User talk:Factcheck1776

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

BeDuhn

I have a copy of BeDuhn's book. I haven't read all of it yet, but I can help with any specifics you might need to know. The passages BeDuhn selected were not random. Basically he was looking for passages that can be translated differently regarding the Deity of Christ. I'm Jewish, but I know Greek and the New Testament well enough to evaluate the book. Wallace (and the notes in his New English Translation) can be cited on a number of the selected passages (namely John 1:1). A literal translation of the Greek and word order would be: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the deity, and deity was the word." If translations used "Deity" instead of "God" they would be able to transfer the Greek's use of the definite article here and in other places easily enough. The problem is that Greek uses the definite article differently than we do in English. In any case, both Wallace and BeDuhn agree that the second instance of "deity" should be taken qualitatively. Wallace translates it as "and the Word was fully God" while BeDuhn would prefer "and the Word was Divine." Wallace's is better, but the Revised English Bible is also noteworty: "what God was, the Word was." BeDuhn would translate "a god" in a LOT of places in the New Testament, including places the NWT would never do so (because it is obviously about the Father). Further, BeDuhn argues in favor of a loose polytheistic backdrop for the New Testament -- which would fall in line with Christian claims that the NWT supports polytheism here. I really don't have time to keep fighting this page, and have my own to defend right now -- but if you need some info, let me know.Tim (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. That's good information and I appreciate you taking the time to offer it. And now it's confession time for me. I honestly don't care that much if Jehovah's Witnesses want to use "a god" in John 1:1, and I don't really care if they want to disbelieve in the deity of Christ or the Trinity. My heart is a little heavy that I got involved in this at all because, honestly, the only reason I did is because I occasionally like to debate, and if I'm going to debate, I might as well do it about something more important than football or chess, and I'm pretty fed up (at least for the moment) with political debate.

Over the past few years, and more intensely over the past few weeks, God has been dealing with me very explicitly with regard to love. Jesus said the OT law could really be distilled to 2 things. I'm sure you know what they are, but they always bear repeating: 1. Love God with everything in you; 2. love your neighbor as yourself. When the dust settles, that's what really matters. When this whole show wraps up, I am not going to be a bit surprised to find that people made it to Heaven whose doctrine is what I would consider to be "way off." There's going to be Jews, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Buddhists, and others in Heaven because their hearts were right toward God, they walked in love, and they were obedient to whatever amount of light God gave them. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't believe ALL of those people will make it, or even most. Jesus did say the way to life was narrow and only a few would find it, while the way to destruction is broad and most people would go that way. And I do believe that Christianity (which I view as a spiritual fulfillment of Judaism) is the one true religion. But then, the NT says, "This is true religion: to love orphans and widows and feed the poor." But I also believe that God is more concerned with people's hearts and actions than with the purity of their doctrine. Lots of people, whose doctrine is, in my opinion, "spot on," will nonetheless find themselves on the wrong side of God when the curtain comes down. And by that I mean they'll wind up in Hell, not because they were wrong doctrinally, but because they had no love.

God's been teaching me to love people--all people, Democrats & Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and so on. So I'm actually a little disappointed in myself that I gave in to the temptation to debate. At some point, perhaps soon, I'll excuse myself and leave the page to others who live only for debate.

By the way, I'm not Jewish by faith, but I am by blood... depending on who you ask. My Dad was full-blood Jewish, but I guess some schools of thought only count you as Jewish if it comes through your Mom. I understand their reasoning, but I'm still proud to have Abraham's blood flowing in my veins.

Any chance I can help convert you to becoming a lover of Jesus? :-) --Factcheck1776 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL on the conversion. Actually, I converted in the other direction. I used to be a pastor. I understand how the need to keep the brain active brings us to debates that may be in conflict to the place we want our hearts to be. The NWT wasn't primary for me because the doctrinal issues don't affect me. But I was trying to make all the info boxes on the translations consistent and got dragged into that page for longer than all the other translations I worked on combined! I finally just left it, after clarifying the Christian objections to the translation of John 1:1. And, since I'm interested in translations and translation issues, I bought the BeDuhn book because of the encounter on that page. I think BeDuhn was trying to be sensational, but just ended up being marginal. His market is so tiny that he charges nearly 40 dollars for a tiny paperback! Most of the issues were better solved by Wallace -- without deviating from Christian orthodoxy or suggesting the NT is secretly polytheistic.

Definite thumbs up on the focus on love. It's something we all need to police ourselves on. To take a twist on Paul -- if we have everything, but not love, what use is that to anyone? On the final judgment, I have a feeling that those widows, orphans, sick, poor, and needy will all have their representation in our ultimate verdict.Tim (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that's just too interesting to pass up. So you were a Pastor, and you stopped loving Jesus? That's one I haven't heard before. Well, not exactly that way, anyway. Usually, people who stop loving Jesus go off into something completely different, like New Age or Indian religions. I haven't run into someone who was a Christian and then decided Jesus wasn't the messiah, after all. Do you mind telling me your story?

You'd be surprised how many pastors and ministers there are who convert to Judaism. In one respect we went from following a Jew to being one. Everyone has a unique reason -- some look too close at certain issues. For Asher Wade it was the holocaust. For Mark Sanders it was missionary arguments (he was a missionary in Israel). For David N. Weiss it was just returning to his roots. For me, it was a survey of all the prophecy citations in the New Testament. I wanted to show how Jesus fulfilled them all, and found that a lot of them weren't even prophecies, or weren't about ANY messiah, let alone Jesus. But it wasn't a matter of turning back -- it was a matter of going forward. What was the best way to love God? And, to address the way you phrased your question, I never stopped "loving" Jesus, per se. As a Jew, he (like any Jew) would prefer that God be the object of worship instead of himself, and that we look for life ahead instead of a death in the past. Ironically, moving forward to God because of something he started was far more an honor to him than staying behind to worship him instead.Tim (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting stuff. Obviously, you've thought it through carefully, so I will be careful to tread lightly, lest you think I'm trying to debate with you. I've already admitted to being susceptible to that temptation. But I can't help being curious about the prophecy stuff. Can you give me an example or two of a prophecies that you originally thought were about Jesus and later changed your mind? Psalm 22, maybe?

I believe God has shown me that many prophecies have multiple fulfillments. Some have "then" fulfillments, some have "now" fulfillments, and others have both. Some have physical fulfillments, others have spiritual fulfillments, and others have both. Some refer to the Messiah, some to the nation of Israel, some to the church, and others to some combination of the three. This does make prophecy a little tricky.

For what it's worth, I'm a HUGE supporter of Israel. While I have no delusions about Israelis being other than perfectly normal, imperfect people, I do believe they are God's chosen people, and I think he has enormous plans for their national future. Do you believe their becoming a nation again in 1948 was a fulfillment of prophecy? Dang, I have so many questions.

Hello FC

I have responded to your question on my talk page. I'm just posting here since you asked a couple days ago, I do not want you to think I am ignoring you. My response: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Joel 2:32 commentary): "Whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah, i.e., the believing worshippers of the Lord, will be exempted from the judgment. “Calling upon the name of Jehovah” signifies not only the public worship of God, but inward worship also, in which the confession of the mouth is also an expression of the heart." Duffer (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. --Factcheck1776 (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)