DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 486--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 16, 2014, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> I don't give up in my search for the good God, where God
appears to be portrayed as less than good.
--- End Quote ---
I have an explanation that tells me the blind man was foreknown
and elect. He certainly accepted Jesus as Messiah when Jesus
caught him later to talk. That tells me he came when "called."
I see the goodness of God in the whole story using my
explanation; but my explanation doesn't fly with you. So do you
have an explanation?
--- Quote ---
> Back to the topic, please. And don't try to convince me,
Danger Mouse, you won't.
--- End Quote ---
I seldom try to explain myself. People can think what they
want.
So back on topic, can you answer the question posed in the
opening post?
#Post#: 487--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 16, 2014, 8:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Al link ---
>
> As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth.
>
> well let us reason this out :
> ---------------------------------- OK; who is this man ?
>
> answer ; he is all of mankind
>
> he is blind ; he is out of the family of God
--- End Quote ---
It could read this way referring to the past; and when I was
thinking of what you wrote, I began to wonder if it could
also be read as prophecy for the future. That Israel, though
elect in one way and not elect in another, was blinded so that
the Gentiles might be healed?
Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he
seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest
were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of
slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they
should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap,
and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow
down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God
forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the
Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
#Post#: 490--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: December 17, 2014, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is my take on it ... many won't like it, but it works for
me.
I believe that there is some translation problem with that
passage. When translated differently the conflict with the
goodness of God and God making a man blind so His works could be
shown goes away.
The translation issue revolves around the Greek word "hina"
which is usually translated as something like "in order that".
In this passage it is translated "so that" and "but that" in the
NIV and KJV respectively.
The KJV was initially produced before the work of Gustaff Adolf
Deissmann ( wikipedia
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Adolf_Deissmann
) showed
that by and large the Greek used in the NT was Koine Greek in
the late 1890s. So it is likely that some translational
problems exist in versions prior to that.
Anyway, in 2006 Margaret Gavin Sim wrote a paper for her PhD
entitled "A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle 'hina'
in Koine Greek".
Here is the abstract of the paper:
--- Quote ---
>
> This thesis uses insights from a modern theory of
communication, Relevance Theory, to examine the function of
certain particles - in particular the conjunction hina - in
Koine Greek. This particle has been regarded from the time of
Classical Greek as an introducer of purpose clauses and so has
been thought to have the lexical meaning of ‘in order that.’
More recently, however, scholars have recognised that in the New
Testament at least, no more than 60% of the uses of hina merit
such a translation, with a considerable number of independent
clauses being introduced by this particle also. Apart from the
New Testament it is the case that pagan writers of Koine used
this particle to introduce a wider range of clauses than merely
those with a telic relationship to the main clause of the
sentence. This is particularly noticeable in the Discourses of
Epictetus, a philosopher who taught in the latter half of the
first century of the Christian era. In addition, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, a notable critic of literary style and the
historian Polybius, both writing within the Koine period used
hina to introduce indirect commands and noun clauses as well as
purpose clauses. The frequency of such uses (approximately 10%
of all the instances of this particle) in their writings is
considerably less than that of Epictetus, but those uses are
nevertheless present in their works. Since iota-nu-alpha was
used for this wider range of clauses by pagan, non-Jewish
authors, some of whom spoke Greek as their first language, it
seems extremely implausible to attribute such use to the
incompetence of the implied authors of the New Testament, or
‘Semitic interference’. Since the many instances of non-telic
hina in the New Testament are identified with reference to the
context in which they occur, the telic instances should also be
deduced from such context. I claim that the function of this
particle is not to introduce a purpose clause nor does it have a
fixed lexical meaning of ‘in order that’, but rather that it
alerts the reader to expect an interpretation of the thought of
the speaker or implied author. Of course in many instances a
clause introduced by hina will be a purpose clause, but this is
inferred from context rather than solely from the presence of
this particle. This thesis proposes a unified account of the
function of hina which fits the developing pattern of the
language and relates it to the particle o(/ti, and provides a
theoretical basis for its use as an indicator of speaker or
subject’s thought, thus enabling a reader to re-examine biblical
texts whose interpretation has been problematic to date.
>
--- End Quote ---
Here is a link to the abstract and the paper:
HTML https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1395
Its heavy going and represents 4 years work in 400 pages.
Here's something she says about John 9: 3
--- Quote ---
> It is my hypothesis that in this example a barely questioned
but inadequate
> grammatical analysis, based largely on Classical Greek, has
shaped our theological
> interpretation.
--- End Quote ---
Sim suggests that a better translation of the verse would be
"neither this man sinned, nor his parents, nevertheless the
works of God will be displayed in him".
Which removes the blame from God for the man's blindness
allowing us to have an uncluttered vision of our good God.
He really is good! All the time!
Kind regards,
Mike HM
#Post#: 491--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: A nonny mouse
Date: December 17, 2014, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> Here is my take on it ... many won't like it, but it works for
me.
>
> I believe that there is some translation problem with that
passage. When translated differently the conflict with the
goodness of God and God making a man blind so His works could be
shown goes away.
>
> The translation issue revolves around the Greek word "hina"
which is usually translated as something like "in order that".
In this passage it is translated "so that" and "but that" in the
NIV and KJV respectively.
>
> The KJV was initially produced before the work of Gustaff
Adolf Deissmann ( wikipedia
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Adolf_Deissmann
) showed
that by and large the Greek used in the NT was Koine Greek in
the late 1890s. So it is likely that some translational
problems exist in versions prior to that.
>
> Anyway, in 2006 Margaret Gavin Sim wrote a paper for her PhD
entitled "A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle 'hina'
in Koine Greek".
>
> Here is the abstract of the paper:
>
> Here is a link to the abstract and the paper:
HTML https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1395
>
> Its heavy going and represents 4 years work in 400 pages.
>
> Here's something she says about John 9: 3
>
> Sim suggests that a better translation of the verse would be
"neither this man sinned, nor his parents, nevertheless the
works of God will be displayed in him".
>
> Which removes the blame from God for the man's blindness
allowing us to have an uncluttered vision of our good God.
>
> He really is good! All the time!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mike HM
>
--- End Quote ---
I reckon that a 'spirit led' perception of God (Christ within)
beats stuff written 2000+ years ago in languages from which we
are so far removed as to result more in prejudice than accuracy
of translation.
#Post#: 493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: December 17, 2014, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes Mike,
but for those of us who are Bible-believing Christians who's
"spirit led perception" of a passage suggests that the passage
is wrong, it is good to see a rational explanation for why the
text seems at odds with the Spirit.
As more work is done in translation of the ancient words, the
closer we get to what the original writers were actually saying.
And those guys are worth listening to - them being so close to
the people and the happenings at the time.
Kind regards,
Mike HM
#Post#: 494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Deborah
Date: December 17, 2014, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> (Heretic Mouse)
> Anyway, in 2006 Margaret Gavin Sim wrote a paper for her PhD
entitled "A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle 'hina'
in Koine Greek".
--- End Quote ---
I looked up 'hina' in my Greek grammar book.
With far less effort than Ms Sim, it simply points out that
'hina' has a wide flexibility of meaning. Sometimes it denotes
intention, sometimes not.
Which means that how we interpret John 9:3 will be determined by
our underlying theology.
--- Quote ---
> (Danger Mouse)
> I am confident that God did not afflict this man with
blindness just so Jesus could show off and look good.
--- End Quote ---
I agree. But this I don't understand:
--- Quote ---
> There are some people who are born with defects in order to
absorb them and bear them, lightening the load of the world.
They are elect and agreed to it.
--- End Quote ---
When did they 'agree to it'? Were they pre-existent?
What causes a disability such as congenital blindness? There
could be several 'correct' answers, depending on how you look at
it, and they are not mutually exclusive.
1) Like all forms of suffering and disease, it's a random
consequence of Adam's sin.
2) There might be a 'scientific' explanation, such as a genetic
fault, or an infection during the mother's pregnancy.
3) God might have 'caused' it to happen to a particular person,
for His own reasons.
Personally, rather than say that God causes personal suffering,
I would say that He allows it to happen. Because He can then
"work for our good" (Romans 8:28)in and through that situation.
#Post#: 498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: HappyHeretic
Date: December 17, 2014, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Deborah link ---
>
> I looked up 'hina' in my Greek grammar book.
> With far less effort than Ms Sim, it simply points out that
'hina' has a wide flexibility of meaning. Sometimes it denotes
intention, sometimes not.
>
> Which means that how we interpret John 9:3 will be determined
by our underlying theology.
>
--- End Quote ---
Was your Greek grammar book Koine Greek or classical Greek? It
makes a difference here.
I think that what Ms Sim suggests makes understanding the
account less about our underlying theology and more about what
Jesus actually said and meant.
--- Quote ---
>
> What causes a disability such as congenital blindness? There
could be several 'correct' answers, depending on how you look at
it, and they are not mutually exclusive.
> 1) Like all forms of suffering and disease, it's a random
consequence of Adam's sin.
> 2) There might be a 'scientific' explanation, such as a
genetic fault, or an infection during the mother's pregnancy.
> 3) God might have 'caused' it to happen to a particular
person, for His own reasons.
>
> Personally, rather than say that God causes personal
suffering, I would say that He allows it to happen. Because He
can then "work for our good" (Romans 8:28)in and through that
situation.
>
--- End Quote ---
I accept 1 and 2 and reject 3. I don't think God causes people
to be sick*. This story is often used to justify that
position, but, if Ms Sim is right, and it seems right to me,
this passage can no longer be used to support that.
The Romans 8:28 principle works with all of your 3 options.
There is a 4th and 5th option, maybe:
4) It is a result of personal sin. (though I'm struggling to
come up with a good example)(Maybe Miriam's skin complaint is a
good Bible example of this)
5) It is a result of bad lifestyle (diabetes being a clear
example of this in many, not all cases).
Whatever we believe about such things, it has to be compatible
with God's love and goodness. He is love and He never stops
being good.
Regards,
Mike HM
* there are some exceptions to this in the Bible, but with
specific significance - John Bapt's dad being made dumb as an
example. I'm not sure we can get a general principle out of
such a specific situation. Though I may be wrong.
#Post#: 501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Deborah
Date: December 17, 2014, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> Was your Greek grammar book Koine Greek or classical Greek?
It makes a difference here.
--- End Quote ---
New Testament Greek - so I guess that would be Koine
--- Quote ---
> I accept 1 and 2 and reject 3. I don't think God causes
people to be sick*. This story is often used to justify that
position, but, if Ms Sim is right, and it seems right to me,
this passage can no longer be used to support that.
>
> The Romans 8:28 principle works with all of your 3 options.
>
> There is a 4th and 5th option, maybe:
>
> 4) It is a result of personal sin. (though I'm struggling to
come up with a good example)(Maybe Miriam's skin complaint is a
good Bible example of this)
> 5) It is a result of bad lifestyle (diabetes being a clear
example of this in many, not all cases).
>
> Whatever we believe about such things, it has to be compatible
with God's love and goodness. He is love and He never stops
being good.
>
> * there are some exceptions to this in the Bible, but with
specific significance - John Bapt's dad being made dumb as an
example. I'm not sure we can get a general principle out of
such a specific situation. Though I may be wrong.
>
--- End Quote ---
I wasn't suggesting that any of these options are applicable to
all situations. The only 'general principle' is that there can
be multiple layers of causality.
#Post#: 503--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 17, 2014, 6:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HereticMouse link ---
>
> Here's something she says about John 9: 3
>
> Sim suggests that a better translation of the verse would be
"neither this man sinned, nor his parents, nevertheless the
works of God will be displayed in him".
>
> Which removes the blame from God for the man's blindness
allowing us to have an uncluttered vision of our good God.
--- End Quote ---
She also wrote this on page 102:
The author presents the context as the disciples’ question to
Jesus when they saw a
man who had been blind from birth. They asked whose sin had
caused this man to be
born blind.95 Jesus is presented as rejecting their analysis and
giving, I suggest, a
(prophetic) utterance regarding what was about to happen. The
works of God were
about to be shown because Jesus knew that he could and would
heal this man. If we
insist on a meaning of purpose for the i(/na clause, then we
must provide an elliptical
main clause, from the context, which will allow a logical
relation to operate in the i(/na
clause. We are then still bound into the picture of a God who
causes blindness so that
his works can be shown many years later, assuming a main clause
such as ‘this
happened’.
She still doesn't explain why the man was born blind. She makes
an argument saying it could be interpreted different ways; but
she still dodges explaining why he was born blind.
All Jesus said was the man's blindness was not caused by
himself or his parents. He did not say birth defects were never
caused by the sin of the individual or his parents. He said in
this case, it was not like that.
The explanation should have Jesus response' be some kind of
answer to the question. It should have logic to it. It should
not read like this:
Nurse to doctor: "Was that child born with with a defect because
his mother smoked when she was pregnant?"
Doctor to nurse: "No, nevertheless I will treat him."
--- Quote ---
> I don't think God causes people to be sick*. This story is
often used to justify that position, but, if Ms Sim is right,
and it seems right to me, this passage can no longer be used to
support that.
--- End Quote ---
When the Bible says God did this or that, sometimes it does not
mean He actively does it. Sometimes it means He withdraws His
protection from people and that opens them up to evil.
The disciples probably had this passage in mind when asking
that:
Deuteronomy 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the
fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of
thy sheep.
. . .
22 The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a
fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning,
and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they
shall pursue thee until thou perish.
. . .
32 Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another
people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for
them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine
hand.
. . .
41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy
them; for they shall go into captivity.
Those passages do not mean God wants to do those things or that
He will actively do them Himself. He is still responsible since
He set up the rules that govern the universe. If you jump off a
tall building and die, we could say God killed you since He
designed the law of gravity. His Purpose in making gravity was
benevolent; He didn't make it to kill you.
#Post#: 505--------------------------------------------------
Re: Is this the action of a good being?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: December 17, 2014, 7:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Deborah link ---
>
> I agree. But this I don't understand: When did they 'agree to
it'? Were they pre-existent?
--- End Quote ---
I would say so. Jesus doesn't chide the disciples for asking if
a person's sin could result in his being born with a birth
defect. He just says it wasn't the case here.
The Jews say all Israel, including future generations, took the
vow at Sinai. There were people "in the body" who took it and
there were those who were not in a body. Deuteronomy portrays
it that way.
29:12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy
God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee
this day:
13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself,
and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee,
and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and
to Jacob.
14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;
15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the
Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this
day:
The children born into Israel had taken that vow. That's why
it was binding on them. They weren't obliged to keep the
covenant of Moses just because their ancestors had made a vow.
--- Quote ---
> What causes a disability such as congenital blindness? There
could be several 'correct' answers, depending on how you look at
it, and they are not mutually exclusive.
> 1) Like all forms of suffering and disease, it's a random
consequence of Adam's sin.
> 2) There might be a 'scientific' explanation, such as a
genetic fault, or an infection during the mother's pregnancy.
> 3) God might have 'caused' it to happen to a particular
person, for His own reasons.
>
> Personally, rather than say that God causes personal
suffering, I would say that He allows it to happen. Because He
can then "work for our good" (Romans 8:28)in and through that
situation.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree. In the story of Job, we see God protecting him for a
long time; but when it was time for Job to "see", the hedge came
down. I think Job still had some problems even though his
actions were "perfect."
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page