I guess what I’ve been trying to ask all along is, what then makes it untrue? What context? What passage? What doctrine?
Also, being able to make the correct distinction here means we have understood something correctly in God’s Holy word. That has a world of value, as it adds (reinforces) or takes away (contradicts) from doctrines we hold to be true. This is the very reason God tells us that ALL of scripture is profitable for doctrine.
Also, being able to make the correct distinction here means we have understood something correctly in God’s Holy word. That has a world of value, as it adds (reinforces) or takes away (contradicts) from doctrines we hold to be true. This is the very reason God tells us that ALL of scripture is profitable for doctrine.
Is Schrödingers cat alive or dead? Or, is the cat in an indeterminate state? We can use a convention to assume a default resolved state, or we can acknowledge that both statuses are valid despite being mutually exclusive.
Likewise with scripture. "Blinded by the god of the world" could mean God, it could mean Satan, but it can also mean both at the same time (because the statuses aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, as scripture tells us that God can work through people to perform an action). We have three valid approaches that each are possibly true. In order to make something necessarily untrue, one must demonstrate the necessary truth of a mutually exclusive position. I'm not proposing that the competing positions are necessarily true, only that the position you are championing is itself not necessarily true.
To claim that "god of the world" is necessarily describing God in this case would be like claiming that Schrödinger's cat is necessarily alive. It could be, but it is not necessarily the case. I am proposing that the perspective is possibly untrue because there are other valid, mutually exclusive interpretations that are possibly true.
You are in good form to make your case using passages that indicate that God blinds people, but it is not necessarily the case that the first 2 Cor 4:4 theos is about God in exclusion to Satan (even if we can make a strong case for it).
There are clearly translators that felt that "Satan" or simply leaving it ambiguously as 'lower case g' god was sufficient to the intended message of the passage. This might have to do with considerations for translation methods and conventions used in other passages that talked about lesser 'gods'. And while you may have developed your own convention for translation, both interpretations must be considered.
- 1
- Show all