Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[Standards]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

What about Wheaton? What about Gordon-Conwell? Interested in East Coast or West Coast schools?

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on this forum went to school. Did you notice the sarcastic tone of my post?

"I went to Ursan Shool of Theologie"

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

hmmm seems you are not being very honourable.

Lie to a liar for that is his coin, steal from a thief for that is easy, lay a trap for the trickster and catch him at the first attempt, but beware of an honest man.

I may be a little off on the quote but that's the best I can do from memory.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

http://johnwolfram.org/

Yes, While he attended CLC, or WABC which ever it was called at the time. It was an AofG conference of some sort.

It appears the book has been redone under a new title, I have no idea if the new edition contains the story or not. The original one was self published and probably done in the 80's.

If it is that old it does not sound like something that happens often. Sorry I just never heard of such a thing

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

hmmm seems you are not being very honourable.

He's a Lawyer isn't he?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

This is where I'm making assumptions on your position, but it really sounds like you think Trinity vs. Oneness is a behind-the-scenes, single-handed game-changer for interpretation, and I really don't think it is.

I actually use the same verse the Trinitarians do, to show that the Son is God. I think the same of both parties of all parties...,everyone is subject to personal bias.

I only pointed these verses out to show that there are possible alternate translations that even Trinitarians agree on. So I don't see a problem with a new translation one that has Oneness Pentecostals on the translation committee or one by Unitarians or whoever, that seeks to represent other legitimate ways of translation

What leads a translation committee to translate a Heb 1:8 differently from the OT verse it is quoting? It could be bias

Unitarians believe many more translations have that same bias...the same verses any OP would use to prove the Deity of Christ. I just think it is worth exploring.

And I do note again, it was Trinitarians I qouted that shows this verse might be translated a different way. I don't necessarily claim there is a grand conspiracy but that still might be bias. Did you read the quotes?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I actually use the same verse the Trinitarians do, to show that the Son is God. I think the same of both parties of all parties...,everyone is subject to personal bias.

I only pointed these verses out to show that there are possible alternate translations that even Trinitarians agree on. So I don't see a problem with a new translation one that has Oneness Pentecostals on the translation committee or one by Unitarians or whoever, that seeks to represent other legitimate ways of translation

What leads a translation committee to translate a Heb 1:8 differently from the OT verse it is quoting? It could be bias

Unitarians believe many more translations have that same bias...the same verses any OP would use to prove the Deity of Christ. I just think it is worth exploring.

And I do note again, it was Trinitarians I qouted that shows this verse might be translated a different way. I don't necessarily claim there is a grand conspiracy but that still might be bias. Did you read the quotes?

Biases yes. But I think there's other reasons (than just a desire to uphold the Trinity) behind why most choose the primary translation on the verses you quoted (yes, I read them). There's alternate translations and books explaining these decisions, but I don't think Trinity vs. Oneness has even 1% to do with it.

What leads a translation committee to translate a Heb 1:8 differently from the OT verse it is quoting? It could be bias

I doubt it. I'm sure there are scholarly reasons that aren't hinged on a vulnerable "trinitarian" trying hard to fit their theology into the verse. They have plenty of verses they uses to show the distinctiveness with the triune Father, Son, Spirit.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Biases yes. But I think there's other reasons (than just a desire to uphold the Trinity) behind why most choose the primary translation on the verses you quoted (yes, I read them). There's alternate translations and books explaining these decisions, but I don't think Trinity vs. Oneness has even 1% to do with it.



I doubt it. I'm sure there are scholarly reasons that aren't hinged on a vulnerable "trinitarian" trying hard to fit their theology into the verse. They have plenty of verses they uses to show the distinctiveness with the triune Father, Son, Spirit.

I don't think Trinity vs Oneness is an issue. You keep raising that. As I said I use this verse too in order to show that the Son is God. David Bernard and others also don't appeal to this verse and say "It's translated wrong"...so I'm not saying "Trinity vs Oneness".

If a Unitarian group translated this, just like some of those Trinitarian translations did with Psalms, they would probably translate Heb 1:8 in accordance to how the RSV or the GNB translates the verse in Psalms

BTW I never said anyone was "trying hard" to do anything. There is no reason to attach additional meaning or emotion to what I have said. I think it's a natural inclination, not a conspiracy. You see a verse that can go both ways which way are you going to translate it? Probably the one that you agree with the most. Be you Trinitarian, Oneness, Arian or Unitarian.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think Trinity vs Oneness is an issue. You keep raising that. As I said I use this verse too in order to show that the Son is God. David Bernard and others also don't appeal to this verse and say "It's translated wrong"...so I'm not saying "Trinity vs Oneness".

If a Unitarian group translated this, just like some of those Trinitarian translations did with Psalms, they would probably translate Heb 1:8 in accordance to how the RSV or the GNB translates the verse in Psalms

BTW I never said anyone was "trying hard" to do anything. There is no reason to attach additional meaning or emotion to what I have said. I think it's a natural inclination, not a conspiracy. You see a verse that can go both ways which way are you going to translate it? Probably the one that you agree with the most. Be you Trinitarian, Oneness, Arian or Unitarian.

I do? Am I misunderstanding you again?? It sounds like it's the whole pivot point of what you've been discussing. You even said so.

Why is our interaction always like this? Adding emotion? I'm communicating back to you. You aren't on the witness stand. If I added something, it's probably because that's how I heard you!

It's quite clear that you think a Oneness rendering of the verse would differ from a Trinitarian. I don't think that has squat to do with it. This was all in the context of a Oneness Translation of the Bible, was it not? I have asked repeatedly, "what is the point?"

You are making the case that the existing Bible has several passages that came down to tie-breakers, decided because one confessed a Trinitarian creed. I don't buy that, and I think it's baseless. We'd need to look at the exegetical commentary of the translator to know that.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

DA will get a kick out of this:

Followed the URL .... Ryan has to be kidding me.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I do? Am I misunderstanding you again?? It sounds like it's the whole pivot point of what you've been discussing. You even said so.

Why is our interaction always like this? Adding emotion? I'm communicating back to you. You aren't on the witness stand. If I added something, it's probably because that's how I heard you!

It's quite clear that you think a Oneness rendering of the verse would differ from a Trinitarian. I don't think that has squat to do with it. This was all in the context of a Oneness Translation of the Bible, was it not? I have asked repeatedly, "what is the point?"

You are making the case that the existing Bible has several passages that came down to tie-breakers, decided because one confessed a Trinitarian creed. I don't buy that, and I think it's baseless. We'd need to look at the exegetical commentary of the translator to know that.

Jeffry, I started out this discussion in the area where you guys were discussing a possible Oneness translation and whether they would be biased and create a Oneness bible to fit their theology..

I didn't see you or anyone else question or challenge that. Everyone seemed to agree that it would be a bad thing. Im offering a balance...other groups like Trinitarians make their own translations and if OPs are subject to bias so are they. Further I am offering the position that there IS room for alternate translations involving other groups and I give Heb 1:8 as an example...

If a Unitarian group came along and translated a bible and translated that verse differently but a legitimate translation according to Trinitarian scholars, is that reason for mockery? Is that reason for suspicion? Is that reason for finger pointing? No, I don't think so because it's not a matter of bad scholarship. It is a matter of perspective and from a Oneness Trinitarian perspective Heb 1:8 shows the Son is God. There are those that are Unitarian who would probably agree more with the alternate translation.

So again I have no problem with a Oneness translation as long as it is done by actual scholars and not hacks and that the greek grammar or underlying greek text can support such a translation. It's not a conspiracy. It's not an anti-Trinitarian bias or an attempt to make everything Oneness verses Trinitarians.

Im not suggesting Trinitarians are evil or bad. I never said only they are baised in their translations. I said I think every one, every group, has a tendency to influence their bias into a translation in verses like Heb 1:8