> General Discussions
Did the Father ever have a beginning? Where is the Scriptural proof?
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: TRUTH281 on January 24, 2010, 12:49:20 PM ---I don't doubt that God is immortal today but what veses suggest he has always been this way?
--- End quote ---
What verses suggest He hasn't been this way? Why are you looking to place the onus on members to satisfy your own arguments? If you want to present the argument that God may have been given immortality by something greater or He has not always been, then YOU prove it.
If you don't know or believe that God has always been immortal or that He has always been, FINE. But what is the point of arguing about it?
One day, we will all have our place at the table, in His Kingdom...and we will either already know by that point or can ask Him whatever we want to know at the time.
Marques
G. Driggs:
Here is an email response from Ray.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bible-truths.com/email16.htm
Let me make one more statement with regards to translating Greek words into English words that STILL maintain the statement is the verse as being a true statement. I specifically have reference to verses where God is referred to the "AIONIOS" God. Some insist that this MUST be translated "the ETERNAL God" of "the God of Eternity." Not so. That is unscriptural foolishness. Just because it is a true statement to say "the ETERNAL God" does not mean that that is how it SHOULD be translated, just because the statement is true. When translating this verse properly as "the EONIAN God" the statement is still true (that is, God really IS, the "GOD OF THE EONS--He made the eons and He is "the GOD of the eons"). And so why not translate properly and consistently according to what the Holy Spirit SAID, not what translators say is ALSO A TRUE STATEMENT, by CHANGING and ADDING TO the words inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Suppose that since I live in the South, that I want to translate Matt. 10:42 as follows: "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a GLASS OF ICE COLD TEA only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward."
I could play semantic games and say that in the South it is customary on a hot day to offer a "GLASS OF ICE COLD TEA" rather than "a cup of cold water." After all, the STATEMENT of our Lord's is still TRUE, is it not? Yes, that is correct, it does not change the meaning of the statement IN THIS VERSE. But the fact remains, that the Holy Spirit did NOT inspire the words "glass of ice cold tea!" It is a fallacious translation. It is ADDING TO the word of God. Now it does not apparent harm to call God "the ETERNAL God." That is a TRUE statement, but IT IS ;NOT A TRUE TRANSLATION! And when we make this SAME mistake of translating with reference to punishment for the ages, it becomes NEVER-ENDING, ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, which is a damnable heresy.
God be with you,
Ray
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm
I have argued this point for years. Just because a word translated WRONGLY can still make sense does NOT justify doing so. Perchance someone might wish to translate Mark 9:41 as follows: "For whosoever shall give you a GLASS OF ICE COLD LEMONADE to drink in my name… shall not lose his reward." Does not the verse make equal SENSE as when it is correctly translated "A CUP OF WATER?" Yes it does, but that is NOT what the Holy Spirit inspired to be preserved for us. Hence, "a glass of ice cold lemonade" is wrong, just as translating Rom. 16:26 as "the everlasting God," is wrong. The Holy Spirit inspired the word aionios, which translated to our English equivalent "eonian," and this is how it must be translated if we are to be faithful to God’s Word.
And so I will repeat this most important truth of translating:
"That the adjective is applied to some things which are ‘endless’ [as with ‘God’ in Rom. 16:26] does NOT, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant ‘endless;’ and to introduce this rendering into MANY PASSAGES [some of which we will look at later] WOULD BE UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD." (CAPS are mine).
It is both foolish and unscriptural to insist that any "adjective" applied to God, such as "aionios/eonian," must be of an "eternal" nature, or it cannot be applied to an "eternal God." Here is your whole unscriptural argument: Since aionios/eonian pertains to ages or eons which have a BEGINNING and have an ENDING, it absolutely according to your theories of grammar and your theories of interpretation, can NEVER be applied to God, unless we change the etymology, meaning, and Scriptural usage of this word to a totally DIFFERENT WORD, "eternal."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So based on what Ray has told us, it seems ok to state God is an everlasting or an eternal God, because it is a true statement.
Hope this helps
Peace, G.Driggs
TRUTH281:
Mharrell08 I have no arguement trying to prove God had a beginning I just want to know if the Bible addresses the issue and there are people on BT decades older than I am who may know of some. Some verses yall think prove God has always been just doesn't hold water. I would like to know the truth but what you presented doesn't confirm your belief. To state that all is of God or all things consist through Christ is a present factual condition which doesn't prove God never had a beginning. By this reasoning that's like saying, "God has all wisdom today so he must have always had all wisdom". Ray says do you have a chapter and verse on that. And I say God is immortal today but is there a chapter and verse that says he has always been this way. That doesn't sound like an argument to me.
When I show you your verse doesn't prove your point I'm not arguing.
Truth281
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: TRUTH281 on January 24, 2010, 02:00:44 PM ---Mharrell08 I have no arguement trying to prove God had a beginning I just want to know if the Bible addresses the issue and there are people on BT decades older than I am who may know of some. Some verses yall think prove God has always been just doesn't hold water.
--- End quote ---
Jake, that is your opinion...for many here, the fact that 'All is of God' holds up just fine. Perhaps it is your personal beliefs that don't hold up to water.
--- Quote from: TRUTH281 on January 24, 2010, 02:00:44 PM --- I would like to know the truth but what you presented doesn't confirm your belief. To state that all is of God or all things consist through Christ is a present factual condition which doesn't prove God never had a beginning. By this reasoning that's like saying, "God has all wisdom today so he must have always had all wisdom".
--- End quote ---
And do you have a scripture that states this is ONLY God's present condition? A statement of fact is not a statement of limitation...if you feel otherwise, the responsibility is on you to present your point. The members already have presented theirs.
The scriptures tell us that the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent [John 13:16] and that the one who gives/blesses is greater than the one who receives [Heb 7:7]. If God was given or brought forth in any way, whatever that someone/something is would be greater than Him. And if anything was greater than Him, He would be a liar as He states that ALL IS OF HIM.
--- Quote from: TRUTH281 on January 24, 2010, 02:00:44 PM --- Ray says do you have a chapter and verse on that. And I say God is immortal today but is there a chapter and verse that says he has always been this way. That doesn't sound like an argument to me.
When I show you your verse doesn't prove your point I'm not arguing.
Truth281
--- End quote ---
Do you have a verse on God not always being immortal? Again, why is the onus on others instead of yourself to present your point?
Since you only feel inclined to shoot down others scriptural positions without presenting ANY scriptures of your own, I'm locking this thread for now.
mharrell08:
Email reply from Ray (http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,11344.msg98233.html#new):
Dear Darren: Thank you for your concern over my health (or lack thereof).
Your question may be "short," but it is not specific. I realize how difficult
for most to "pay close attention to all the words."
You ask whether "God our Father" had a beginning? You then suggest that the churches teach that
"God always existed." Which is your question? Did "God the FATHER" have a beginning or did 'GOD"
have a beginning. See the difference? We must make a distinction, as there is a distinction.
The phrase "God the Father" is nowhere found in the O.T. Hebrew Scriptures, only in the N.T. Greek (Ex: John 6:27).
"GOD" (Who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) has always existed and did not have a beginning.
However, God as a "FATHER," did have a beginning. One cannot be a father unless He is a "parent," for that
is one of the main definitions of a "father" in the Greek language. God has conceived a Son, and from that
time He became a FATHER with a Child--the beginning of His FAMILY.
God means "placer or disposer." God is not a "placEE" or a "disposEE." God the PlacER was never placED
So: "GOD" as the original supreme Being of the universe did not have a beginning.
But God "THE FATHER" of our Lord Jesus Christ did not become the "FATHER" until He became the Father
and Spiritual Parent of Jesus Christ. Hope this helps clear up your discussion.
God be with you,
Ray
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version