"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

[Nam]

My apologies, you're right. Also, I think he's a crossdresser, too.

-Nam

[ParkingPlaces]

Well, since the operation, I can't blame Her...

[Nam]

True.


-Nam

[kcrady]

I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

Revelation 13:8 (NIV):

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

If this translation is accurate, it implies that the sacrificial Lamb (presumably Jesus) was in some sense sacrificed prior to creation.  This seems to be a popular view among Evangelical Christians.  In which case, my reference to Jesus as a "sacrificial son," is accurate, since the sacrifice is an eternal part of his nature and/or mission.

Different translations give different results though:

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been [a]written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (New American Standard Bible)

and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered. (New Revised Standard Version)

These attach the clause "from the foundation of the world" to the book, rather than to the Lamb.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (King James Version)

Well, if Elizabethan English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!  Slain from the foundation of the world it is!  But wait, there's more:

And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Young's Literal Translation)

This one could arguably be interpreted either way, depending on whether you think it means "written in the scroll [of the life of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world" or "written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world."

This sort of thing ought to set off alarm warnings in the mind of every "Bible-believing" Christian.  Whether it's Jesus that was slain from the foundation of the world (making his sacrifice an eternal aspect of his nature, hence "sacrificial son"), or the names of the saved being written in the book before the foundation of the world (and thus, no free will)...is kinda important.  The whole premise of a perfect, infallible, all-powerful god who wants to communicate his self-revelation to* us through a book--and that our eternal destiny should depend on our specific understanding of it (i.e., Vile Heretics burn in Hell)--collapses when you run into something like this.  Fortunately, this thread happens to be in the right section of the Forum.  


*Edit: Computer glitch wouldn't let me finish, had to post what I had, then go start a different browser.  Also, some other edits made during proofreading after I finished writing the post.

[J0SH]

"In the beginning was the Bullshit, and the Bullshit was with God, and the Bullshit was God"

[Graybeard]

Revelation 13:8 (NIV): All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

If this translation is accurate, it implies that the sacrificial Lamb (presumably Jesus) was in some sense sacrificed prior to creation.  ...

Different translations give different results though:

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been [a]written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (New American Standard Bible)

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (King James Version)

Well, if Elizabethan English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!  Slain from the foundation of the world it is!  But wait, there's more:

And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Young's Literal Translation)

This one could arguably be interpreted either way, depending on whether you think it means "written in the scroll [of the life of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world" or "written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world."

The problem is that it may be translated any way but it remains an example of prolepsis

The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:

prolepsis, a figure of speech in which something is described prematurely in terms that are not yet applicable: ‘I am dead, Horatio’ (Hamlet 5.2.285).

The dramatic effect of this figure of speech was not lost upon Shakespeare nor those of his contemporaries who were busy writing KJV1611 by translating the Vulgate.

The post-positional adjective emphasises the drama and gravity of what is being said.

The classical example is:  “The robbers befriended the rich man and offered to show him the way to the hotel. He agreed and the robbers and their dead companion walked off into the night.”

The Bible is full of prolepsis, usually in the form of cryptic passages announcing the arrival of the Savior/Second Coming/Paradises/ etc:

1946   W. Manson Jesus, the Messiah 164   Examples of the prolepsis by which the coming of the Son of Man is anticipated in the fortunes of Jesus.

so much so that, as you see, books are written on it.

[Tonus]

If by making them up you imply the same way he made up the laws of the universe, yes. I didn't want to spout this, but I will for the sake of argument, "For the wages of sin is death"(Rom6:23), sin causes death. As a result, death/sacrifice is needed to save us from death. That is why the Jews needed to perform animal sacrifices, to cover their sins. That is also why Jesus came to the earth, to cover all of man's sins, once and for all.

But in Luke 5:20-25, Jesus not only forgives a man his sins by stating it (no blood was spilled) but corroborates his authority to do so by curing the man's paralysis.  No death or sacrifice was required.  Did Jesus lie when he claimed to forgive the man's sins?  Did he sin himself, by not following protocol?  This protocol was so binding that Jesus wound up giving his own life, and when he prayed to his father to ask that he "take this cup" from him (ie, find a way to prevent his torture and death) he was denied.  Is this another instance where we shrug our shoulders, blame "fallibility" and act as if it doesn't matter because his intentions were good?