 |
| 
Jewgrass
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 12/31/2001 8:12 PM (GMT -6) |   | I first heard the term "anthropopathism" when learning about how the writers of the ancient Aramaic translations (targumim) of the Hebrew Bible tended to avoid anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. Anthropomorphisms being figurative descriptions of God with human attributes. For instance, scripture may speak of "the hand of God" but this is interpretted as figurative, not literal. Anthropopathisms are the same thing, except they describe God's emotions. Opposers of the open-view frequently appeal to the idea of anthropopathisms when dealing with difficult texts such as Genesis 6 when God "regrets". I have heard a lecture given by Richard Meyhue on how Greg Boyd, in particular, recognizes anthropomorphisms just like any other theologian, but seems to take anthropopathisms literally when they should be interpretted figuratively. Is this argument an easy way out for the opposers of open-theism? What are the reasons why these passages should or should not be interpretted literally as the open-theists claim? Given some of the ideas from reform theology, if one is to take one emotion of God figuratively, they all should be taken figuratively, leaving us a timeless, unchanging, non-interactive, static, emotionless God... but this cannot be the same God described in the Bible.
--Jewgrass
"If a Calvinist wants to say that man can only choose the lesser of two evils then that is fine. In that case accepting Jesus Christ would be a lesser evil than going to hell." --Laurence Vance | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Triskal
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198
| Posted 12/31/2001 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | So now we're supposed to believe that God doesn't literally love us and care for us? I would have a hard time accepting that view. The reason we label anthropomorphisms as being figurative is that we can't localize God in a physical body. We can't very well say that God has a hand, that would make him limited by space. Jesus was the physical representation of God. However, we did not need Jesus to make God's emotions literal instead of figurative. If you ask me, the idea that God's emotions are figurative is a pretty weak theory.
In His Grip,
Matt
"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28 | | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 1/1/2002 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Triskal, that was a very good response.
Our natural greatness is seen as part of God's image, and that natural greatness has been conferred on us to enable us to achieve our supernatural destiny:to be related to God and to obey him freely.---Diogenes Allen | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 1/1/2002 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Jesus indeed had and HAS a body like ours. When the Bible addresses things that are types it usually qualifies it with terms such as "like", "as" etc.
The reason that they come up with these explainations is to disprove someones objections to their obvious mistakes and problamatic assertions. (I am talking about Calvinists, determinists, or whatever else you want to be called.)\
When you reject their jargon, then that state that you are a stupid, uneducated, boob!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/1/2002 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | From Jewgrass: "Given some of the ideas from reform theology, if one is to take one emotion of God figuratively, they all should be taken figuratively, leaving us a timeless, unchanging, non-interactive, static, emotionless God... but this cannot be the same God described in the Bible."
A basic hermeneutical principle of interpreting Scripture: Read and interpret it (just like you would a letter from a friend, for example) UNLESS you have reason to interpret it differently.
Since we know (in the OT) that God doesn't have hands or wings, etc., one can safely interpret these passages be anthropomoriphic; however, there's little reason to interpret in the same process the emotions God exhibits - there's no Scripture (that I'm aware of) stating God has no emotions, etc.
Unless there's reason to believe that God doesn't get angry, doesn't get hurt, jealous, etc., we would be safer to let God speak for Himself. It would only be our own presupositions that restrain our acceptance of these basis interpretive principles.
Oh, how many pre-conceived ideas we all have that need to be honestly questioned, stared in the face and readily admitted that we must might have read into Scripture more than what is there!
Starkman
Anthropopathism...sheesh, I can hardly pronounce the fool word much less spell it!
Edited by - Starkman on 01/01/2002 12:47:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|