| Christian Current Affairs The forum to discuss current news and how it relates to Christian theology. |
 | | 
30th January 2012, 05:45 AM
|  | Senior Contributor
55   
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,561
Blessings: 7,942,700 My Mood 
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by ebia  So if the word for "father" in the target language means something unacceptable ("one-whos-sperm-resulted-in") you would forgoe it.
Father is no different an understanding in Arabic than English, this is not however the case for Jesus, but one wouldnt be having a problem with it if it wasnt for such a concept being the offense in Islam. The problem is not Arabic, its Islam. That's what has happened here. The translators are of the opinion that the word for "father" has inappropriate connotations and it's better not to use it.
Jesus said Father. It is the word for father. Thus it has appropriate connotations, but it offends what is against it. Jhn 6:46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. |
30th January 2012, 05:48 AM
| | Senior Contributor
55
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,561
Blessings: 7,942,700 My Mood
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by steve_bakr No, the idea has origins in the pre-Islamic pagan era and is cultural.
As Jesus is the truth, the way and is God, then He would have had the idea before any human cultures. |
30th January 2012, 05:51 AM
|  | Catholic Christian
   
| | Join Date: 3rd August 2011
Posts: 4,644
Blessings: 26,094,121
Reps: 553,774,144,128,245,120 (power: 553,774,144,128,251) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar As Jesus is the truth, the way and is God, then He would have had the idea before any human cultures.
If you are talking about the pre-existence of the Word of God, I agree. |
30th January 2012, 05:55 AM
| | Newbie
 
| | Join Date: 23rd June 2011
Posts: 1,366
Blessings: 1,128,484
Reps: 3,237,440,509,996,885 (power: 3,237,440,509,999) | | | This is a very serious situation, no one should be removing Father and Son from the bible and no one should be adding or removing things from the bible. |
30th January 2012, 06:05 AM
| | Senior Contributor
55
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,561
Blessings: 7,942,700 My Mood
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | Steve Bakr, If you are talking about the pre-existence of the Word of God, I agree.
The Word is Jesus, in the beginning was the Word. So how could there be any pre-existence?
You said No, the idea has origins in the pre-Islamic pagan era and is cultural.
If the truth is from Christ the origin is from God, not any pre-Islamic pagans. |
30th January 2012, 06:08 AM
| | Senior Contributor
55
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,561
Blessings: 7,942,700 My Mood
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by waves This is a very serious situation, no one should be removing Father and Son from the bible and no one should be adding or removing things from the bible.
It is serious, if the very thing that causes faith or men to stumble is removed then there is no faith.
Perhaps the thinking is about wanting the reader to carry on reading to know the whole truth, so as not to offend at that point, but there are others ways of presenting without removing. |
30th January 2012, 06:17 AM
|  | Soli Deo Gloria
24    
 | | Join Date: 3rd February 2010 Location: Kingdom of God
Posts: 5,087
Blessings: 1,063,717 My Mood 
Reps: 777,225,593,994,326,912 (power: 777,225,593,994,335) | | | Can someone please explain to me why the doctrine of the Trinity is destroyed by doing this. Because that is what would be the problem if there is any problem with it. I do not think it will be as the relationship that the Son has to the Father is still preserved as is the relationship the Holy Spirit has with the other two members of the Trinity.
__________________
Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. Who are you who judge another’s servant? Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. |
30th January 2012, 06:31 AM
| | Senior Contributor
55
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,561
Blessings: 7,942,700 My Mood
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | | Well the doctrine of the Trinity is Father Son and Holy Sprirt, so how can it not be destroyed by doing this?
Of course one might present God as three 'persons' but I dont see how that is any better, Jesus refers to those 'persons' as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Remember He taught His disciples to pray Father.. .. a concept the Jewish leadership rejected as well. |
30th January 2012, 06:42 AM
| | Soli Deo Gloria
24
| | Join Date: 3rd February 2010 Location: Kingdom of God
Posts: 5,087
Blessings: 1,063,717 My Mood
Reps: 777,225,593,994,326,912 (power: 777,225,593,994,335) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar Well the doctrine of the Trinity is Father Son and Holy Sprirt, so how can it not be destroyed by doing this?
Of course one might present God as three 'persons' but I dont see how that is any better, Jesus refers to those 'persons' as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Remember He taught His disciples to pray Father.. .. a concept the Jewish leadership rejected as well.
That doesn't really answer my question about whether the passages that describe the relations that these persons have within the trinity are affected by the change.
__________________
Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. Who are you who judge another’s servant? Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. |
30th January 2012, 06:54 AM
| | Senior Contributor
55
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,561
Blessings: 7,942,700 My Mood
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by progmonk That doesn't really answer my question about whether the passages that describe the relations that these persons have within the trinity are affected by the change.
I think it answers it completely. You have said 'persons', Christ didnt say persons exactly, He said Father, ( patēr), Son ( huios) and Holy Spirit (another councellor exactly the same, allos paraklētos, the Spirit of truth pneuma alētheia) | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
