Where is this scripture? And I don't mean from NT.

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟132,416.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
"The Peshitta is the official Bible of the Church of the East. The name Peshitta in Aramaic means "Straight", in other words, the original and pure New Testament. The Peshitta is the only authentic and pure text which contains the books in the New Testament that were written in Aramaic, the Language of Mshikha (the Messiah) and His Disciples. ... Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament

In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:"

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

You've likely already checked out this Peshitta site and read its Aramaic/English interlinear (literal) translation at: Peshitta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament of Yukhanan 7:36-39 which reads as follows ...

36 you are able not <you> am I and where you will find me of the feast the last which is great and now on the day
37 to come thirsts a man if and said and he cried out Yeshua was standing as in me who believes anyone
38 and drink to me let him come his belly from will flow living of water rivers the scriptures have said were that they about the Spirit concerning he said and this
39 given yet for not in him who believed those to receive Yeshua was glorified yet not because the Spirit was were saying his words who heard the crowds from and many (36-39 literal Peshitta translation)
The Aramaic Bible in Plain English (ABPE) reads as follows ...

37 But at the great day, which is the last of the feast, Yeshua stood and he proclaimed and said: "If a man is thirsty, let him come to me and drink."
38 "Everyone who trusts in me, just as the scriptures have said, rivers of living water shall flow from within him."
39 But this he spoke about The Spirit, Whom those who were trusting in him were being prepared to receive; for The Spirit had not yet been given, because Yeshua had not yet been glorified.
These verses in bold red (my doing) can be interpreted as Heber suggests as referring to Yeshua, with verse 39 being interpreted in light of John 14:12 ...

"Timeless truth, I tell you: 'whoever believes in me, those works which I have done he will also do, and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to the presence of my Father.' " (ABPE)

Yuhhanan 14:11-12 (Peshitta)
11 these works does say truly truly
12 believe the works because of even otherwise in me do that <I> these works in me believes that whoever to you I will do because <I> will do these then and more will do he also I will do in my name and ask and whatever

I have neither suggested, nor agreed, such a translation
 
Upvote 0

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟132,416.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
View attachment 222107
MOD HAT ON
Some disruptive posts have been removed from this thread.
However, this question was asked, and I thought it helpful to answer:

"Could you please clarify the Mod's warning with respect to whether or not this MJ forum: Is a Christian forum or Not a Christian forum ... תודה (Thanks!)"

From the point of view of CF, in order to have the faith identity "Messianic," you must be able to affirm the Statement of Faith (the Nicene Creed). That puts all Messianic members of CF within the ambit of Christian orthodoxy, whether you choose to identify primarily as Jewish or Christian.

All posts within this MJ forum are expected to be in line with that Statement of Faith.

MOD HAT OFF

With respect, our official SOP states that 'Messianic Judaism is a Judaism', can someone confirm which carries precedence?
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What I have posted is my understanding, and what I have seen used as the rule when moderating this forum; but I will ask our policy manager to confirm with me, and if she tells me any different, I will correct my post.
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have neither suggested, nor agreed, such a translation
Agree, but posted it (Peshitta) out of respect for Lulav's inquiry. It's very possible that Lulav, SteveCaruso (myself and others) also question the following as unprovable hearsay ...

"the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."
The previous (Peshitta) wasn't the translation to which i previously referred as bolstering your belief that his in verse 38 refers to Messiah Yeshua Himself and not a Believer. My comment at the very bottom of that previous post that said, "Will post tomorrow" is no longer found. It's possible that whoever removed it believes "his" refers to a believer and not Messiah Yeshua. The translation i was referring to that supports your belief is the Lexham English Bible.

John 7:38-39 (LEB)
38 the one who believes in me(a). Just as the scripture said, ‘Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water.’”(b)
39 Now he said this concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were about to receive. For the Spirit was not yet given(c), because Jesus had not yet been glorified.)

Footnotes:
(a) Or, let him come to Me. And let the one believing in Me drink. Just as the Scripture said, rivers of living water will flow from His (Christ’s) belly.
(b) A quotation from the Old Testament of uncertain origin; texts most often suggested are Isa 44:3; 55:1; 58:11; Zech 14:8
(c) John 7:39 A few manuscripts supply the participle “given” here; while it is unlikely this represents the original reading, many English versions nevertheless supply “given” to avoid the impression that the Spirit did not exist prior to this point​

Probably the greatest strength of the Lexham English Bible is its literal rendering of the original text. The basis of the text of the Lexham English Bible is the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Old Testament and the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. The LEB uses the “formal equivalence” method of translation, resulting in a quite literal rendering. Reviewers have gauged the Lexham English Bible as slightly more literal than the New American Standard.

The Lexham English Bible (LEB) was published by Logos Bible Software in 2012. It is solely electronic and available for free as part of the Logos software package, as a translation option on BibleGateway.com, or as a download in TXT, XML, EPUB, and other formats. The LEB is designed to be used in conjunction with a reader’s favorite version. More than a supplemental study tool, the LEB is a solid translation in itself. ... What is the Lexham English Bible (LEB)?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟132,416.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Agree, but posted it (Peshitta) out of respect for Lulav's inquiry. It's very possible that Lulav, SteveCaruso (myself and others) also question the following as unprovable hearsay ...

"the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."
The previous (Peshitta) wasn't the translation to which i previously referred as bolstering your belief that his in verse 38 refers to Messiah Yeshua Himself and not a Believer. My comment at the very bottom of that previous post that said, "Will post tomorrow" is no longer found. It's possible that whoever removed it believes "his" refers to a believer and not Messiah Yeshua. The translation i was referring to that supports your belief is the Lexham English Bible.

John 7:38-39 (LEB)
38 the one who believes in me(a). Just as the scripture said, ‘Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water.’”(b)
39 Now he said this concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were about to receive. For the Spirit was not yet given(c), because Jesus had not yet been glorified.)

Footnotes:
(a) Or, let him come to Me. And let the one believing in Me drink. Just as the Scripture said, rivers of living water will flow from His (Christ’s) belly.
(b) A quotation from the Old Testament of uncertain origin; texts most often suggested are Isa 44:3; 55:1; 58:11; Zech 14:8
John 7:39 A few manuscripts supply the participle “given” here; while it is unlikely this represents the original reading, many English versions nevertheless supply “given” to avoid the impression that the Spirit did not exist prior to this point​

Probably the greatest strength of the Lexham English Bible is its literal rendering of the original text. The basis of the text of the Lexham English Bible is the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Old Testament and the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament. The LEB uses the “formal equivalence” method of translation, resulting in a quite literal rendering. Reviewers have gauged the Lexham English Bible as slightly more literal than the New American Standard.

The Lexham English Bible (LEB) was published by Logos Bible Software in 2012. It is solely electronic and available for free as part of the Logos software package, as a translation option on BibleGateway.com, or as a download in TXT, XML, EPUB, and other formats. the LEB is designed to be used in conjunction with a reader’s favorite version. More than a supplemental study tool, the Lexham English Bible is a solid translation in itself. ... What is the Lexham English Bible (LEB)?

I repeat - I did not agree on anything relating to an upper or lower case letter 'H'. I declined to answer your many questions on the issue, apart from saying early on that I do not distinguish between upper and lower letters in vs 38. My only real reference to vs 38 was that we all agreed to the basic text, because it was not vs 38 that the rest of us were addressing, it was vs 39.

Please refrain from implying that I did.
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
From the point of view of CF, in order to have the faith identity "Messianic," you must be able to affirm the Statement of Faith (the Nicene Creed). That puts all Messianic members of CF within the ambit of Christian orthodoxy, whether you choose to identify primarily as Jewish or Christian.
All posts within this MJ forum are expected to be in line with that Statement of Faith.
Thank You for your input as that previous warning (rather perplexing), and a few subtle comments over the months/years since the New SOP seemed to imply that CF does recognize Messianic Judaism as a form of Christianity.

That might explain why its become more frequent of late (since the New SOP) that someone displaying a "Christian" faith icon will occasionally post in a MJ Only thread. Some here may interpret that a
MJ Only thread should be interpreted as meaning "Messianic Jew Only"

Again, thanks in advance for any further clarification of CFs belief that the intent of this Messianic Judaism forum is possibly NOT a form of Orthodox Christianity as expressed in the Nicene Creed written in Nicea (325) and at the second ecumenical council in Constantinople (381).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That might explain why its become more frequent of late (since the New SOP) that someone displaying a "Christian" faith icon will occasionally post in a MJ Only thread. Some here may interpret that a MJ Only thread should be interpreted as meaning "Messianic Jew Only"

Some of our members will choose a "Christian" faith icon, while belonging to a specific group; someone with a Christian icon who practices MJ would be eligible to be considered a member of this forum. They should indicate that in the sign-up thread for this forum.

If you think someone shouldn't be posting in a particular thread, then do report them and we will look into it.
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
I repeat - I did not agree on anything relating to an upper or lower case letter 'H'. I declined to answer your many questions on the issue, apart from saying early on that I do not distinguish between upper and lower letters in vs 38. My only real reference to vs 38 was that we all agreed to the basic text, because it was not vs 38 that the rest of us were addressing, it was vs 39.

Please refrain from implying that I did.
Vis' thread discussion is about verses 37-39 of John chapter 7 (primarily 38-39). Yes, verse 38, was also being discussed in this thread because there isn't a consensus among translators as to the correct interpretation of verse 38, or whether it might apply to both Messiah Yeshua as well as born again Believers with the abiding presence of His Spirit pouring forth. So, it really isn't necessary for you to berate someone who may not agree with your interpretation, but is open to the possibility that your interpretation may be the better choice.

Lulav was also interested in the interpretation of verse 38 and 39 as was Visionary and other MJs. As we know there are translations that differ from the Lexham English Bible's footnote interpretation (see #85) that supports the belief that "his belly" refers to Messiah Yeshua and not believers (them). One notable translation exception (favoring believers (them) being the popular NIV used by many Christians ...

John 7:38 (NIV)
Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[a]
Footnotes:
[a]
John 7:38 Or me. And let anyone drink 38 who believes in me.” As Scripture has said, “Out of him (or them) will flow rivers of living water.”
My previous LEB post was intended to add support to your ("we") interpretation as many Christians and perhaps some MJs prefer the NIV to the NASB or KJV (IMO, big mistake). So, yes both verses are open to interpretation as noted by some translations of verse 39 enclosed in bracketed parenthesis; while others do not bracket verse 39. The Lexham English Bible does support your ("we") belief that "his" in verse 38 does refer to Messiah Yeshua and not a Believer (or possibly both).

However, your continuing disparaging replies to me aren't helpful. You need to come across as more positive when someone is actually coming to your defense with the LEB translation instead of mistakenly thinking i don't find any validity in your interpretation. More than once my posts have suggested that both verses 38-39 are open to interpretation, and as Lulav so rightly says, "I've heard it both ways" certainly applies to verses 38-39 among scholarly translators.
  • The books of the Bible (Genesis to Revelation) are ordained by G-d to be His word to us.(New SOP)
So, when it comes to verse 39, there may be some disagreement as to whether or not verse 39 is ordained by G-d. Daq, HARK! and myself believe verse 39 is ordained by G-d as do other MJs. Hopefully, you too believe verse 39 is ordained by G-d :)

Shalom​
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟132,416.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Vis' thread discussion is about verses 37-39 of John chapter 7 (primarily 38-39). Yes, verse 38, was also being discussed in this thread because there isn't a consensus among translators as to the correct interpretation of verse 38, or whether it might apply to both Messiah Yeshua as well as born again Believers with the abiding presence of His Spirit pouring forth. So, it really isn't necessary for you to berate someone who may not agree with your interpretation, but is open to the possibility that your interpretation may be the better choice.

Lulav was also interested in the interpretation of verse 38 and 39 as was Visionary and other MJs. As we know there are translations that differ from the Lexham English Bible's footnote interpretation (see #85) that supports the belief that "his belly" refers to Messiah Yeshua and not believers (them). One notable translation exception (favoring believers (them) being the popular NIV used by many Christians ...

John 7:38 (NIV)
Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[a]
Footnotes:
[a]
John 7:38 Or me. And let anyone drink 38 who believes in me.” As Scripture has said, “Out of him (or them) will flow rivers of living water.”
My previous post was intended to add support to your ("we") interpretation as many Christians and perhaps some MJs prefer the NIV to the NASB or KJV (big mistake). So, yes both verses are open to interpretation as noted by some translations of verse 39 enclosed in bracketed parenthesis; while others do not bracket verse 39. The Lexham English Bible does support your ("we") belief that "his" in verse 38 does refer to Messiah Yeshua and not a Believer.

However, your subsequent disparaging remarks to me aren't helpful. You need to come across as more positive when someone is actually coming to your defense with the LEB translation instead of mistakenly thinking i don't find any validity in your interpretation. More than once my posts have suggested that verse 39 is open to interpretation, and as Lulav so rightly says, "I've heard it both ways" certainly applies to verses 38-39 among scholarly translators.
  • The books of the Bible (Genesis to Revelation) are ordained by G-d to be His word to us.(New SOP)
So, when it comes to verse 39, there may be some disagreement as to whether or not verse 39 is ordained by G-d. Daq, HARK! and myself believe verse 39 is ordained by G-d as do other MJs. Hopefully, you believe verse 39 is ordained by G-d :)

Shalom​

It is of no consequence to me that some posters want to debate upper and lower case letters (which would not have that distinction in the original texts) - as I kept pointing out to you and which you kept pushing at me, I use neither upper or lower case. The number of times you went back to that, pressing me to say one of the other was slightly annoying because you were arguing about things that were not evident in the original text, which is what I was talking about when I said we all agree on the basic text of v38. - the basic text had no capital letters!, but you still kept on! That should have been done with. We then turned to the elephant in the room: vs 39, as such. You continued trying to box me in on upper and lower case letters for vs 38. I finally said I would be happy to discontinue our conversation, but still you persisted, as you continue to do in your post above this one!!!!

Following Lulav's very insightful document, I re-posted the two key pages relating to vs 39 which says categorically, as I bolded in black, that vs 39 has nothing whatsoever to do with vs 38. It also showed that the best translation was that it (vs38) related to Torah. Some other posters have not accepted that, but will not, or cannot, say which scholars in the document they object to, or which Dead Sea Scroll they object to, and why. As those scholars agree with me - remember here that I did not hunt down that source - I rest my case. If you do not accept their, and my, position, we are at an impasse. If posters will not read the evidence, or ignore it, there is little I can do.

So, to restate: I do not wish to discuss upper and lower case letters as they are irrelevant, not being in the original text. I take the same position as the scholars do that vs 39 has nothing to do with verse 38 and is an addition to the text, though we cannot ignore it, as it is there, but the context in which it is set, has no bearing on it. We do not know who wrote 'John's' gospel - it was determined by tradition, by the Catholic Church, and Irenaeus, in the 2nd century CE; this, too, is well documented.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Simply because verse 39 is NOT there, as we see it, in many MSS, and it is out of context with the texts surrounding it in Ch. 7 & 8
As i've previously indicated not all scholarly theologians would agree with you. Does that mean they are wrong and you are right as to whether or not verse 39 is or is not ordained by G-d. Perhaps you don't believe the context of verse 39 is ordained by G-d.
I still do not understand your His / his comment!
Would today's scholarly theologians spell Holy Spirit as holy spirit ... me thinks not. Some scholarly theologians prefer to capitalize personal pronouns that refer to Yeshua, such as "His" instead of "his" as a way of showing honor to God Incarnate. Another example where capitalization is the preference among many of today's theologians is "I AM" instead of "I am" in John 8:58. See Lulav's Featured thread entitled: How did Abraham see Yeshua/Jesus? on page 4.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. (JUB)
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (NLT)
Yeshua said to them, “Yes, indeed! Before Avraham came into being, I AM! (CJB)​

And so, I reference John 8:58 as an example where capitalization is an important consideration when referring to the physical manifestation of G-d Incarnate as His instead of his.
By the way - the OP specifically excludes the Christian Testament - the question we are meant to be tackling is apart from that Testament. There is another thread that is dealing with the CT version. :)
Vis never specified that we are only to be discussing one NT translation of John 7:38-39. Certainly you aren't suggesting that Lulav's inquiry about the Peshitta (Aramaic translation) wasn't relevant or other translations such as the Lexham English Bible translation published by Logos Bible Software in 2012.

My mention of John 14:12 was in support of verse 39 as being "ordained by G-d" as essential to the intent of the New SOP language. Besides Vis' initial scripture post was from the last portion of verse 37 and all of verse 38 (NOT verse 39). So, this thread got side-tracked in two ways ...

1. IMO, you mistakenly assumed that "we all" agree on the correct interpretation of verse 38 and need not discuss it based on your 40 years of Biblical study. Verse 38 is open to interpretation among theologians as evident by different Bible translations and interpretation. Don't believe it was Vis' original idea to get bogged down arguing about verse 39.
2. IMO, you turned the focus of this thread to verse 39, calling into question that the verse may not be ordained by G-d for what you may believe is its non-inerrancy. Otherwise, why would you question it as misleading as if the Spirit isn't relevant to verse 38 and the life of a born again believer baptized and empowered with the abiding presence of Ruach HaKodesh as living water gushing forth (Spiritually speaking) from one's innermost being.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I take the same position as the scholars do that vs 39 has nothing to do with verse 38 and is an addition to the text, though we cannot ignore it, as it is there, but the context in which it is set, has no bearing on it. We do not know who wrote 'John's' gospel - it was determined by tradition, by the Catholic Church, and Irenaeus, in the 2nd century CE; this, too, is well documented.

So, when it comes to verse 39, there may be some disagreement as to whether or not verse 39 is ordained by G-d. Daq, HARK! and myself believe verse 39 is ordained by G-d as do other MJs. Hopefully, you too believe verse 39 is ordained by G-d

Hi AbbaLove, I do not believe the statement which was made by the author of the article Lulav posted says what Heber is reading into it. The author merely says that v.39 is obviously a later redaction, but in scholarly lingo that simply means that the author of the text, "John", (whoever that may be), redacted it later when it was written, (because it was obviously written at a later date than the events which are being described in the text), and that is already abundantly clear by the nature and context of the statement, which is also why many translations place v.39 in parenthesis, (not [brackets], and that distinction is also important).

If the author of the paper believed that someone else besides the original author had redacted it here then he would no doubt have said so by words to the effect of, "redacted by a later scribe" or "a later scribal addition". Please note also that Heber has now said that v.39 is an addition to the text according to the author of the paper: but the author of the paper does not say that. Heber has done the same with the words of the author of that paper as he did with my words. The author of the paper clearly believes that the author of the Gospel of John is the same author who penned John 7:39. The difference being only that the same author of the gospel account inserted, ("redacted"), the explanation given in v.39 when he wrote the account at a later date. It is only a redaction in the sense that the explanatory words come from the author himself and not from the Master, (v.38), and were added at a later date when the account was penned.

Moreover, when the author of the paper says that v.39 has no immediate bearing on v.38, he simply means that v.39 cannot help us in discovery concerning what is said in v.38, whether it may be a paraphrase from the Tanach, a paraphrase of multiple passages, or possibly a quote from other outside sources, (something to give us a context and therefore a better understanding). The statement in v.39 certainly has bearing and importance, for it is penned by the same author who wrote the entire gospel account: but that point is assumed, and therefore it is highly unlikely that the author of the paper is making the point which Heber himself assumes. Having no immediate bearing is not the same thing as having no bearing at all.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

Hi AbbaLove, I do not believe the statement which was made by the author of the article Lulav posted says what Heber is reading into it. The author merely says that v.39 is obviously a later redaction,
Agree 99.9% with all of your 1st paragraph. :)
See #67 as poster chose not to emphasize in bold the paragraph referring
to the Holy Spirit.
IIf the author of the paper believed that someone else besides the original author had redacted it here then he would no doubt have said so by words to the effect of, "redacted by a later scribe" or "a later scribal addition". ... The author of the paper clearly believes that the author of the Gospel of John is the same author who penned John 7:39.
Agree 99.9% with all of your 2nd paragraph. :)
Please don't assume that i'm just some "Yes" man, but rather that my 70+
years
has awarded you with the Seal of Astute Biblical Interpretation.
Moreover, when the author of the paper says that v.39 has no immediate bearing on v.38, he simply means that v.39 cannot help us in discovery concerning what is said in v.38, whether it may be a paraphrase from the Tanach, a paraphrase of multiple passages, or possibly a quote from other outside sources, (something to give us a context and therefore a better understanding).
Agree 99.9% with all of your 3rd paragraph. :)
So, far so good! Hope you weren't expecting another fencing duel go-around.
However, a little typo duel :oops: with respect to your "parenthesis" observation ..
... which is also why many translations place v.39 in parenthesis, (not [brackets], and that distinction is also important).
It's parentheses (plural) when referring to two parenthesis (excuse my/our typo o_O if that's the case. Some refer to them as round brackets () as opposed to square brackets []. Anyway the reason for saying "bracketed parentheses" was to emphasize that the use of parentheses can have different interpretations (so what else is knew under the sun) ... which is certainly true with verse 39. Whether it should even be bracketed by round parentheses is questionable as verses 37-39 were most likely penned at the same time (as ordained by G-d) :)

What has become as transparent as glass (IMO) is that some theologian translators preference for enclosing verse 39 in parentheses is because they don't believe that the mention of the Holy Spirit is relevant to verse 38. (See #67 where poster chose not to highlight in bold that portion relating to the significance of the Holy Spirit.) One can't help but feel for those that only see the literal and not the deeper Spiritual significance of verse 38 (as brought forth in 39) in scriptures such as: Exodus 17:1-7, Numbers 20:8-13, Ezekiel 47:1-12, and yes also Zechariah 14:8.
 
Upvote 0

Heber Book List

Theologian [Applied Theology]
Jul 1, 2015
2,609
851
Whippingham, Isle of Wight, England
✟132,416.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Agree 99.9% with all of your 1st paragraph. :)
See #67 as poster chose not to emphasize in bold the paragraph referring
to the Holy Spirit.
Agree 99.9% with all of your 2nd paragraph. :)
Please don't assume that i'm just some "Yes" man, but rather that my 70+
years
has awarded you with the Seal of Astute Biblical Interpretation.
Agree 99.9% with all of your 3rd paragraph. :)
So, far so good! Hope you weren't expecting another fencing duel go-around.
However, a little typo duel :oops: with respect to your "parenthesis" observation ..
It's parentheses (plural) when referring to two parenthesis (excuse my/our typo o_O if that's the case. Some refer to them as round brackets () as opposed to square brackets []. Anyway the reason for saying "bracketed parentheses" was to emphasize that the use of parentheses can have different interpretations (so what else is knew under the sun) ... which is certainly true with verse 39. Whether it should even be bracketed by round parentheses is questionable as verses 37-39 were most likely penned at the same time (as ordained by G-d) :)

What has become as transparent as glass (IMO) is that some theologian translators preference for enclosing verse 39 in parentheses is because they don't believe that the mention of the Holy Spirit is relevant to verse 38. (See #67 where poster chose not to highlight in bold that portion relating to the significance of the Holy Spirit.) One can't help but feel for those that only see the literal and not the deeper Spiritual significance of verse 38 (as brought forth in 39) in scriptures such as: Exodus 17:1-7, Numbers 20:8-13, Ezekiel 47:1-12, and yes also Zechariah 14:8.


In the last two paragraphs, you have me confused about what you are saying:

I am pleased that, at long last, in your first sentence of the last paragraph, you have almost got there - just a slight change: it is not that I have a problem with the Holy Spirit being there, if it was meant to be, your 'literal' understanding places the Spirit where it should not be on this occasion - that is all this debate has been about: your literal vs my spiritual.

You corrected 'bracketed parentheses' but those two words, together, would look like this double set of brackets (()) they are not normally used like that - it is usually 'bracketed' or 'parentheses'.

BTW. Knew should be new.

In the section I have highlighted, you complain about a person(s) who can only see the 'literal' and not the deeper spiritual significance. I think you mean that the other way round - you have taken the literal, face value, as you and others have said, and I have taken the deeper spiritual significance ie the Word (Law).
 
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Agree 99.9% with all of your 1st paragraph. :)
See #67 as poster chose not to emphasize in bold the paragraph referring
to the Holy Spirit.
Agree 99.9% with all of your 2nd paragraph. :)
Please don't assume that i'm just some "Yes" man, but rather that my 70+
years
has awarded you with the Seal of Astute Biblical Interpretation.
Agree 99.9% with all of your 3rd paragraph. :)
So, far so good! Hope you weren't expecting another fencing duel go-around.
However, a little typo duel :oops: with respect to your "parenthesis" observation ..
It's parentheses (plural) when referring to two parenthesis (excuse my/our typo o_O if that's the case. Some refer to them as round brackets () as opposed to square brackets []. Anyway the reason for saying "bracketed parentheses" was to emphasize that the use of parentheses can have different interpretations (so what else is knew under the sun) ... which is certainly true with verse 39. Whether it should even be bracketed by round parentheses is questionable as verses 37-39 were most likely penned at the same time (as ordained by G-d) :)

What has become as transparent as glass (IMO) is that some theologian translators preference for enclosing verse 39 in parentheses is because they don't believe that the mention of the Holy Spirit is relevant to verse 38. (See #67 where poster chose not to highlight in bold that portion relating to the significance of the Holy Spirit.) One can't help but feel for those that only see the literal and not the deeper Spiritual significance of verse 38 (as brought forth in 39) in scriptures such as: Exodus 17:1-7, Numbers 20:8-13, Ezekiel 47:1-12, and yes also Zechariah 14:8.

My issue with the word brackets stems from the fact that scholars do indeed place words, phrases, verses, and in some cases whole passages within brackets in the Greek texts. But this is typically only done to show when and where such words, phrases, sentences, verses, or passages do not belong in the text according to their opinions which are derived according to the majority of manuscripts, codices, fragments, and so on, (it is an extremely systematic process).

I will give the first occurrence of a single bracketed word from the Westcott-Hort text as a simple example:

Matthew 1:18 W/H
18 τοῦ δὲ [Ἰησοῦ] Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.

The Westcott-Hort text does not believe that the word Ἰησοῦ belongs in this text so they placed it in square brackets. This is entirely different from saying some English translations place words or sentences in brackets when in fact that may imply that the passage or verse does not belong in the text, and when in fact the person is speaking not about brackets but about parentheses, or curved parenthetical brackets. I understand that this is merely a technicality but not being precise about what we say and what we read leads to error. If one is going to argue that a statement does not belong in a passage because some English translations place the statement in brackets then the same should understand the difference between parenthetical curved brackets and square brackets and how each are used and employed by scholarship: and it is not the way in which it has been portrayed in previous statements made by such a one herein. It is not enough nor is it correct to simply say that some English translations place John 7:39 in brackets because the fact is that some English translations place it in parentheses or parenthetical curved brackets. The two are not the same: and since both are employed with separate meanings concerning the things of which we speak, (scripture), to use the word brackets alone by itself is misleading if the person knows what he is talking about, and at that, in this case it was a biased statement toward the one who said it and is arguing for that very thing: that is, that according to him, John 7:39 does not belong in the text and is supposedly a later addition. Whether it was done intentionally or not is not my point, and I am not making an accusation about it or saying I know either way, but I am simply saying that what was said is incorrect and there are critical reasons why it is erroneous to speak in such terms and not be more precise.

The three following English translations are saying something much different by using square brackets here as opposed to places such as John 7:39 where we often see curved parenthetical brackets:

John 7:53 ASV
53 [And they went every man unto his own house:

John 7:53 ESV
53 [[They went each to his own house,

John 7:53 NET Bible
53 [[And each one departed to his own house.

John 7:53 W/H
53 [[καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ,
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AbbaLove
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

I have no clue where you got your mistaken appearances of what I said. I said no such thing: which is why I responded to you in the way that I did. If you got that out of what I wrote then no wonder you think John 7:39 does not belong in the scripture, (without any real evidence to support your hypothesis).
Yeshua knew better than to first require a theological treatise of the brightest and most influential Pharisees before deciding on His final selection of twelve Disciples.
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
where we often see curved parenthetical brackets:
Like you, i too prefer curves to squares. I'm impressed with your use of the English language (for real) and thought progression in all of your posts. Would appreciate any constructive critique you may offer me.

My only critique is not such long paragraphs (e.g. #95) ... break it up into two or three paragraphs for ease of readability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daq
Upvote 0

daq

Messianic
Jan 26, 2012
4,818
1,001
Devarim 11:21
Visit site
✟109,792.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Like you, i too prefer curves to squares. I'm impressed with your use of the English language (for real) and thought progression in all of your posts. Would appreciate any constructive critique you may offer me.

My only critique is not such long paragraphs (e.g. #95) ... break it up into two or three paragraphs for ease of readability.

Lol, I will try, but I can be just as long-winded as the best of them. :)
 
Upvote 0

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

Moreover, when the author of the paper says that v.39 has no immediate bearing on v.38, he simply means that v.39 cannot help us in discovery concerning what is said in v.38, whether it may be a paraphrase from the Tanach, a paraphrase of multiple passages, or possibly a quote from other outside sources, (something to give us a context and therefore a better understanding).
Any Biblical scholar that has taken it upon himself to redact v. 39 has likely done so believing that v. 38 (Zechariah 14:8) has no relevance to v. 39, and the Holy Spirit. IMO, a monumental error as the implied "living water" of Zechariah 14:8 and Ezekiel 47:1-12 can't be written off as having no known relevance to the Holy Spirit and therefore John 7:39.

The statement in v.39 certainly has bearing and importance, for it is penned by the same author who wrote the entire gospel account: but that point is assumed, and therefore it is highly unlikely that the author of the paper is making the point which Heber himself assumes. Having no immediate bearing is not the same thing as having no bearing at all.
There are Biblical scholars (with 40 years of study) that believe John 7:39 does have an immediate bearing on John 7:38. Those theologians that believe there isn't an immediate bearing would view those [Holy Spirit] scholars as contrarians to what they believe is their more scholarly learning and correct interpretation.

Bottomline: IMO this thread has been hijacked from it's original intent to focus on verse 39 as questionable when it shouldn't be questionable :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AbbaLove

Circumcism Of The Heart
May 16, 2015
2,488
760
✟119,587.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship

MJ is a form of Judaism on CF, not Christianity.
Beth Immanuel is a family-based, Messianic synagogue in Hudson, Wisconsin, committed to following Jesus of Nazareth, trusting in Him for salvation, and teaching Messianic Judaism for all nations. Messianic Judaism is the practice of Judaism in the light and revelation of the New Testament, and, as such, it is the oldest form of Christianity.



 
Upvote 0