- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,789
- 1,044
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I received this very pointed challenge from TSNP.
Now he chided me for not having a seminary education has he has, but nevertheless I'm going to take him up on his challenge. Now he was outraged (to say the least) that I believed terminology was consistent in both testaments of the Bible. Now that's not to say words don't have different meanings in different contexts (semantic ranges). Of course they do, and that's true in english and all other languages.
Obviously context is going to determine meanings, but when found in certain contexts I find biblical terms are conceptually consistent in both testaments.
But before I get into examples, one should ask himself, why wouldn't they be?? Who were these N.T. authors? Were they not old testament readers? Where they not old testament students? One of my favorite bible professors once said that while the new testament authors "wrote in greek, they thought in hebrew." That's quite a brilliant thought and very applicable here.
Now I'll get to the term "son of God" above, but let me introduce 3 good examples that I've come across in scripture and written a lot about. The Heavens (shamayim, ouranos), Earth (erets, ghay), Sea (yam, thalassa).
One thing I noticed I had to avoid in interpreting scripture is pouring modern meanings into ancient terms. For instance, in modern english, the term earth primarily refers to our planet earth, and includes everything in and on the globe, its oceans, its core etc.. But the ancient term erets doesn't carry this meaning at all. Earth in scripture is land, as it was defined in Genesis.
It is also always mentioned distinct from the sea.
Many try to accuse the Bible of teaching a flat earth, but that argument is argued from the perspective of the modern term, which conveys a land/sea unit. The biblical earth is neither a globe or a flat disc consisting of land and sea. It is land (the continents, islands etc.), with mountains and valleys and coastlines (ends).
Now does the new testament preserve this distinction? For certainly concepts of the globe and other flat disc models existed at that time. Indeed. In the New Testament as in the Old, sea and earth (and heaven for that matter) are away spoken of as distinct (Luke 21:25, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1). The N.T. writers preserved the frame of reference used in the old testament, and used the term in the way that Genesis defined it—land. You'll find the distinction between heaven, land and sea all throughout the Bible in every age (Ex. 20:11, Neh. 9:6, Psa. 69:34, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 135:6, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Amos 9:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1).
Now TSNP gave me a direct challenge regarding the term "Son of Man." Is this logically conceptually consistent in both testaments? Of course it is. Son of man was a theologically significant term in the O.T. and therefore the N.T. writers didn't use it apart from O.T. theological understandings.
Son of man in the old testament is literally "son of adam" sometimes "son of enowsh" sometimes "sons of iysh" and is simply a conceptual way to communicate someone is human, and a descendant of Adam. These terms are often used interchangeably in hebrew parallelism.
It's no different in the new testament.
Now the son of man also referred to Jesus Christ emphasizing..... you guessed it, his humanity. As the Nicene Creed emphasizes, Jesus was full God, but also fully man. Jesus was the Son of God, in that He was directly begotten of the Holy Spirit, and He was the Son of Man, and that he was born of a daughter of adam—a human mother.
What I see in scripture is remarkable consistency in its concepts and and terminology, even though the diversity of the authors is vast. This is evidence (among others) of its inerrancy, and this is why both complement each other so well.
Looking forward to your rebut.
Now he chided me for not having a seminary education has he has, but nevertheless I'm going to take him up on his challenge. Now he was outraged (to say the least) that I believed terminology was consistent in both testaments of the Bible. Now that's not to say words don't have different meanings in different contexts (semantic ranges). Of course they do, and that's true in english and all other languages.
In my grandfather's day, he used to walk to school several miles every day but always made it home before the day ended and it got dark.
Obviously context is going to determine meanings, but when found in certain contexts I find biblical terms are conceptually consistent in both testaments.
But before I get into examples, one should ask himself, why wouldn't they be?? Who were these N.T. authors? Were they not old testament readers? Where they not old testament students? One of my favorite bible professors once said that while the new testament authors "wrote in greek, they thought in hebrew." That's quite a brilliant thought and very applicable here.
Now I'll get to the term "son of God" above, but let me introduce 3 good examples that I've come across in scripture and written a lot about. The Heavens (shamayim, ouranos), Earth (erets, ghay), Sea (yam, thalassa).
One thing I noticed I had to avoid in interpreting scripture is pouring modern meanings into ancient terms. For instance, in modern english, the term earth primarily refers to our planet earth, and includes everything in and on the globe, its oceans, its core etc.. But the ancient term erets doesn't carry this meaning at all. Earth in scripture is land, as it was defined in Genesis.
And God called the dry land Earth —Gen. 1:10
It is also always mentioned distinct from the sea.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.... —Ex. 20:11
Many try to accuse the Bible of teaching a flat earth, but that argument is argued from the perspective of the modern term, which conveys a land/sea unit. The biblical earth is neither a globe or a flat disc consisting of land and sea. It is land (the continents, islands etc.), with mountains and valleys and coastlines (ends).
Now does the new testament preserve this distinction? For certainly concepts of the globe and other flat disc models existed at that time. Indeed. In the New Testament as in the Old, sea and earth (and heaven for that matter) are away spoken of as distinct (Luke 21:25, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1). The N.T. writers preserved the frame of reference used in the old testament, and used the term in the way that Genesis defined it—land. You'll find the distinction between heaven, land and sea all throughout the Bible in every age (Ex. 20:11, Neh. 9:6, Psa. 69:34, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 135:6, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Amos 9:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1).
Now TSNP gave me a direct challenge regarding the term "Son of Man." Is this logically conceptually consistent in both testaments? Of course it is. Son of man was a theologically significant term in the O.T. and therefore the N.T. writers didn't use it apart from O.T. theological understandings.
Son of man in the old testament is literally "son of adam" sometimes "son of enowsh" sometimes "sons of iysh" and is simply a conceptual way to communicate someone is human, and a descendant of Adam. These terms are often used interchangeably in hebrew parallelism.
It's no different in the new testament.
“Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;—Mark 3:28
which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:—Eph. 3:5
which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:—Eph. 3:5
Now the son of man also referred to Jesus Christ emphasizing..... you guessed it, his humanity. As the Nicene Creed emphasizes, Jesus was full God, but also fully man. Jesus was the Son of God, in that He was directly begotten of the Holy Spirit, and He was the Son of Man, and that he was born of a daughter of adam—a human mother.
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: —Phil. 2:5-7
What I see in scripture is remarkable consistency in its concepts and and terminology, even though the diversity of the authors is vast. This is evidence (among others) of its inerrancy, and this is why both complement each other so well.
Looking forward to your rebut.
Last edited:
