WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[Leaf473]

It is basically the same...like noun vs verb, same root. It is always related to the biblical context of the law

It may be the same, or it may have developed a different connotation over time.

Think of the word Sneakers. It's base meaning is the plural of One who sneaks. But as commonly used, it means a kind of shoe.

Is nomia used in the New Testament? Or LXX?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well, an example of a difference would be drinking to excess. It's not prohibited in the law of Moses, but it's an example of being out of control.

Actually it has admonitions against drunkenness in Proverbs. Within Torah, it is looked down on because of its actions. Also Temple Priests are not to drink in excess.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It may be the same, or it may have developed a different connotation over time.

Think of the word Sneakers. It's base meaning is the plural of One who sneaks. But as commonly used, it means a kind of shoe.

Is nomia used in the New Testament? Or LXX?

Biblically it is used in relation to the law. Antinomian is "against law" or lawless. The Septuagint translated "torah" into the Greek word "nomia/nomos". Nomia/nomos was used in Greek culture to mean "an unalterable law". Following this tradition, the Greek NT also used nomia/nomos to signify the torah. Paul uses the term as the Torah laws.

 

[Leaf473]

You do not seem to understand what that means. Being "under the law" means you are under the curse. The consequences of breaking the law. We are not. Yeshua has become a curse for us. The wages of sin is death...that is the curse of the law. It does not mean what you think it means.

Pardon my jumping in here again, but I disagree.

Paul says in Galatians that Jesus was born under the law. He was born obligated to perform the law, he was not born under the consequences of breaking it.

Also, in Galatia, there were people who wanted to be under the law. But no one except an insane person would want to be under the consequences of breaking the law. The people troubling the Galatians were wrong, but they weren't insane. Crazy people are easily dismissed.

 

[Leaf473]

Actually it has admonitions against drunkenness in Proverbs.

Well, Proverbs wouldn't be the law of Moses.

Within Torah, it is looked down on because of its actions. Also Temple Priests are not to drink in excess.

Possibly looked down on, but not prohibited.

That's based on my search for the word Drunk here:

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Drunk

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Pardon my jumping in here again, but I disagree.

Paul says in Galatians that Jesus was born under the law. He was born obligated to perform the law, he was not born under the consequences of breaking it.

Also, in Galatia, there were people who wanted to be under the law. But no one except an insane person would want to be under the consequences of breaking the law. The people troubling the Galatians were wrong, but they weren't insane. Crazy people are easily dismissed.

He was born as we were, He was tempted as we are, yet He sinned not. law vs consequences. He did not sin so death could not hold Him.

 

[Leaf473]

Biblically it is used in relation to the law. Antinomian is "against law" or lawless. The Septuagint translated "torah" into the Greek word "nomia/nomos". Nomia/nomos was used in Greek culture to mean "an unalterable law". Following this tradition, the Greek NT also used nomia/nomos to signify the torah.

How did you learn this? Were you able to find occurrences of nomia?

I haven't found a good way to search for Greek words in the NT. Because Greek uses declensions, the standard "string search" method won't work.

What I usually do is find an occurrence, and then use Biblehub's interlinear page to find the Strong's number for it.

Like this

1 John 3:4 Interlinear: Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,

But it requires finding at least one instance of it. If you know of a better way, I'm interested ❤️

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well, Proverbs wouldn't be the law of Moses.

Possibly looked down on, but not prohibited.

That's based on my search for the word Drunk here:

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: Drunk

www.biblegateway.com

It promoted sin...mostly sexual sin in TaNaK

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

How did you learn this? Were you able to find occurrences of nomia?

I haven't found a good way to search for Greek words in the NT. Because Greek uses declensions, the standard "string search" method won't work.

What I usually do is find an occurrence, and then use Biblehub's interlinear page to find the Strong's number for it.

Like this

1 John 3:4 Interlinear: Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,

But it requires finding at least one instance of it. If you know of a better way, I'm interested ❤️

I know it. I guess you could look up what Paul uses in the Greek for "law" in the LXX or some NT translations?

 

[Leaf473]

EDIT! GOT TO FIX THIS POST

Final edit: I think I cleaned it back up

He was born as we were, He was tempted as we are, yet He sinned not. law vs consequences. He did not sin so death could not hold Him.

Edit after the final edit : it should say, "Yes, he was born under the law."

Yet, he was born under the law.

Jesus wasn't born under the consequences of breaking the law, rather, he was born obligated to keep it.

I conclude from this that Under the law means obligated to do the physical actions required by the law.

 

[Leaf473]

It promoted sin...mostly sexual sin in TaNaK

Cool! Then an example of something that wouldn't be breaking the law of Moses, but would be being out of control.

 

[Leaf473]

I know it. I guess you could look up what Paul uses in the Greek for "law" in the LXX or some NT translations?

Well, I'm asking how you came to the knowledge that nomia means the same as nomos, and that it would always refer to the law of Moses in the New Testament. Also, I'm pretty sure nomos, nomos, and anomia would all be nouns, so it wouldn't really be a noun / verb thing.

Yes, nomos occurs loads of times in the NT. It usually refers to the law of Moses. But that's still a long ways from connecting anomia with breaking the law of Moses.

Here's an interesting example of a place where nomos doesn't mean the law of Moses:
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Isn’t it written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods?’

 

[expos4ever]

I think it is important that readers notice when substance on a given topic is posted as compared to side notes to distract.

The "substance" you post is cherry-picked selected subset of all translations, intended to mislead readers. It may be "distracting" for you to be called on this, but I call it responsible debate - you should not be misleading readers in this way.

And the point of the thread is not "but when 40 translations agree rather than 15 translations -- then suppose there is a difference between lawlessness and transgression of the law" . No such rule exists in all of literature --- and I think we all know it.

You are trying to sew confusion to mask these stark, simple, and indisputable facts:

1. Most translations, including the highly respected NASB, have something like "sin is lawlessness"
2. Lawlessness is a general term - it has no specificity to any particular law. One can be lawless even if the Law of Moses has been set aside.

These are facts. Your response in this post is to appeal to vague "rules of literature" - what does this even mean?

A grade school student will know that "lawlessness" is a general concept with no necessary connection to any particular law. As long as there is some law in place, one can be lawless. This is, of course, a brute fact.

But you will have none of it.

 

[DamianWarS]

Paul says "Honor your father and mother is the first commandment with a promise" in Eph 6:2 -- that comes straight from the Law of Moses Ex 20:12 and the unit of LAW in which it is found as "the first commandment with a promise" is the TEN at Sinai.

1 Cor 7:19 is a mirror of Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 and they should share the same meaning. it would be irresponsible not to consider these verses when determining the meaning of Paul's use of "commandment" since the word can be unclear what it points to if left undefined. This is why Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 are important to the text as it becomes bound with these verses and can help us determine a more clear definition.

Eph 6:2 could be used to argue "commandments" of 7:19 means "10 commandments" or we can just do a word search and compare all of Paul's meanings of commandments and pick out the ones we like best but doing so would have to ignore the stronger comparison of Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 especially when left uncommented. when we look at the goal of Eph 6 it's not to signal out the 10 commandments it's about love and obedience. When we turn it into a different goal then it's just manipulating the text. Certainly, verses like these can be used to build a case but alone it's not enough especially when Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 steer us in a different direction.

textual criticism is not about superimposing a pre-defined path and then finding what fits that path. 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, and Gal 6:15 are talking about the same thing and it's something we should pay attention to when determining it's meaning.

 

[Leaf473]

Biblically it is used in relation to the law. Antinomian is "against law" or lawless. The Septuagint translated "torah" into the Greek word "nomia/nomos". Nomia/nomos was used in Greek culture to mean "an unalterable law". Following this tradition, the Greek NT also used nomia/nomos to signify the torah. Paul uses the term as the Torah laws.

(I don't know if I replied to this yet or not. I had a bit of a snafu with my browser )

Well, nomia doesn't actually occur in the New Testament, it's looking like.

Would nomia mean the same thing as nomos? Possibly.

I'm not disputing that anomia could mean breaking the law of Moses. I'm just saying it doesn't have to mean that.

An example of where nomos is probably used to mean something more like principle:
Romans 3:27
Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.

 

[expos4ever]

I am happy with the dozen or so translations that make it very clear to the reader that "sin IS transgression of the Law" - and "no" I don't think they do that because the Greek scholars that did the translation don't know Greek.

Another of your falsehoods - I never posted anything that implied that the Greek scholars who translated as "sin is transgression of the Law" don't know Greek.

You may be "happy" with accepting the view of the minority. But you have no right to try to trick readers into believing that this view is the dominant view. And you did precisely that when you posted your initial list.

Again, based on Biblegateway at least, the majority of translations do not have specificity to the Law of Moses. And that includes the highly respected NASB.

 

[expos4ever]

Released usually means released from its consequences. No penalty.

How do know this - this is just a bald, unsupported claim. I suggest it is obvious that if the government said "you have all been released from the law against speeding, people would believe they are no longer under obligation to follow it.

I suggest it will be clear to neutral readers that you are, without any supporting argument, imposing a significant external restriction to the concept of "being released from a law"

Maybe you have a different definition of sin or what it means biblically??

I agree with Paul here:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth [m]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Even without this text, which makes it clear that sin is an issue apart from the Law of Moses, it is really rather otherwise obvious that sin exists in the absence of the Law of Moses. Every non-Jew who has ever drawn breath is not under the jurisdiction of the Law of Moses. It seems to me that your position on this would lead to a conclusion that none of them are sinners since, if I understand you correctly, sin only exists in relation to the Law of Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

Indeed -- and apparently you posted them. The problem is there is no such thing as 15 Bible translations are not enough

This is, frankly, ridiculous.

Are you seriously expecting readers to believe that just because 15 translations align with your view, this trumps the fact that more than 15 others, including the very accurate NASB, do not?!

AND you also have the problem that in the context of the "Commandments of God" that we see in 1 John 2 and in 1 John 5 - you are stuck with "Sin is translation of the LAW" being a reference to "The Commandments of God" as John reminds the reader in 1 John 5:3.

Obvious circular reasoning - you cannot simply assume that the "commandments of God" = the Law of Moses. That is the very thing we are debating! Is God not free to give us commandments over and above those in the Law of Moses?

 

[expos4ever]

Since Jesus was sinless, He never broke God's laws. Hence, He could not have broken the Sabbath. 1 Peter 2:22

Scripture states that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully, as God intended it to be kept. In doing so, He set us an example. "He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked" 1 John 2:6.

Scripture never states that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully - you are making an inference.

In any event, your reasoning is flawed as it fails to account for the fact that, as God, Jesus has the authority to set aside the Law of Moses. Since I believe you cannot possibly dispute this, you are forced to accept the proposition that if Jesus, as God, retires the Law of Moses, then He (Jesus) can work all He wants on the Sabbath and not be sinning!

You guys surely must know this, and yet you continue to trot out this obviously oversimplified analysis that misrepresents me (and others) as embracing the view that Jesus sinned. We are not forced into that view for precisely the reasons I have posted here and otherwise posted more times than I can are to remember.

Perhaps I bear some of the responsibility however for my repeated use of the phrase "Jesus broke the Law". What I am really saying is this: Jesus engaged in behaviours, and made statements, that appeared to break the Law but were really symbolic actions heralding the imminent end of the Law.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

EDIT! GOT TO FIX THIS POST

Final edit: I think I cleaned it back up

Yet, he was born under the law.

Jesus wasn't born under the consequences of breaking the law, rather, he was born obligated to keep it.

I conclude from this that Under the law means obligated to do the physical actions required by the law.

Of course He was a Jew. It says "to redeem those under the law"...why would He need to redeem them if it means what you say it means? Redemption from the curse...death.