1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mistakes or Attacks

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by stilllearning, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe the idea that the CEB is attacking Jesus' Deity is SILLY. That's NOT the way to promote a Bible version! Who'd buy a version which attax Christ's deity, thus proving it's FALSE?


    It's clear that it was JESUS who was speaking. As others have said, a REAL attack upon His Deity would be in more than one verse.

    Still learning, I hope you're STILL LEARNING. This aint no attack upon Christ's Deity
     
    #41 robycop3, Sep 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2010
  2. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    What is your measuring stick? What God wrote or a translation of what God wrote? THAT is an important clarification. You see a change from your Bible version to another one - but are not once going to the original language to see what God actually said. Is "the Human One" a right translation of what God wrote?
     
  3. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm always amused when folks follow up dishonest statements with dishonest apologies. Not becoming for a believer.

    But likewise...in these last days, a little honesty would be a good thing for you to have.

    It's one thing for you to be deceived by terrible doctrine (you are).
    It's troubling, however, when you're willing to play fast and loose with the truth in order to make your little points (you have).
    And it's quite disconcerting when you're willing to bear false witness in order to propogate your "doctrine." (you do)

    All valid versions (including the KJV, which I happen to love) speak strongly and directly against the behavior in which you are engaging.
     
  4. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2

    Quit calling me a liar, or SHOW ME WHERE I LIED!

    Put up or SHUT UP.
     
  5. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    How does "the Human One" fail to satisfy your view of Christ as "Human"?

    Granted that you see it while others don't. My question is why and how you see it. Is it just some mystical or nebulous feeling you have about it, or is there is logical reason behind what you see? If the former, then there is no much to say. If the latter, then I am curious what that basis is - why do you see this?

    IIRC, I stated that my assumption was that you *were* being intellectually honest. I haven't seen clear evidence to the contrary. I try to be careful with labels like that. Personally I have seen no clear evidence of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

    At the same time, intellectual honesty is more involved that merely omission of facts, etc. Some other examples would be failure to address or correct any inconsistencies or fallacies pointed out in your reasoning, or shifting your argument without explaining why (or worse, pretending its what you were saying all along). So, if you are accused of intellect honesty, don't dismiss the label simply because you never omitted facts/Scripture/etc. Its a bit more than that - its avoiding any form of deception (by statement or omission) when there might be an incentive to deceive (by statement or omission).
     
  6. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think Stilllearning could start a thread called "I Like Rice Krispies" and you guys would gang up on him. I happen to agree with him on this one. I think calling Jesus "the human one" could absolutely confuse someone reading that.
     
  7. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul is certainly addressing those who attack the Humanity of Christ - those who say Christ did not come in the flesh. However, it does not follow (nor does Paul say in the passage) that these people are concluding that Jesus was not God. Paul is addressing only the heresy which says that Jesus was certainly God BUT was not ever incarnate. Generally this heresy holds very much to the fact that Christ was God, but instead deny that He was ever human/fleshly. They hold instead that He merely appeared to be fleshly (like the angels who visited Abraham). It is a heresy called Monophysitism (or the closely related Docetism).

    What needs to be clear is that an attack on Christ's nature is not always an attack on His deity. In fact, overemphasizing His deity (per Monophysitism and Docetism) is just as much an error as denying it. There is an overarching "attack on Christ's nature", but attacks on His humanity are often distinct from attacks on His deity, and vice versa. Failing to make this distinction can easily lead to a fallacy - what is true of one part of a category is not necessarily true of all parts of that category.

    An "attack on the Doctrine of Christ" is not logically equivalent to "an attack on the Deity of Christ". One may attack the Doctrine of Christ without attacking His deity. Both are heretical, but one should not confuse the two.

    No. That is a fallacious conclusion. Nor is such a conclusion supported by the text. An attack on His humanity is certainly an attack on His nature, but this does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is therefore an attack on His deity. That is a fallacy of composition.

    Also, it is sufficient to say, however, that its an attack on His humanity. Sometime I get the feeling that Evangelicals think that an attack on Christ's deity is somehow worse than an attack on His humanity.
     
    #47 dwmoeller1, Sep 14, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2010
  8. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. It what way would you see it as confusing the reader?

    2. I will also point out that StillLearning is arguing for something considerably more than mere confusion. To him it constitutes an attack. A translation that confuses can be labeled a "mistake", but an attack is something quite beyond that as it implies intent and motive on the translators part.
     
  9. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1. Jesus is the GOD-Man. Calling him the "human" one could confuse someone, but that's just MHO.

    2. I'll think on that one! :thumbs:
     
  10. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    More so than calling him Son of man? Why or why not?
     
  11. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    What does "Son of Man" mean? Does it not mean He's human?
     
  12. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    So, far there have only been two people who have failed to see that this scripture in no way attacks the Diety of Jesus. Those who come to this translation with no preconceived agenda or at worse, a paranoia, have no problems.
     
  13. RAdam

    RAdam New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Examples of attacks on His deity:

    - Saying He isn't God
    - Saying He isn't eternal
    - Saying He isn't equal with the Father and Spirit
    - Saying He wasn't fully God when He dwelt on earth

    Examples of attacks on His humanity

    - Saying He didn't come in a real body
    - Saying He couldn't feel human sensations (hunger, pain, etc.)
    - Saying He wasn't fully man when He dwelt on earth
    - Saying He didn't really die

    There have been some heretical factions which attacked the deity of Christ, while others attacked His humanity. For instance, the gnostics attacked His humanity by saying He didn't have a true human body such as we have. Meanwhile, others attack His deity by saying He wasn't eternal and isn't equal with the Father and Spirit. Both sides are just as heretical, but they are attacking different aspects of Christ.
     
  14. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi dwmoeller1

    You asked........
    As I explained to John, I see ANY attack upon “Jesus”, as an attack upon His Deity, because this is at the heart of who Jesus is.

    Therefore as I said in my last response to you, although I see what the Common English Bible does with Matthew 8:20 as simply an attack upon who Jesus is(& therefore an attack upon His Deity), this certainly isn’t the only place it attacks Jesus’ identity.

    For instance, the Bible says.....
    Luke 2:33
    “And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”

    But the Common English Bible says.....
    Luke 2:33
    “His father and mother were amazed by what was said about him.”

    --------------------------------------------------
    Now, I do not want to be guilty of intellectual honesty, by shifting the argument from one passage to another, but this is an example of how I see any single attack, as being as bad as any other attack.

    Now I know that some people have a problem with this word “attack”, but they shouldn’t.
    We need to remember, that we are talking about changes being made to “The Bible”, not just some ordinary book.

    The Bible is mankind’s ONLY ACCESS, to what God has to say to us.
    Therefore, we should take it very serious, when someone starts to monkey around with it.
     
  15. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm human, but I'm sure not the Son of Man. Son of Man applies to Jesus, not mere humans.
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Actually that is not correct. All through Ezekiel, he is called that by God. Daniel is also called 'Son of man'.
     
  17. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    dwmoeller1

    Thank you for taking the time, to banter with me like this;
    With every response, I gain a little more understanding.

    You said.......
    I am a very simple man, therefore I stated my position in a very simply way to John.....
    It is true, that we can categorize the natures of Christ, and emphasize different parts of it.
    But my contention is, that any attempt to change any part of who Christ is, is VERY DANGEROUS.
    --------------------------------------------------
    As I said before(post #39), I might be making a mistake, by continuing to argue that what the Common English Bible does with Matthew 8:20 is an attack upon the Deity of Christ;
    (Some people don’t even see it as an attack upon the Humanity of Christ:)

    But the point I am making is, it attempts to change what the Bible says about Christ, by calling the Son of man, to the Human One.

    For sure, here Christ is talking about Himself, but “human one” could be applied to God’s daughter, or God’s second cousin.
    --------------------------------------------------
    You also said.......
    You know, fallacious conclusions are not that hard to come to, because we are human beings and at any time can be incorrect in our reasoning.

    But your last paragraph, gave me hope to keep up the fight........
    This is “almost” exactly what I have been saying:
    An attack upon one, is an attack upon the other!
     
  18. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Was Daniel ever referred to as the Son of Man?


    If you want to read a version the calls Jesus the human one, be my guest, but I think it's a bad translation and just plain stupid.
     
  19. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is either illogical or heretical (or possibly both).
    1. Illogical: It relies on a fallacy of composition as explained earlier. While it would be sound to say that any attack on Jesus is an attack on His nature, it is fallacious to say that any attack on Jesus is an attack on His deity. As I pointed out before, one can attack Jesus nature by focusing only on His deity. to call this an attack on His deity would be non-sensical.
    2. Heretical: It appears you are making Christ' deity to be more important than His humanity. It is not His deity which is the heart of who Christ is, but BOTH His humanity and His deity. You can't emphasize one over the other w/o falling into heresy.

    But more to the point, you still haven't explained why or how its an attack on Jesus at all (much less His deity). You keep saying its an attack on Christ, but haven't yet explained how. Can you address that? Ignore for now the dispute over whether its an attack on his deity and simply address how its an attack on Christ in any way whatsoever.

    You say its an attack but you don't explain how or why. Please address that.

    Thats a different issue. Lets deal with the above first.
     
  20. stilllearning

    stilllearning Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2

    Thank you Radam, for these lists.

    A third kind of attack, that is more in line, with the way this thread is going, are attacks upon His identity.......
    Mark 14:61-62
    V.61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
    V.62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.


    Here is an example of Jesus, identifying Himself as God’s Son.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Can you tell me, what is the theological term, for someone who says, that He isn’t God’s Son?
     
Loading...