xXChristPeripheralXx
Well-Known Member
Thought I would expound a little more:
More importantly, the link unveils a valid Contextual interpretation of Rom.11:25, 26 Text. I'm a retired teacher and have promulgated for almost three decades that one must interpret the Scriptures going from the ancient languages forward to the English, eg, like the link partially and validly did. We personally have to do this due to one cannot trust our Christian think-tankers of today, nor their modern Commentaries, nor Church leaders. All accountable need an Interlinear, Lexicon, etc., and an 8 case Koine basic on-line or whatever course.
Most after 1930 or so interpret from the English backwards to the ancient languages throwing in a little Greek or Hebrew in to sweeten the pot.
The link omitted the following example althogh the conclusion was valid for sure: Again it is not necessary to place a period before v.26 (A.V.), a comma will do, ie, again "...shall come in, and thus all Israel will be saved...," contextually, grammatically, and aspectually "That petrifaction in part" has come, etc., (v.25) is only the preliminary statement, the incidental feature of the mystery, to which the main content of the mystery is attached:
"and thus all Israel will be saved." "Thus," outws "in this way," (the link nailed) with petrifaction in part coming to and continuing to remain with Israel until the end of time, "thus all Israel will be saved," all of it from the patriarchs onward until time ends and the work of saving the spriritual Israel is concluded of which the physical Israel was, is, and will be a part of, for those that embraced by faith in the promise to come or for those embracing by faith the promise that came.
Some ascribe a temporal sense of outws. They declare that it means "then"; then after fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in, all Israel shall be saved. Then others regard the adverb as "then" using other passages to support their novelty.
Like outos and all its forms, also the adverb outw is regularly used to refer back to something just stated, "thus," "in this way." Because "thus" refers back, "thus" and "then" are confused in Paul's statement, are still confused although this view has been so adequately refuted.
In v.25 "Israel" is the physical nation; hence it is claimed that in v.26 "all Israel" must have the same meaning. But in 9:7 we read: "all those of Israel (the physcial nation), not these are Israel (the spiritual Israel)." In the same brief sentance "Israel" is used in different senses.
Again, "in part" (v.25) and "all" in v.26 are directly opposed; hence it is claimed that, if the former refes to the nation, then the latter must also do so. The two are opposed in a real opposition as in 9:7, as in 11:7: the petrification "in part" is only physical Israel, the "all" who will be saved the spiritual Israel, which alone God regards as Israel.
Could continue on and on, but only wanted to put in a plug for all to interpret going forward eliminating all human reasoning.
Good job folks,
Humble pie Jack (IICor.4:7)
Isnt English a language?
For example, I have a Bishops Bible that I use, and I have the Greek new testament, as well as a myriad of other very old Bibles..
When I interpret scripture, I notice the Greek is using slightly different words to describe the same context that we get in English..
The scholars didnt "do the best they could", the Greek has been translated independently in english by enough people that have all provided the same context, as well as interpretation..
I think the newer English bibles are the problem personally, I dont use any bibles newer than 1611 for that reason..
Upvote
0