Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Explain the the scribal bias...

The reality is however we understand the disciples being one is the same way that we should understand Jesus and the Father being one in that portion of John.

Yes and DKB is one of the worst at, "Jesus did this as a man and this as God."

I will cut to the chase. I want a Oneness translation. Marvin Treece was working on this at one time. I think it is something needed in the future. Translation is intepretation. Moving one language into another requires a certain amount of interpretation. Trinitarian bias is apparent in such passages 1 John 5:7, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Revelations 1:4 has been demonstrated as containing Trinitarian bias by Trinitarians themselves. See Metzger in Textual Commentary and Comfort in his Textual Commentary.

Originally Posted by notofworks

And this is my trouble with oneness theologians. The stretching is SO intense to make these things fit into your theology, it turn the bible into something none of us recognize.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

No sir. I think there are excellent reasons for keeping the longer ending of Mark 16. There are several reasons. This has been hashed out rather well by Wallace and Maurice Robinson, et al. I am not here to debate the long ending of Mark 16 on this thread.

No, of course you're not because you believe it's legit, but it goes to the point that you folks pick and choose which verse you want to validate. It's amateur, second-class exegesis. Anybody can discredit any verse if they try hard enough. Heck, there are some that can discredit all 30,000 of them. The bottom line is, you folks find a reason to discredit that moves against your theology and I think it's disgraceful.

The real question is....can you explain what is there, not what you want to be there?

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

I will cut to the chase. I want a Oneness translation. Marvin Treece was working on this at one time. I think it is something needed in the future. Translation is intepretation. Moving one language into another requires a certain amount of interpretation. Trinitarian bias is apparent in such passages 1 John 5:7, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Revelations 1:4 has been demonstrated as containing Trinitarian bias by Trinitarians themselves. See Metzger in Textual Commentary and Comfort in his Textual Commentary.

So you're going to REWRITE the bible??? Boy, that'll take care of all the stuff you boys can't explain!! That's incredible!!!

Do ya'll have any relatives of Joseph Smith in your group? He might could give you some pointers on assembling a bible that fits your theology.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

I will cut to the chase. I want a Oneness translation. Marvin Treece was working on this at one time. I think it is something needed in the future. Translation is intepretation. Moving one language into another requires a certain amount of interpretation. Trinitarian bias is apparent in such passages 1 John 5:7, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Revelations 1:4 has been demonstrated as containing Trinitarian bias by Trinitarians themselves. See Metzger in Textual Commentary and Comfort in his Textual Commentary.

So then we have something like the NWT...the word was a god...

This sounds very cult like. Does every other denomination in Christianity have its own translation? No. Most just use a variety of translations.

Can you show from the text the bias you refer to?

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

No, of course you're not because you believe it's legit, but it goes to the point that you folks pick and choose which verse you want to validate. It's amateur, second-class exegesis. Anybody can discredit any verse if they try hard enough. Heck, there are some that can discredit all 30,000 of them. The bottom line is, you folks find a reason to discredit that moves against your theology and I think it's disgraceful.

The real question is....can you explain what is there, not what you want to be there?

lol Great question. In fact, in reality you are making my points all too clear. Maurice Robinson and other First class exegetes and textual critics have looked at Mark 16 and keep the longer ending and others don't. None of them see it as legitamizing my belief. Your point is moot here. Stop being naive, my faith or doctrine doesn't rise or fall on Mark 16 regardless if it existed in the canon or not.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

So then we have something like the NWT...the word was a god...

This sounds very cult like. Does every other denomination in Christianity have its own translation? No. Most just use a variety of translations.

Can you show from the text the bias you refer to?

No. I have heard this response before. It is a knee-jerk reaction. I am sure other translators have as well in history. However, I think it is the most reponsible thing to do if we have legitamitely degreed translators offering their work openly along with their credentials. Trintarians do not have the corner on the market of academia. I hope they can live with that. They should prepare for it at least.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

No. I have heard this response before. It is a knee-jerk reaction. I am sure other translators have as well in history. However, I think it is the most reponsible thing to do if we have legitamitely degreed translators offering their work openly along with their credentials. Trintarians do not have the corner on the market of academia. I hope they can live with that. They should prepare for it at least.

Again you have not demonstrated any bias in translation. How many Oneness theologians are qualified to do a reputable translation? I am doubting you could collect enough to fill a table at Denny's.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

lol Great question. In fact, in reality you are making my points all too clear. Maurice Robinson and other First class exegetes and textual critics have looked at Mark 16 and keep the longer ending and others don't. None of them see it as legitamizing my belief. Your point is moot here. Stop being naive, my faith or doctrine doesn't rise or fall on Mark 16 regardless if it existed in the canon or not.

But it's a pattern reverend!!! Surely you see that! Mark 16 holds KEY information that supports your doctrine, therefore, you validate it. However, verses that DO NOT back you up and your sectarian theology are suddenly branded "Mistranslated." It's just plain goofy! It's the age-old exegetical error of developing a theology and THEN finding verses to match rather than taking the bible and THEN developing a theology.

Ultimately, I don't really care if you say "persons" or manifestations. Big whoop. But it becomes a big deal when you boys start throwing your "heresy" darts at those you don't agree with.

And Mark 16....there are many so-called "Great exegetes" who will equally invalidate 8-20. For the record, I believe the verses should be there. I'm man enough to accept ALL the verses of the bible just as they stand without developing a massive conspiracy theory against those devil trinitarians. Ya'll should try it sometime. You might like it!

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Again you have not demonstrated any bias in translation. How many Oneness theologians are qualified to do a reputable translation? I am doubting you could collect enough to fill a table at Denny's.

Notice, I did not say we could right now. I say it is something I want personally and I feel will one day happen. I am not sure how many we could as well. We have some in both Hebrew (J. Brickle) and Greek (T. French) but it would require many since it would be an extensive undertaking. I can demonstrate bias but I am not about to on this thread. Already got my neck on the block. Obviously, since Metzger and Comfort have then it will rather easy for me to show you. You can email me: james4christ@gmail.com and I will get something to you later.

[notofworks]

Hey Baron, they're gonna write a new bible. That should take care of those stupid trinitarians, huh? If they don't like the "Cult" word now, just imagine how much they're gonna hear it when the "Oneness World Translation" hits the shelves at General Conference!!!