worst in Christians. Sadly, Christians tend to argue vehemently about what were the words in the original Greek New Testament (textual), how to translate the original words (translation) what do the original words mean (exegesis)? Hebrews 1:8 is not a textual issue, it is a translation issue that will result in an exegetical issue. Let’s begin by stating some simple truths about biblical Greek. Unlike English, Greek can often have a sentence without the verb. Here in Hebrews 1:8, the verb “is” is omitted, which in no way would have hindered the original readers from understanding the verse. Nonetheless, the translator has the headache of now trying to determine where the verb “is” goes in the sentence. The choice of where one chooses to place the verb “is” will mean whether one is going to be literally verbally assaulted by the so-called Christian community. Let me remind the reader, no doctrine is lost over one verse. Moreover, the policy to follow is, let the textual evidence lead where it leads, the translation go where it goes, the translator do what needs to be done, and the exegete discover what the author meant by the words that he used. God does not need our help in manipulating verses to get our desired outcome.

Hebrews 1:8 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

Ὁthe θρόνοςthrone σουof you ὁthe θεὸςGod εἰςinto τὸνthe αἰῶναage τοῦof the αἰῶνος,age,

Now, an interlinear is a terrific tool, for it allows the churchgoer and unbeliever to have some perspective of what the textual scholars and translators are facing. The interlinear is not a translation, it is a tool. There is no syntax or grammar involved because the English above are stand-alone lexical equivalents. The translator then starts putting things together in an English sentence. We will work our way left to right to get the basics out of the way. “the throne of you” will be rendered “your throne” The definite “the” article before “God” lets us know that we are talking about “the God,” the Father, God Almighty. The expression “age of the age” means “forever and ever.” Below you will see the two choices that lay before us as to where the verb “is” goes in the sentence.

Hebrews 1:8 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
8 But of the Son he says,

“God is your throne forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of his kingdom.
Hebrews 1:8 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Apologies but we have to go into some more basic Greek grammar. When translating into English our verb “is” should normally go in between the subject and the object, or if we are dealing with a ‘to be’ verb (am, are, is, was, were, etc.), like we are here, it goes in between the subject and the predicate. The predicate is the part of a sentence or clause containing a verb and stating something about the subject (e.g., went home is the predicate in “John went home”). The subject in Greek is identified by the nominative ending. The nominative is the subject. The singular nominative ending in Greek (ς) is used as the subject of the sentence and also as the object of sentences with the ‘to be’ verb. θρόνος (throne) has a nominative ending. However, θεὸς (God) also has a nominative ending. So, which one is the nominative and which one is the predicate?

Generally speaking, it would simply be a case of following the word order, placing the verb “is” between θρόνος (throne) θεὸς (God), as “Your throne is God, forever and ever.” However, there is yet another possible translation here because “the God” is often used as “O God;” and so it can be used as the direct object of the subject. The nominative (subject) form of the noun (ὁ θεὸς) can be used as the vocative (direct address) “O God.” This is seen right here in the book of Hebrews at 10:7. “Then I said, (In the scroll of the book it is written of me) To do your will, O God.’”

Hebrews 10:7 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear(GENTI)

7 τότεThen εἶπονI said ἸδοὺLook! ἥκω,I am come, ἐνin κεφαλίδιheading βιβλίουof small book γέγραπταιit has been written περὶabout ἐμοῦ,me, τοῦthe ποιῆσαι,to do, ὁthe θεός,God, τὸthe θέλημάwill σου.of you.

Here in Hebrews 10:7, the noun (ὁ θεὸς) is used as the vocative (direct address) “O God.” Yet, the headache is not over because this only shows that the author can use (ὁ θεὸς) as the vocative, not that he did so in 1:8. The other side of our difficulty is the author using (ὁ θεὸς) as “God” many times. So, the translation of our phrase in Hebrews 1:8 has not been made easier by this information, just what is more possible. Statistically, some are in favor of the noun (ὁ θεὸς) being rendered “God” because it is done so hundreds of times in the New Testament, as opposed to the scant few times as “O God.” Nevertheless, many of the leading translations (ESV, CSB, NASB, LEB, NIV, etc.) go against the odds by translating (ὁ θεὸς) as “O God” and placing the verb “is” after both nouns “throne” and “God.” They read, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” While the NRSV and the GNT choose this rendering as well, they alone as far as I can see put the alternative in a footnote to make the reader aware of the alternative rendering. The New Revised Standard Version footnote has “Hebrews 1:8 Or God is your throne” and the Good News Translation has the footnote, “Hebrews 1:8 Your kingdom, O God, will last; or God is your kingdom.”

The truth of the matter is both translations are possible. It isn’t like a court trial where we walk away with a translation choice that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

What Is More Likely?

Statistically, (ὁ θεὸς) is rendered “God” hundreds of times in the NT, as opposed to the scant few times (3x) as “O God.” Going with the odds again, the author of Hebrews (Paul for me) uses (ὁ θεὸς) as “God” dozens of times and only one other time as a vocative, 10:7. When we look to the context, Hebrews 1:7, it is God speaking to a worshipper about the angels, and so, he is not being addressed. In 1:8, it is God speaking to a worshipper about the Son, and so God again is not being addressed, The following verse, Hebrews 1:9, God is still talking to a worshipper about the Son, saying of the Son, “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you …,” meaning here, again, it is not God being addressed. The author of Hebrews is quoting from Psalm 45:6, which was being addressed to a human king, likely King Solomon, who actually sat on God’s throne. The Revised Standard Version renders Psalm 45:6 this way, “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” Full disclosure, the RSV has a footnote that reads, “Or Your throne is a throne of God, or Thy throne, O God.” God the Father is the throne upon which Jesus sits. Jesus himself said of the Father “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.” (Matt 20:28) “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.” (John 3:35) “Which he [God the Father] brought about in Christ, when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his [God the Father’s] right hand in the heavenly places.” (Eph. 1:20; See also Daniel 7:13-14; Lu 1:32)

F. J. A. Hort

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quote from Psalm 45:6-7, in which the textual scholar B. F. Westcott wrote: ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός … διὰ τοῦτο … ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου …] It is not necessary to discuss here in detail the construction of the original words of the Psalm. The LXX. admits of two renderings: ὁ θεός can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, … therefore, O God, Thy God …) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God …), and in apposition to ὁ θεός σου in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God …). The only important variation noted in the other Greek versions is that of Aquila, who gave the vocative θεέ in the first clause (Hieron. Ep. 65. ad Princ. § 13) and, as it appears, also in the second (Field, Hexapla ad loc.). It is scarcely possible that אלוהים in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that ὁ θεός is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock’; and to take ὁ θεός as in apposition in the second clause.

The phrase ‘God is Thy throne’ is not indeed found elsewhere, but it is in no way more strange than Ps. 71:3 [Lord] be Thou to me a rock of habitation … Thou art my rock and my fortress. Is. 26:4 (R.V.) In the LORD JEHOVAH is an everlasting rock. Ps. 90:1 Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling-place. Ps. 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High … v. 2 I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress, v. 9; Deut. 33:27 The eternal God is thy dwelling-place. Comp. Is. 22:23.

Brooke Foss Westcott, ed., The Epistle to the Hebrews the Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3d ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1903), 25–26.

The Bible has faced opposition from Satan’s world since the beginning, from supposed “friend” and foe alike. An innumerable number of faithful followers of God have paid with their lives to bring us the Bible in our language today. Even today, there is much pressure from the so-called Christian community and the scholarly world to be faithful to man as opposed to being faithful to God and the original language text when translating the Bible. It takes a brave soul to follow his Christian conscience and translate as he follows the evidence.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”