Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[ozso]

It's not so much presenting it as a catch-22 because the free will decision of every individual is unknown. Certainly, it's possible that every human being when God is revealed in full will find themselves willingly and joyfully submitting. But that cannot be presumed to be the case, nor is such speculation built upon anything resembling Biblical exegesis(instead coming from human philosophy). And such speculation is dangerous because if it is untrue then the only thing it does is give a reason for people to not take Christianity's claims seriously. It is superficially attractive to hope that everyone in creation is one day redeemed but that superficial hope not only depends on too many variables but also denies the full extent of human evil treating it instead as a superficial obstacle.

I'm questioning the idea of enemies of God being unswayable or being unswayable unless coerced. The Bible does say every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The argument seems to be regarding what the circumstances are involving that confession. It's seems the idea is that it will be a genuine confession from those who had already been saved during their earthly lifetime, but a disingenuous confession from those who hadn't. But if so, why would they make a disingenuous confession? And how could a disingenuous confession be to the glory of God the Father? I'm honestly trying to see how that's supposed to work.

 

[Saint Steven]

Should we be using the plank removed from our eye for something else?

Put a nail in it, and be careful not to hurt yourself. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

But as far as I can see a coerced confession that Jesus Christ is Lord would be meaningless and pointless from any angle.

And would make Christ a cosmic tyrant. Seems blasphemous to me.

 

[Der Alte]

Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself; The word has gone out from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. * * *

Houston we have a problem!

Isaiah 45:23
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.​

Note! There is a period after the word "swear." Where did that word "allegiance" come from it is not in the quoted vs.? Deliberately rewriting scripture to make it say what you want it to.

 

[Der Alte]

Contrary to what UR-ites say, scripture does NOT say that all mankind will bow "in reverent love for their Maker." etc.
Exomologeō occurs eleven times in the NT. in addition to Phil 2:11. In the other 10 it never means “whole-heartedly… without reservation (no holding back)”etc.
In Philippians 2:11exomologeō is an aorist, active, subjunctive. The subjunctive is the mood of possibility or potentiality. The action may or may not happen. Every knee should bow not “will bow.”

Matthew 3:6 “confessing their sins,” Matthew 11:25 “thank,” Mark 1:5 “confessing their sins,” Luke 10:21 “thank,” Luke 22:6 “promised,” Acts of the apostles 19:18 “confessed their deeds,” Romans 14:11 “confess,” Romans 15:9 “confess Christ,” James 5:16 “confess your faults,” Revelation 3:5 “confess his name”​

…..Scripture says that every knee should bow but only believers will do so freely, willingly in love and faith, the others will be conquered enemies. How will the enemies of Jesus feel?

Matthew 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, *(fn) Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
…..*(fn)"That day" =the day of judgment.]​

After judgment day and “I never knew you: depart from me,” there are no more chances for reconciliation.
The word of God says every knee should bow. It must be important because it is repeated 3 times.

1. Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
2. Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
3. Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;​

But the " the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, murderers, sexually immoral, those who practice magic, idolaters, liars" etc.[Rev 21:8] everyone who denied God and Christ all their lives will be forced to their knees, i.e. become Jesus’ footstool, and forced to proclaim that Jesus is Lord.
This is another important point it is recorded 7 times in scripture. The followers of UR ignore these verses.

1. Psalms 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2. Matthew 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
3. Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
4. Luke 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Luke 20:43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
5. Acts of the apostles 2:34-35
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool..
6. Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
7. Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;.
Hebrews 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.​

What does “make your enemies your footstool mean?” Joshua, the OT type of Jesus, shows us in Josh. 10.
Josh 10:5-15 five kings band together to make war against Israel and were defeated.

Joshua 10:17 And it was told Joshua, saying, The five kings are found hid in a cave at Makkedah….
Joshua 10:22-24
22 Then said Joshua, Open the mouth of the cave, and bring out those five kings unto me out of the cave.
…
24 And it came to pass, when they brought out those kings unto Joshua, that Joshua called for all the men of Israel, and said unto the captains of the men of war which went with him, Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings. And they came near, and put their feet upon the necks of them.
…
Joshua 10:26 And afterward Joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: and they were hanging upon the trees until the evening.​

The enemies of Joshua were made his footstool then destroyed. They did not become faithful, obedient members of his army.
The enemies of Jesus become His footstool, as the enemies of Joshua did, and nowhere is it specifically written that those enemies will be reconciled.

 

[Der Alte]

No, I'd like to know where that is supported in the Torah, as a matter of principle.
All I can see is the misanthropic Talmudic interpretations of the OT quotations in blue.
Principle der Alte, not just dismembered disjunctive opinions thinly masquerading as proofs.

Rubbish! Your biased opinion is meaningless and irrelevant. Jewish scholars wrote down the history of Israel. You don't like it tough. They quoted the scripture and how they interpreted them. That is tons more than you have. You talk about how you interpret the scriptures 2000+ years later.
What I quoted from the three Jewish sources is what the Jews believed before and during the time of Jesus. Again your biased opinion is irrelevant.
What Jesus taught about the fate of the unrighteous did not contradict but mirrored what the Jews of His day believed. Your biased opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Fervent]

I'm questioning the idea of enemies of God being unswayable or being unswayable unless coerced. The Bible does say every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The argument seems to be regarding what the circumstances are involving that confession. It's seems the idea is that it will be a genuine confession from those who had already been saved during their earthly lifetime, but a disingenuous confession from those who hadn't. But if so, why would they make a disingenuous confession? And how could a disingenuous confession be to the glory of God the Father? I'm honestly trying to see how that's supposed to work.

Again, the phrase is of a military conquest. The Hebrew language is a word-picture language, and Semitic thought relies on concrete examples. There is nothing in the text itself that implies this is an act of will, but an act of surrender. Their confession is purely of God's sovereignty but not necessarily a loving admission. What the phrase refers to specifically is a phase of conquest that was common in that day where after conquering a city the whole of it were brought into a common area and forced to their knees to recognize their new status as vassals/slaves or to be put to the ban. It carries the implication of overwhelming force, and so any such confession would necessarily be a matter of being coerced.

 

[ozso]

Again, the phrase is of a military conquest. The Hebrew language is a word-picture language, and Semitic thought relies on concrete examples. There is nothing in the text itself that implies this is an act of will, but an act of surrender. Their confession is purely of God's sovereignty but not necessarily a loving admission. What the phrase refers to specifically is a phase of conquest that was common in that day where after conquering a city the whole of it were brought into a common area and forced to their knees to recognize their new status as vassals/slaves or to be put to the ban. It carries the implication of overwhelming force, and so any such confession would necessarily be a matter of being coerced.

What does put to the ban mean?

 

[Fervent]

What does put to the ban mean?

When a city was put to the ban, it means every living thing within it was killed.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

The Master asks: What is better - guacamole or whackamole?

The reason you get so tired of endless arguments and proofs of the salvation of All, is that the Bible is an integrated and cross-referenced whole, in which any part supports the whole message - and that message is that God will restore His creation, the Cosmos, all of it. If we keep coming up with these things, versus the paltry handful of ECT proof texts, it's because the Bible is a record of man's failure and God's faithfulness.

If you take off your theo-illogical filters, you might realize that God has stated His intent to save all, and sworn that it will happen.

No, that's really kind of backwards. The Universalist seeks verses that can be made to fit a Universalist theology, even if it requires plucking those verses completely out of context and attempting to pound round pegs into square holes. As we saw with 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Universalist posits that the biblical author suddenly had a moment of "Universalist inspiration" in the middle of discussing something else.

The non-Universalist simply (1) points out the game the Universalist is playing and (2) asks "What about these numerous other verses, often from the same author on whom the Universalist relies, that clearly and unequivocally can't be reconciled with Universalist theology?" Treating the Bible as an integrated and cross-referenced whole is pretty much exactly what the Universalist doesn't do.

BTW, guacamole doesn't rhyme with Whack-a-Mole. I'm a native of Tucson and know a bit about guacamole. You have to admit, however, the Whack-a-Mole analogy is apt:
Best Whack A Mole Game Ever!! - YouTube

 

[Lazarus Short]

No, that's really kind of backwards. The Universalist seeks verses that can be made to fit a Universalist theology, even if it requires plucking those verses completely out of context and attempting to pound round pegs into square holes. As we saw with 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Universalist posits that the biblical author suddenly had a moment of "Universalist inspiration" in the middle of discussing something else.

The non-Universalist simply (1) points out the game the Universalist is playing and (2) asks "What about these numerous other verses, often from the same author on whom the Universalist relies, that clearly and unequivocally can't be reconciled with Universalist theology?" Treating the Bible as an integrated and cross-referenced whole is pretty much exactly what the Universalist doesn't do.

BTW, guacamole doesn't rhyme with Whack-a-Mole. I'm a native of Tucson and know a bit about guacamole. You have to admit, however, the Whack-a-Mole analogy is apt:
Best Whack A Mole Game Ever!! - YouTube

In answer to the above, here was MY method, back when I was still undecided between ECT, annihilation and UR: I set each as a theory and sought to find which one fit the data (Bible text) the best. I also considered translation ahead of theology. I tried to avoid personal bias, and mostly ignored outside sources of information, excepting reference books, dictionaries, concordances and the like.

My findings, in short form, and I can provide a longer, more comprehensive version (with verse references) if you are interested:

"Hell" exists more in theology than translation. I consider it to be a 404. I have much to say on the subject, as my notes grew into a 240+ page book.

"Satan," the Devil, etc. is a minor character in the Bible, the name too often conferred on people who were OBVIOUSLY only men.

The KJV, which I read for my research, is driven by theology, but the theology is not supported by honest translation. Dozens of better translations show this to be true.

"Hellfire" is a misnomer. All supernatural fire in the Bible is Godfire.

God refines men with Fire, comparing them to a common ore, to produce the Silver and God - metaphorical to be sure, but you get the idea...?

The Lake of Fire is not ID'd as "hell," and nowhere is it stated that people are in it forever and ever.

The translators were not entirely honest when they rendered "sheol," "hades," "gehenna" and "tartarus" as "hell."

Jesus, Whose very Name means "Salvation," taunted death and the grave, asking where their victory was. In the future, He boasts that He makes ALL things new. Much later, He turns the perfected Kingdom over to His Father.

If anyone is still dead and/or in "hell" at that point, then death has not been defeated, Jesus' taunt is hollow, His boast is a lie and the Kingdom is NOT perfected.

What's not to like?

 

[Fervent]

In answer to the above, here was MY method, back when I was still undecided between ECT, annihilation and UR: I set each as a theory and sought to find which one fit the data (Bible text) the best. I also considered translation ahead of theology. I tried to avoid personal bias, and mostly ignored outside sources of information, excepting reference books, dictionaries, concordances and the like.

My findings, in short form, and I can provide a longer, more comprehensive version (with verse references) if you are interested:

"Hell" exists more in theology than translation. I consider it to be a 404. I have much to say on the subject, as my notes grew into a 240+ page book.

"Satan," the Devil, etc. is a minor character in the Bible, the name too often conferred on people who were OBVIOUSLY only men.

The KJV, which I read for my research, is driven by theology, but the theology is not supported by honest translation. Dozens of better translations show this to be true.

"Hellfire" is a misnomer. All supernatural fire in the Bible is Godfire.

God refines men with Fire, comparing them to a common ore, to produce the Silver and God - metaphorical to be sure, but you get the idea...?

The Lake of Fire is not ID'd as "hell," and nowhere is it stated that people are in it forever and ever.

The translators were not entirely honest when they rendered "sheol," "hades," "gehenna" and "tartarus" as "hell."

Jesus, Whose very Name means "Salvation," taunted death and the grave, asking where their victory was. In the future, He boasts that He makes ALL things new. Much later, He turns the perfected Kingdom over to His Father.

If anyone is still dead and/or in "hell" at that point, then death has not been defeated, Jesus' taunt is hollow, His boast is a lie and the Kingdom is NOT perfected.

What's not to like?

First, avoiding outside sources. While superficially this may seem like a good idea, outside commentaries and extra Biblical material provide the most direct way to recover the historical contexts. Without examining outside sources rather than generating an understanding that is sensitive to the context of the text modern presuppositions will dominate and the interpretations will be anachronistic.

Second, your claims about translation over theology are dubiouos(at best). Unless you have the language sophistication to recognize the grammatical and contextual features and create your own translation, relying on the translations of others is necessarily going to introduce theological baggage as to some extent translation and theology are interrelated. Additionally, the specific word "hell" is immaterial to the notion of ECT since the concepts associated with the word are independent of the word chosen.

Finally, your claim about "Godfire" is a half-truth. The righteous are compared to silver, but the wicked are compared to stubble. The fire itself is God's holiness, certainly, but as I mentioned earlier the same fire that melts the butter hardens the egg.

 

[ozso]

No, that's really kind of backwards. The Universalist seeks verses that can be made to fit a Universalist theology, even if it requires plucking those verses completely out of context and attempting to pound round pegs into square holes. As we saw with 1 Corinthians 15:22, the Universalist posits that the biblical author suddenly had a moment of "Universalist inspiration" in the middle of discussing something else.

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:12-19

 

[Der Alte]

I'm questioning the idea of enemies of God being unswayable or being unswayable unless coerced. The Bible does say every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. The argument seems to be regarding what the circumstances are involving that confession. It's seems the idea is that it will be a genuine confession from those who had already been saved during their earthly lifetime, but a disingenuous confession from those who hadn't. But if so, why would they make a disingenuous confession? And how could a disingenuous confession be to the glory of God the Father? I'm honestly trying to see how that's supposed to work.

Nonsense! Can you cite 1 vs., 2 or more would be better, when God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, says specifically of these enemies/foes under the feet of Jesus that "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord?"
I don't mean cobble 2-3 verses together to make them say something close.

1) Matthew 22:44
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
2) Mark 12:36
36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
3) Luke 20:43
43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
4)Acts 2:34-35
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
5) Hebrews 1:13
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
6) Hebrews 10:12-13
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.​

This must be important, it is repeated 6 times.

 

[Fervent]

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:12-19

This is probably the strongest passage to try to lay universalism on, but there are several reasons it doesn't follow. The first is that it cannot be assumed that Paul is using many and all interchangeably, that there is no deliberate reason he switches between the two. Paul, as a writer, is exceedingly meticulous in his word choices and expresses a great deal of subtle nuance within his letters which is why he can be so easily misunderstood. So v 15, while certainly opening the possibility of universalism if we assume it is an idiomatic usage that does not necessarily follow. In fact, as far as I know there are no unambiguous examples of Paul(or any other Biblical author) using such an idiom nor is there a widespread practice of it within literature in Koine Greek. So then that leaves v 18, which certainly is problematic considering the Augustinian developments in theology regarding the manner in which Adam's fall brought condemnation through direct imputation of guilt. Yet this theological understanding does not necessarily follow from Paul's writings, and if we consider the fall in the manner it is often presented in Eastern theology there is nothing objectionable to the idea that condemnation through introducing the curse of death and justification through providing the required sacrifice are parallel and equally universal. That is to say, our death is not solely on Adam's sin but it is our participation in Adam's sin that leaves us condemned, so to life is not immediate upon justification but it is our participation in Christ's justification that gives us life. The one doctrine that is clearly demolished through this verse is limited atonement, but an automatic salvation only follows under a handful of atonement theories, the most direct of which I assume both you and I are opposed to(penal sub).

 

[ozso]

This is probably the strongest passage to try to lay universalism on, but there are several reasons it doesn't follow. The first is that it cannot be assumed that Paul is using many and all interchangeably, that there is no deliberate reason he switches between the two. Paul, as a writer, is exceedingly meticulous in his word choices and expresses a great deal of subtle nuance within his letters which is why he can be so easily misunderstood. So v 15, while certainly opening the possibility of universalism if we assume it is an idiomatic usage that does not necessarily follow. In fact, as far as I know there are no unambiguous examples of Paul(or any other Biblical author) using such an idiom nor is there a widespread practice of it within literature in Koine Greek. So then that leaves v 18, which certainly is problematic considering the Augustinian developments in theology regarding the manner in which Adam's fall brought condemnation through direct imputation of guilt. Yet this theological understanding does not necessarily follow from Paul's writings, and if we consider the fall in the manner it is often presented in Eastern theology there is nothing objectionable to the idea that condemnation through introducing the curse of death and justification through providing the required sacrifice are parallel and equally universal. That is to say, our death is not solely on Adam's sin but it is our participation in Adam's sin that leaves us condemned, so to life is not immediate upon justification but it is our participation in Christ's justification that gives us life. The one doctrine that is clearly demolished through this verse is limited atonement, but an automatic salvation only follows under a handful of atonement theories, the most direct of which I assume both you and I are opposed to(penal sub).

It doesn't prove universalism. But that along with other passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 and...

That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Timothy 4:10

Plus others, I think puts it within the realm of consideration.

 

[Der Alte]

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:12-19

Bravo, bravo! Scripture twisting at its very finest.
Paul used the word " πολλοι/polloi"/"many," 71 times.
Paul used the word "πας/pas"/"all," 375 times
When Paul wanted to say “all” he used "pas," not "polloi"/”many.”
Paul used “oi polloi”/”the many” 12 times where it clearly does not mean "all."
Romans 12:5, Romans 15:22-23, Romans 16:2,1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 10:33, 2 Corinthians 2:17, 2 Corinthians 8:15, Ephesians 2:4, Colossians 4:13, 1 Timothy 3:13
In one verse 1 Cor 10:33 Paul used “the many,” once, and “all,” twice, in the same verse.

1 Corinthians 10:33
33 Even as I please all [παντα] men in all [πασιν] things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of [the] many [των πολλων], that they may be saved.​

Paul certainly did not please every person alive during his lifetime.
Paul certainly did not please all men in literally all things.

 

[Lazarus Short]

First, avoiding outside sources. While superficially this may seem like a good idea, outside commentaries and extra Biblical material provide the most direct way to recover the historical contexts. Without examining outside sources rather than generating an understanding that is sensitive to the context of the text modern presuppositions will dominate and the interpretations will be anachronistic.

Second, your claims about translation over theology are dubiouos(at best). Unless you have the language sophistication to recognize the grammatical and contextual features and create your own translation, relying on the translations of others is necessarily going to introduce theological baggage as to some extent translation and theology are interrelated. Additionally, the specific word "hell" is immaterial to the notion of ECT since the concepts associated with the word are independent of the word chosen.

Finally, your claim about "Godfire" is a half-truth. The righteous are compared to silver, but the wicked are compared to stubble. The fire itself is God's holiness, certainly, but as I mentioned earlier the same fire that melts the butter hardens the egg.

First paragraph - you could be correct, but I did not want to be unduly influenced by the opinions of others.

Second paragraph - I'll keep to my position of translation first - and only then, the theology...but the translation must be honest.

Third, did you do the long, tedious word study that I did on "fire," "burning" and similar words? If not, you are not yet ready to have an informed opinion. The word study did wonders for my understanding of God and His ways.

 

[Fervent]

First paragraph - you could be correct, but I did not want to be unduly influenced by the opinions of others.

Second paragraph - I'll keep to my position of translation first - and only then, the theology...but the translation must be honest.

Third, did you do the long, tedious word study that I did on "fire," "burning" and similar words? If not, you are not yet ready to have an informed opinion. The word study did wonders for my understanding of God and His ways.

First, understandably but avoiding external information actually increases the risk of falling victim to an unconscious bias and read the text according to modern theological understandings rather than the historical understanding.

Second, I'm not criticizing seeking to limit the influence of theology on translation. I am questioning your language knowledge to sufficiently perform the task. How did you identify when it was theology driving a translation? What was the standard used? Do you have a working understanding of alphabet, grammar, and semantic mappings within the original languages? What's your translation background?

Third, do you have any training on conducting language studies? Do you have lexicon access, sophistication in the languages, language comparison access? Do you know how to avoid falling into common lexical fallacies? Given the fact that you don't seem to understand that word studies are specific to the instance that they are found in and not general to a word, I assume all of those questions are no.

 

[Der Alte]

First, understandably but avoiding external information actually increases the risk of falling victim to an unconscious bias and read the text according to modern theological understandings rather than the historical understanding.
Second, I'm not criticizing seeking to limit the influence of theology on translation. I am questioning your language knowledge to sufficiently perform the task. How did you identify when it was theology driving a translation? What was the standard used? Do you have a working understanding of alphabet, grammar, and semantic mappings within the original languages? What's your translation background?
Third, do you have any training on conducting language studies? Do you have lexicon access, sophistication in the languages, language comparison access? Do you know how to avoid falling into common lexical fallacies? Given the fact that you don't seem to understand that word studies are specific to the instance that they are found in and not general to a word, I assume all of those questions are no.

"historical understanding.""limit the influence of theology on translation""language knowledge""the standard used""working understanding of alphabet, grammar, and semantic mappings""original languages""translation background""training on conducting language studies""lexicon access""sophistication in the languages""language comparison access""how to avoid falling into common lexical fallacies."​

I think you lost them back at "historical understanding" They think having a Strong's concordance makes them Greek and Hebrew experts. I quoted the Jewish beliefs from the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1971 Encyclopedia Judaica, and the pre-Christian era Talmud and one of them called it "dismembered disjunctive opinions thinly masquerading as proofs."