Bible Translation

[tdrew777]

Let me declare relevant doctrine that I believe. Jesus is the eternal Son of God and God is the eternal Father. The Father/Son relationship is not a product of the incarnation. "Son" and "Messiah" are not equivalents. When Adam and Cain became father and son, they reflected a relationship already existing from eternity in the Godhead, though Messiah had not yet been born. The Father begets the Son - this action "begets" is not exclusively in the past, present nor future - it is in the eternal. The Nicene Creed does not reflect western cultural corruption of the original gospel, as some have affirmed.


"Social" kinship translations are the opposed to "biological", "filial" or "begetting" translations of kinship terms. No one, therefore, claims that they want to drop "Father" and "Son" from the bible. "Social" translations would include them …. but using culturally sensitive "social terms" ….. or using terms that reflect the aspect of sonship emphasized by the text in question. We believe that this is a hermeneutic error in that the whole of scripture reveals the eternally begotten sonship of Jesus Christ. Translators have moved out of their role when they include less than the full filial meaning of the term, "Son" or "Father" anywhere in scripture. The Father "begets" the Son; this relationship must be preserved across scripture. "Beloved" for "Son" and "Provider" for "father" do not preserve the "begetting" relationship.

 

[Tintin]

So, you're saying Jesus didn't exist before he came to Earth in human form? If so, that's not biblical.

 

[tdrew777]

????? The bible teaches Jesus existed from eternity and that the action of the Father begetting the Son happened outside of time, in eternity. He was born as Messiah in a moment in time. The point is where the bible says "Son" you can not translate "Messiah".

 

[crossnote]

So, you're saying Jesus didn't exist before he came to Earth in human form? If so, that's not biblical.

I think he is saying that the Son (2nd person) is eternal/eternally begotten. Jesus the God/man was not eternally a God/man but took on our humanity in time and space.
What I can't grasp (but don't deny) is how the Eternal Father begets from eternity the Eternal Son...i.e. always eternal/always begotten...I'm getting a headache.

 

[tdrew777]

Didn't mean to take us off the deep end. This thread is helping me to see that what I thought was simple was very complicated. I will be much more careful of what I say in the future as a result. Thank you!! Now, about that deep end...

What happens in time happens sequentially in linear fashion (that is why we have "time LINES" for historical events). Though there are indications that eternity has sequence, there is no evidence that eternal sequencing is linear. What happens in eternity can not be expressed with a past tense alone, nor present tense alone, nor future tense alone - it is not linear. That is part of the meaning of God revealing Himself as, "I AM", Jesus saying, "before Abraham was born, I AM" etc. Another example of an action in eternity is that the Father sends the Son. The Son, therefore, is revealed to us from our perspective as "Him who was and is and is to come"

What I am getting from this thread is that I need to express my viewpoint of the current bible translation controversy in a way that DOES NOT lead to a discussion of temporal vs. eternal sequencing. Thank you.

 

[crossnote]

I think rather it is a matter of when you bring Jesus into the equation you are now dealing with both time and eternity due to the Incarnation and not just eternity.