Posts by hamilcarr

122

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday in

lovely lil started a thread that said it had external evidence of jesus' which i think proved rather useless and ultimately ended in debate about god's existence.

she said she wanted to start another thread about proof that god exists so i figured i would.

so this thread would be for actual proof of god.

hamilcarr

I am sorry but I have to stick to scientific principles. One is that the universe had a beginning and therefore must of had a cause. The program I was watching agreed with me. And I am no scientist but it makes sense, since "cause and effect" applies to everything in our universe and is one of the "laws of nature".

I wouldn't try to use scientific principles to explain God's existence. By doing so, you are undermining your own argument that God is 'all about faith', which is the most reasonable principle to stick to from the believer's perspective. So, when you say God is the cause of the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1), God is 'dynamic energy' (rendition of Hebr. 'onim' which lacks any connotation of 'energy'), you try to reinterpret ancient texts with their unsophisticated terminology in light of contemporary scientific insights. If you want to play the 'science card', you have to play it all the way. Thus, by saying God is the cause of the universe, you imply he participates in his own creation, thereby removing the gap between creator and creation. This is quite hazardous from your perspective because it implies God would be bereaved of all properties making him God, for instance perpetuity.

32

Concerning the "born again" thread

by startingover in

jw
friends

potentialjwconvertwife said:.

well, as you know, i never was a dub.

but i am and have been a born again christian for many years.

hamilcarr

In such a context a strong religious commitment is rather the exception than the rule, requiring genuine conviction, and the high level of atheism and agnosticism simply reflects the majority's lack of such conviction in the absence of social constraint. Weren't people expected to declare themselves "believers" in America it would not be so different, I suppose.

I firmly agree with Narkissos. History is a determining factor as to the different development of secularisation in continental Europe when compared to the Anglo-American axis. Besides, most Americans fail to see the difference between American and European 'atheists'. In Belgium a minority of young people still believe in a personal God or cling to any major belief system, but at the same time they never call themselves atheists or even agnostics, neither do they expect everybody around them to deny God's existence. An important fact in the light of this thread is that they don't become unbelievers because of embittered feelings towards any suppressive authoritarian clerical system, they just don't believe, which isn't considered something negative, something you lose. As Narkissos rightly pointed out, there are no strong religious commitments, and I'd like to add there are none on both sides. So from an American perspective it may be attractive to classify countries like France and Belgium under the 'atheist' banner, but to my opinion, there is no strong commitment to atheism as such.

122

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday in

lovely lil started a thread that said it had external evidence of jesus' which i think proved rather useless and ultimately ended in debate about god's existence.

she said she wanted to start another thread about proof that god exists so i figured i would.

so this thread would be for actual proof of god.

hamilcarr

What is the relationship between the creator and its creation --- imo this is one of the great questions at stake? If one asserts that God doesn't need a creator, why would creation need a creator? Why is it impossible to imagine that matter itself is eternal without the need to postulate someone who created it?

4

I Say The Bible Teaches Evolution

by Fadeout in

jw
friends

anytime a jw says that evolution is wrong, i respond, "well obviously it's not totally wrong because if you don't believe in evolution you don't believe in the bible.

that at first glance sounds like some kind of apostate statement, but i'm taking the stance of defending the bible so they don't really get too much of an "apostate" vibe.

it does, however, confuse them, because they have no idea what i'm talking about and all they know is that nothing in the bible supports evolution.

hamilcarr

It's sad too how some men become apes and others don't ... I never understood why ...

39

Is grace enough?

by Kphoto in

hi again, debating again with my favorite jw and the issue of grace became a firestorm.

my contention is that epesians 2:8-9 says it all but i get the arguement that "that's too easy" and shouldn't i have to do something.

my point is if i earn it it's not grace.

hamilcarr

Isaac,

After verse 22, the author of James continues: And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. So, he tries to show the reason why Abraham was 'declared righteous by faith' and why he was even called 'God's Friend'. Not faith itself but the works through which the faith was made perfect enabled him to attain this lofty position in God's face. The author's point appears to be that it's impossible to separate faith and works.

39

Is grace enough?

by Kphoto in

hi again, debating again with my favorite jw and the issue of grace became a firestorm.

my contention is that epesians 2:8-9 says it all but i get the arguement that "that's too easy" and shouldn't i have to do something.

my point is if i earn it it's not grace.

hamilcarr

The point he is making which is clear if you read the entire chapter in its context is this; While righteous works are an outward evidence our our faith in Christ, we are not saved by those works, we are instead saved by our faith alone.

I disagree on this. Two verses before, James says about Abraham: Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? How comes we are not saved by works if these very same works make our faith perfect? Imo, he doesn't claim righteous works are an 'outward evidence' of our faith, but rather the opposite. Besides, the Greek word used for 'declared righteous' is the same in Romans 4:5 and James 2:24, so it's incorrect to assert Paul and James are talking about two different concepts. Salvation, sanctification and justification are inextricably intertwined. Can you show any scriptural evidence for the distinction you're hinting at.

39

Is grace enough?

by Kphoto in

hi again, debating again with my favorite jw and the issue of grace became a firestorm.

my contention is that epesians 2:8-9 says it all but i get the arguement that "that's too easy" and shouldn't i have to do something.

my point is if i earn it it's not grace.

hamilcarr

The problem is that both stands on justification are defensible according to NT theology. In my opinion the Paulinian doctrine as found in his epistles to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians is hard to reconcile with James 2: 14-26 with its emphasis on ethics and 'works'. Luther, for instance, sharply criticized this passage as being diametrically opposed to Romans 4.

8

Dynamic Energy

by hamilcarr in

the hebrew word 'onim' (gen. pl.

of root form 'own') is rendered as 'dynamic energy' in the nwt.

most other translations use words like 'strength', 'might' and 'force', and these are very close to the latin rendering 'fortitudinis'.

hamilcarr

Thanks for your scholarly post Narkissos.

Some questions remain:

1. Why did the Septuagint translators opt for doxa, a term semantically quite distant from the original Hebrew word 'own'? Did there exist any hidden meaning in the term 'own' they didn't want to be said about God?

2. In Job 40, for instance, the Greek word 'dynamis' is used to render Hebr. 'own'. This rendering is pretty close to 1) the original Hebrew word; 2) the NWT translation 'dynamic energy', apart from the obvious observation that 'dynamic' is not a substantive and bears a quite ambiguous meaning in contemporary English.

8

Dynamic Energy

by hamilcarr in

the hebrew word 'onim' (gen. pl.

of root form 'own') is rendered as 'dynamic energy' in the nwt.

most other translations use words like 'strength', 'might' and 'force', and these are very close to the latin rendering 'fortitudinis'.

hamilcarr

A more accurate question would be: can anyone give me a linguistic reason why the NWT renders this word as 'dynamic energy' apart from giving the entire verse a scientific touch? It's not because it may be an odd rendering when compared to other translations that it's necessarily linguistically incorrect. If the scientic touch were the only reason, however, it's a serious translation error.

8

Dynamic Energy

by hamilcarr in

the hebrew word 'onim' (gen. pl.

of root form 'own') is rendered as 'dynamic energy' in the nwt.

most other translations use words like 'strength', 'might' and 'force', and these are very close to the latin rendering 'fortitudinis'.

hamilcarr

The Hebrew word 'onim' (gen. pl. of root form 'own') is rendered as 'dynamic energy' in the NWT.

Most other translations use words like 'strength', 'might' and 'force', and these are very close to the Latin rendering 'fortitudinis'.

Many other contexts in which the word 'own' is used are dealing with men (Jacob, Hos 12:3) and animals (Behemoth, Job 40:16).

Gesenius's lexicon gives two translations for the word: (1) strength, power; (2) substance and wealth. It's remarkable that the word sometimes may be translated as 'reproductive force', which could be the inital meaning of the term.

Does anyone know why the NWT renders this word as 'dynamic energy', which gives the entire verse an incorrect scientific touch?