Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

But there are Trinitarians that both agree and disagree on the Heb 1:8 rendering. So the whole notion that the differences are according to their godhead theology aren't really accurate. In fact, the point that they are Trinitarians is irrevelant.

If Oneness Apostolics get accussed of bias in wanting their own translation, it's probably the motive behind it. Why is it "their own." They see themselves as distinct from the community. This is a false category in scholarship (and the fact remains that there is NO ONE qualified to even handle manuscript copies for exegesis/interpretation).

If there is more suspicion it's on Oneness church's inability to use the language of scripture, isolating certain text's as "those are Oneness verses" etc.

It's not so much I'm against an official Oneness translation, as much as I don't see relevance of Oneness to translation. That's not a category used to create a translation. The fact that they would want to make one with that category would be questionable --- again, assuming years to come there is a committee sharp enough to complete such a task.

I'm not suspicious, mocking or finger-pointing here. I've tried to hear what you are saying, and only in the last few posts have you been explicit -- and frankly, it's what I assumed all along. Maybe you're making assumptions about what I'm assuming?

[Praxeas]

Jeffry, can you explain why an english bible translates the verse in Psalms in such a way as to not show the Son is God and why the same verse quoted in Heb 1:8 is translated to show the Son is God?

The very fact that these translations translate Psalms they way they do is a tacit admission that they agree the verse can be translated differently. One might wonder why the Jews did not read this verse and think it was talking about a man that was called ELohim by Elohim...probably because they never viewed it in that manner.

The point never was "there is bias",that came as a later discussion after you kept pressing me beyond the point I originally made. The point I originally made was that the bible can be translated differently in at least some areas, so why not? Why do you and others suggest Trinitarians should be the only ones and their particularly translation should be the only ones when they themselves admit to certain verses like this that can go another way? Then when someone mentions a Oneness attempt everyone is set to mockery and suggestions that no Oneness translation will be unbiased and will be an attempt to distort the bible in order to support Oneness?

I don't see a Oneness vs Trinitarian conspiracy. I see a legitimate argument why it should not be a big deal for other groups besides Oneness, to translate the bible as long as they are doing so true to the grammar and not violating grammatical rules

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

But there are Trinitarians that both agree and disagree on the Heb 1:8 rendering. So the whole notion that the differences are according to their godhead theology aren't really accurate. In fact, the point that they are Trinitarians is irrevelant.

If Oneness Apostolics get accussed of bias in wanting their own translation, it's probably the motive behind it. Why is it "their own." They see themselves as distinct from the community. This is a false category in scholarship (and the fact remains that there is NO ONE qualified to even handle manuscript copies for exegesis/interpretation).

If there is more suspicion it's on Oneness church's inability to use the language of scripture, isolating certain text's as "those are Oneness verses" etc.

It's not so much I'm against an official Oneness translation, as much as I don't see relevance of Oneness to translation. That's not a category used to create a translation. The fact that they would want to make one with that category would be questionable --- again, assuming years to come there is a committee sharp enough to complete such a task.

I'm not suspicious, mocking or finger-pointing here. I've tried to hear what you are saying, and only in the last few posts have you been explicit -- and frankly, it's what I assumed all along. Maybe you're making assumptions about what I'm assuming?

We have a deep long history of translations since the KJV. Nobody bothers to say "Why another?"...we keep coming out with others...so why can't there be another that might be different from one produced by Trinitarians or Unitarians or Arians as long as it is grammatically correct?

There is room, legitimate, according to at least some Trinitarian scholars, for alternate translations that according to both Oneness and Trinitarians, would NOT support our views that the Son is God. Maybe there are others that would support a Oneness view more than a Trinitarian, or vice versa. I think it is very interesting to explore that.

If it's grammatically correct then I don't see a problem with it

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jeffrey, can you explain why an english bible translates the verse in Psalms in such a way as to not show the Son is God and why the same verse quoted in Heb 1:8 is translated to show the Son is God?
The very fact that these translations translate Psalms they way they do is a tacit admission that they agree the verse can be translated differently. One might wonder why the Jews did not read this verse and think it was talking about a man that was called ELohim by Elohim...probably because they never viewed it in that manner.

The point never was "there is bias",that came as a later discussion after you kept pressing me beyond the point I originally made. The point I originally made was that the bible can be translated differently in at least some areas, so why not? Why do you and others suggest Trinitarians should be the only ones and their particularly translation should be the only ones when they themselves admit to certain verses like this that can go another way? Then when someone mentions a Oneness attempt everyone is set to mockery and suggestions that no Oneness translation will be unbiased and will be an attempt to distort the bible in order to support Oneness?

I don't see a Oneness vs Trinitarian conspiracy. I see a legitimate argument why it should not be a big deal for other groups besides Oneness, to translate the bible as long as they are doing so true to the grammar and not violating grammatical rules

No. Can you? And is there intent to show that the Son is not God? (Last I checked, ALL trinitarians signed up on that one). Every major translation in BibleGateway has the same rendering. Would love to read the commentary from the translators as to their decision -- before I can begin speculating!

There are THOUSANDS of verses that have variable options, and the translators go with what works best for VARIOUS reasons. Surely you've read these sort of exegetical commentaries/notes from interpreters before? They explain the alternatives and why they used the words they did.

I'm not a Trinitarian. So get that straight. Why do you insist on using language like "Why do you and Trinitarians insist they are the only ones..." You keep saying it's not a Oneness vs. Trinity issue with you, but your words betray you.

Trinitarians don't have Bible translations strictly to "give a Trinitarian viewpoint." Scholarship demands much more than that.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We have a deep long history of translations since the KJV. Nobody bothers to say "Why another?"...we keep coming out with others...so why can't there be another that might be different from one produced by Trinitarians or Unitarians or Arians as long as it is grammatically correct?

There is room, legitimate, according to at least some Trinitarian scholars, for alternate translations that according to both Oneness and Trinitarians, would NOT support our views that the Son is God. Maybe there are others that would support a Oneness view more than a Trinitarian, or vice versa. I think it is very interesting to explore that.

If it's grammatically correct then I don't see a problem with it

The issue is not just grammar.

I think that idea starts off with a HORRID premise. It's no longer exegesis.

Could you give me some verses you'd like to see influenced more by Oneness scholars (who don't exist by the way)?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

No. Can you? And is there intent to show that the Son is not God? (Last I checked, ALL trinitarians signed up on that one). Every major translation in BibleGateway has the same rendering. Would love to read the commentary from the translators as to their decision -- before I can begin speculating!

There are THOUSANDS of verses that have variable options, and the translators go with what works best for VARIOUS reasons. Surely you've read these sort of exegetical commentaries/notes from interpreters before? They explain the alternatives and why they used the words they did.

I'm not a Trinitarian. So get that straight. Why do you insist on using language like "Why do you and Trinitarians insist they are the only ones..." You keep saying it's not a Oneness vs. Trinity issue with you, but your words betray you.

Trinitarians don't have Bible translations strictly to "give a Trinitarian viewpoint." Scholarship demands much more than that.

What the intent is is irrelevant. I have already stated that there is no conspiracy. I think there is a natural inclination of ALL PEOPLE to influence how verses are translated. I use this as an example to show that this verse is in fact translated a more Unitarian way by some bibles in the Psalms verse and more Oneness Trinitarian in the Hebrews.

I think there is room Jeffry, for other views. I don't see a problem therefore with a Oneness based translation as long as it is true to the original grammar. The evidence I have presented shows that there are others out there that also see that there are verses that can be translated quite differently and that Trinitarian scholars agree is a possible variation.

So again, I don't have a big problem with OPs making a translation too as long as it is grammatically correct.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What the intent is is irrelevant. I have already stated that there is no conspiracy. I think there is a natural inclination of ALL PEOPLE to influence how verses are translated. I use this as an example to show that this verse is in fact translated a more Unitarian way by some bibles in the Psalms verse and more Oneness Trinitarian in the Hebrews.

I think there is room Jeffry, for other views. I don't see a problem therefore with a Oneness based translation as long as it is true to the original grammar. The evidence I have presented shows that there are others out there that also see that there are verses that can be translated quite differently and that Trinitarian scholars agree is a possible variation.

So again, I don't have a big problem with OPs making a translation too as long as it is grammatically correct.

You suggest their reason for opting with the translations they did was based on a Unitarian vs. Oneness vs. Trinity philosophy and not other reasons??

You do understand that the translations (most of the primary) aren't defined by "Oneness," "Trinity," "Unitarian?"

The fact that Trinitarian scholars have diversity in opinion on the verse you referenced PROVES that there is no uniform, official translation of "trinitarians." Rather, it shows that scholars, for scholarly reasons, have divergent views.

Grammar is only one part of the interpretive process.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The issue is not just grammar.

I think that idea starts off with a HORRID premise. It's no longer exegesis.

Could you give me some verses you'd like to see influenced more by Oneness scholars (who don't exist by the way)?

What I said was, I don't have a problem with an OP translation as long as it is grammatically correct....ie, as long as they are correctly translating the greek grammar and not violating greek grammatical rules. That IS exegesis. What I am showing is there are possible variations in the greek, exegetically and grammatically. Those three I quoted show that. The translations I quoted show that.

No I can't give any because that is not even the issue. Im simply pointing out that there is room for variations that might seem to support some other group or not support another.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

What I said was, I don't have a problem with an OP translation as long as it is grammatically correct....ie, as long as they are correctly translating the greek grammar and not violating greek grammatical rules. That IS exegesis. What I am showing is there are possible variations in the greek, exegetically and grammatically. Those three I quoted show that. The translations I quoted show that.

No I can't give any because that is not even the issue. Im simply pointing out that there is room for variations that might seem to support some other group or not support another.

Wrong. Exegesis is not only grammar. And saying in advance that are going to read a Oneness bias into a translation (as long as the grammar is right of course) isn't intellectually honest and I would hope wouldn't sell many Bibles.

The three you quoted show that there are variations (that has never been a mystery). What remains is that those variations are connected to one's view on the godhead. It should never be about supporting one group or another.

Otherwise, we cave in to that false "them there are oneness scriptures" mentality.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wrong. Exegesis is not only grammar. And saying in advance that are going to read a Oneness bias into a translation (as long as the grammar is right of course) isn't intellectually honest and I would hope wouldn't sell many Bibles.

The three you quoted show that there are variations (that has never been a mystery). What remains is that those variations are connected to one's view on the godhead. It should never be about supporting one group or another.

Otherwise, we cave in to that false "them there are oneness scriptures" mentality.

Exegesis is a critical examination of scriptures. That includes a grammatical deconstruction of the text.

What Im saying is more in line with translation. How do we translate the greek text into english. First and formost they have to have a correct grasp of Greek grammar and syntax. You can't just choose a diction definition of a word and apply it. The translation that word relies heavily on greek grammar, what tense is it? What mood? What case, number and gender. That's what I talking about.

I still don't see any valid reason for Oneness Pentecostals to be involved in translation as long as they can compitently translate the greek grammatically correct.