False teaching of Mt.5:28 and how it helped create the monster Ed Gein

[Cuddles333]

The genuine Bible scholars claim that God intentionally used the Koine Greek language by which to log the New Testament. The reason being that He knew that it was going to die in the near future and that the words would all be preserved throughout history unchanged and all people would be able to verify these words and have a sound understanding of His meanings in the teaching. This means that we can bypass the many English translations and go directly to this 'frozen-in-time' language and check the true meaning of each word. We should have done this with Mt.5:28 concerning the mistranslated word to English as lust. The Koine Greek word here is epithumeo and means to desire to own what (and or who) that belongs to someone else, to covet. However, many translators (for some reason) decided to inject false teaching and translated the word in Mt.5:28 as orexis which means: excitement of the mind. This word is only found in Romans 1:27 "...burned in their lust one towards the other" It is gross misconduct for any translator to try to create the impression that this word is found in Mt.5:28. What happens is that Gnosticism is injected into the teaching. That the sexual desire of humanity is a sin. That we must become so Spiritually elevated as to become immune to this desire. This is what the 1st and 2nd century Gnostics taught and it tends to create human monsters like Ed Gein.







http://www.wisconsinsickness.com/ed-gein/

 

[juvenissun]

The genuine Bible scholars claim that God intentionally used the Koine Greek language by which to log the New Testament. The reason being that He knew that it was going to die in the near future and that the words would all be preserved throughout history unchanged and all people would be able to verify these words and have a sound understanding of His meanings in the teaching. This means that we can bypass the many English translations and go directly to this 'frozen-in-time' language and check the true meaning of each word. We should have done this with Mt.5:28 concerning the mistranslated word to English as lust. The Koine Greek word here is epithumeo and means to desire to own what (and or who) that belongs to someone else, to covet. However, many translators (for some reason) decided to inject false teaching and translated the word in Mt.5:28 as orexis which means: excitement of the mind. This word is only found in Romans 1:27 "...burned in their lust one towards the other" It is gross misconduct for any translator to try to create the impression that this word is found in Mt.5:28. What happens is that Gnosticism is injected into the teaching. That the sexual desire of humanity is a sin. That we must become so Spiritually elevated as to become immune to this desire. This is what the 1st and 2nd century Gnostics taught and it tends to create human monsters like Ed Gei
http://www.wisconsinsickness.com/ed-gein/

It needs to be more specific. The sexual desire toward one, other than your spouse, is sin.

I either interpretation, there is no doubt that we are sinners.

 

[Greg J.]

The genuine Bible scholars claim that God intentionally used the Koine Greek language by which to log the New Testament. The reason being that He knew that it was going to die in the near future and that the words would all be preserved throughout history unchanged and all people would be able to verify these words and have a sound understanding of His meanings in the teaching.

Where is it that God gave that explanation?

This means that we can bypass the many English translations and go directly to this 'frozen-in-time' language and check the true meaning of each word.

Only if the person is an expert in the language and culture.

We should have done this with Mt.5:28 concerning the mistranslated word to English as lust. ... It is gross misconduct for any translator to try to create the impression that this word is found in Mt.5:28.

Every translation committee is trying to translate with specific goals in mind. One must know the translational goals for a Bible to understand the kinds of deviation from the literal text that were allowed. If one has studied enough, then he may have a logical basis for a criticism, but he should remember that his opinion on a single point is contrary to the choice that multiple experts agreed upon.

Having said that, a language expert (who must also be a culture expert), armed with the knowledge of the goal of the translation, can still find all kinds of things to criticize in a translation. However, one doesn't have to have much basis to be critical, while the ones who must make the decision are juggling multiple criteria they must satisfy. Regardless, any linguist would have discovered long ago that there is no way to make a perfect translation of non-trivial text into another language. Most concepts that were conveyed in Koine Greek do not even exist in English exactly as they did in the Greek. On top of that, English is an ever-changing language whose words are only precisely defined through having a variety of experiences with them (which are unique to every person). It is appropriate to approach something that took tens of thousands of man-hours to create with a gracious attitude, humility, and thankfulness. Are you loving Ed Gein as Jesus commanded?

It needs to be more specific. The sexual desire toward one, other than your spouse, is sin.

Having a libido is not a sin. What matters is what is done with it. Does a person eject sinful thoughts or dwell on them? It's a decision a person must make, although other people can't tell what the person chose. If one is prone to lusting after certain kinds of people, and spots a sexy person, does he look away, not look back, and not think about the person? Lust is a condition of a person's heart, which can be expressed in many ways, or not at all. Having lust in one's heart toward one's spouse is a sin. The lust is in the heart and is not dependent on what is being looked at. Everyone's heart is tainted with sin, e.g. lust (which we cannot control) but Christians have received forgiveness for that from God (and sanctification moves us in the direction of purity). However, while God has forgiven us all our sin and sins, he still holds us accountable for our choices, words, and actions (for loss, rebuke, encouragement, and reward).

(Edited)

 

[juvenissun]

A sinful heart is enough to condemn someone on the last day, but it is only a person's actions that affect a person's relationship with God (Romans 5:13).

Are you saying that having lust is my sin, but if I don't act it out, then it (the sin) does NOT affect my relationship with God?

No, no. It DOES.

 

[Greg J.]

That's what I'm saying, however, I think we understand "act it out" differently. The problem is when one believes their lust is wrong and accepts it rather than fights it. Acceptance (or choosing not to reject it) can simply be in your heart. It doesn't need to be something visible to others.

 

[Fizzywig]

The genuine Bible scholars claim that God intentionally used the Koine Greek language by which to log the New Testament. The reason being that He knew that it was going to die in the near future and that the words would all be preserved throughout history unchanged and all people would be able to verify these words and have a sound understanding of His meanings in the teaching. This means that we can bypass the many English translations and go directly to this 'frozen-in-time' language and check the true meaning of each word.

I have no idea just who Ed Gein is or what mischief he may or may not have been up to, but to address the above. It does not follow that a text preserved in a now dead language, frozen in time, leads to understanding the true meaning of the words found in that text. The Theravada Buddhist Scriptures are written in Pali, a dead language. The Mahayana Buddhist Scriptures are written predominately in Sanskrit, a dead language. Yet the scholarship that has been done, and is now being done, demonstrates just how difficult it is to determine the exact meaning (even meanings) of any word used in the text. Our knowledge of the culture extant at the time, our knowledge of other texts, our understanding of the entire text (and thus the full context of any single particular word) will all effect our understanding of the meaning intended within the Scripture itself. And such things are not static - our knowledge of the ancient world grows.

A particular case in point is that of the Theravada Buddhist Nanamoli who translated many Pali Scriptures into English. His declared intent was:- one Pali word would equal one English word, and this would be used throughout. Eventually he had to admit defeat and abandon the attempt, simply because the context where the single Pali word was used changed within different texts.

Obviously, in Buddhism the text is not considered inerrant or as having been written by God. However, there remains the Living Word, which IS inspired, and there is the word as text. Reality is far too fluid to be caught by words. OUR context -which we bring to the words - is all important.

 

[Greg J.]

Due to juvenissun's comment, and my subsequent examination of what I wrote, I re-edited the end of my original post to be a little better. I don't like leaving things in existence (that I am responsible for) that cause people to think anything incorrectly about God. This includes erroneous, ambiguous, and confusing statements.

(I don't think juvenissun's followup objection needs any editing, since he quoted what I wrote.)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This is the apologetics forum... I thought we were supposed to argue for or against the existence of God.

 

[Cuddles333]

This is the apologetics forum... I thought we were supposed to argue for or against the existence of God.

What I have posted is an argument for the existence of God. The Koine Greek language became a dead language (frozen-in-time) whereby which we today can go back and check each word against the extant literary work we have of that time and place. It is not that difficult for the layperson. All they need is a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance keyed to both Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament.

There is of course a more accurate N.T. lexicon, but it is not keyed, and the beginner may have some difficulty navigating through it. It would be embarrassing for an Atheist to do our footwork for us during a discussion by showing us how we err on the Koine Greek word in Mt.5:28 . Better to be shown by a believer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What I have posted is an argument for the existence of God. The Koine Greek language became a dead language (frozen-in-time) whereby which we today can go back and check each word against the extant literary work we have of that time and place. It is not that difficult for the layperson. All they need is a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance keyed to both Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament.

There is of course a more accurate N.T. lexicon, but it is not keyed, and the beginner may have some difficulty navigating through it. It would be embarrassing for an Atheist to do our footwork for us during a discussion by showing us how we err on the Koine Greek word in Mt.5:28 . Better to be shown by a believer.

"What I have posted is an argument for the existence of God."

OK, well, I'm an atheist so I assume your argument is directed at someone like me. I apologize but I'm unable to identify the premise upon which your argument hangs. Could you perhaps clarify? I see no connection between the title, the OP, and the idea that you are arguing for the existence of God.

 

[Fizzywig]

What I have posted is an argument for the existence of God. The Koine Greek language became a dead language (frozen-in-time) whereby which we today can go back and check each word against the extant literary work we have of that time and place. It is not that difficult for the layperson. All they need is a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance keyed to both Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament.

There is of course a more accurate N.T. lexicon, but it is not keyed, and the beginner may have some difficulty navigating through it. It would be embarrassing for an Atheist to do our footwork for us during a discussion by showing us how we err on the Koine Greek word in Mt.5:28 . Better to be shown by a believer.

Hi Cuddles, like Nihilist Virus I'm just a little confused by your claim that your OP was an argument for the existence of God. Plus your second paragraph above seems to imply that non-believers should stay away.

While awaiting clarification, I will assume that the argument consists of the fact that the NT is written in a now dead language which was "clever" as it makes the NT easier to understand and that such cleverness indicates One who is clever as the source? I think that my first post here ( Post 6 above ) shows that such an argument is in no way conclusive, and to be honest, virtually no argument at all. Further, as I understand it Biblical Hebrew, in which a lot of the OT was written, is not a dead language - perhaps God as you understand Him learnt from His mistakes?

I really find the whole idea of a God who communicates with us primarily (even solely) via the written word in the Bible totally incoherent. Your own argument above merely makes it apparent, in as much as you claim that "all that is needed" is a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance keyed to both Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament. All? Prior to the mass literacy of the past couple of centuries and then the publication of such works, I assume very few were able to actually know Gods will in all its finer details?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Koine Greek language became a dead language (frozen-in-time) whereby which we today can go back and check each word against the extant literary work we have of that time and place. It is not that difficult for the layperson. All they need is a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance keyed to both Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament.

Ah, so your hope is built on nothing less that Strong's Exhaustive Concordance?

How do you know that Strong's has the definitions right? Wasn't Strong's written by fallible men? If you believe fallible translators sometimes got translations wrong, how is it that one could be absolutely certain that Strong's never made a mistake?

 

[redleghunter]

That's what I'm saying, however, I think we understand "act it out" differently. The problem is when one believes their lust is wrong and accepts it rather than fights it. Acceptance (or choosing not to reject it) can simply be in your heart. It doesn't need to be something visible to others.

Before we make an idol with our hands we make it in our hearts and minds.

 

[Soyeong]

The genuine Bible scholars claim that God intentionally used the Koine Greek language by which to log the New Testament. The reason being that He knew that it was going to die in the near future and that the words would all be preserved throughout history unchanged and all people would be able to verify these words and have a sound understanding of His meanings in the teaching. This means that we can bypass the many English translations and go directly to this 'frozen-in-time' language and check the true meaning of each word. We should have done this with Mt.5:28 concerning the mistranslated word to English as lust. The Koine Greek word here is epithumeo and means to desire to own what (and or who) that belongs to someone else, to covet. However, many translators (for some reason) decided to inject false teaching and translated the word in Mt.5:28 as orexis which means: excitement of the mind. This word is only found in Romans 1:27 "...burned in their lust one towards the other" It is gross misconduct for any translator to try to create the impression that this word is found in Mt.5:28. What happens is that Gnosticism is injected into the teaching. That the sexual desire of humanity is a sin. That we must become so Spiritually elevated as to become immune to this desire. This is what the 1st and 2nd century Gnostics taught and it tends to create human monsters like Ed Gein.







http://www.wisconsinsickness.com/ed-gein/

Matthew 5:28 is the correct application of the 7th and 10th commandments, so while I agree that it is about not coveting your neighbor's wife, it is also about lust because it is committing adultery in your heart.

 

[Cuddles333]

Matthew 5:28 is the correct application of the 7th and 10th commandments, so while I agree that it is about not coveting your neighbor's wife, it is also about lust because it is committing adultery in your heart.

'Lust' as the word is correctly translated from the Koine Greek in Romans 1:27, is not even in the context of Mt.5:28

The context of Mt. 5:28 is the desiring to own what or (who) belongs to someone else in order to show it or (that person off) to the public. Jesus only brought up the capital offense measure (Adultery) to show how seriously God sees this act of the heart. Causing a divorce in order to get some else's wife was a trivial matter for the religious elite of Jesus' time so this was a shock.

 

[Soyeong]

'Lust' as the word is correctly translated from the Koine Greek in Romans 1:27, is not even in the context of Mt.5:28

The context of Mt. 5:28 is the desiring to own what or (who) belongs to someone else in order to show it or (that person off) to the public. Jesus only brought up the capital offense measure (Adultery) to show how seriously God sees this act of the heart. Causing a divorce in order to get some else's wife was a trivial matter for the religious elite of Jesus' time so this was a shock.

There are many different reasons someone could have for desiring to own something that someone else has, so I do not think it necessarily needs to be for the reason to show it or that person off to the public, and I don't think it is farfetched for someone to desire his neighbors wife because they are sexually attracted to her. If Jesus was just saying that breaking the 10th command in regard to your neighbor's wife was capital offense, then he could have said that instead, or he could have picked any other capital offense, but it seems he picked adultery for a reason, so it doesn't fit that he was speaking against that specific practice. Furthermore, Jesus was not make any changes to the law, but was correcting what the teachers of the law had been teaching about the law.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The genuine Bible scholars claim that God intentionally used the Koine Greek language by which to log the New Testament. The reason being that He knew that it was going to die in the near future and that the words would all be preserved throughout history unchanged and all people would be able to verify these words and have a sound understanding of His meanings in the teaching. This means that we can bypass the many English translations and go directly to this 'frozen-in-time' language and check the true meaning of each word. We should have done this with Mt.5:28 concerning the mistranslated word to English as lust. The Koine Greek word here is epithumeo and means to desire to own what (and or who) that belongs to someone else, to covet. However, many translators (for some reason) decided to inject false teaching and translated the word in Mt.5:28 as orexis which means: excitement of the mind. This word is only found in Romans 1:27 "...burned in their lust one towards the other" It is gross misconduct for any translator to try to create the impression that this word is found in Mt.5:28. What happens is that Gnosticism is injected into the teaching. That the sexual desire of humanity is a sin. That we must become so Spiritually elevated as to become immune to this desire. This is what the 1st and 2nd century Gnostics taught and it tends to create human monsters like Ed Gein.







http://www.wisconsinsickness.com/ed-gein/

No, from the context of other biblical verses dealing with sex, we can determine that sexual feelings are not sinful but lust (very strong desire to have sex with a specific person who is not your spouse) IS a sin. I don't see any connection with Ed Gein.

 

[Hawkins]

The significance of Matt 5:28 is that;

1) Mosaic law doesn't represent the whole Law of God. (Lust as a sin is never mentioned in Mosaic Law)
2) This piece of Law might or might not have given to humans as part of the "Law written in our hearts" (that is, our conscience and moral code.)

This signifies that both the LAW set aside for Jews and gentiles might not be the full set of God's Law. They are rather a set of Law which humans on earth (which is deeply influenced by Satan) can achieve.

That is to say, when humans are judged by God's full set of Law, no humans can pass the judgment. We can only be saved by God's Grace granted through His series of covenants. We can rely on an incomplete law set to be saved because God's has fulfilling the Law through Jesus Christ.

 

[miknik5]

The genuine Bible scholars claim that God intentionally used the Koine Greek language by which to log the New Testament. The reason being that He knew that it was going to die in the near future and that the words would all be preserved throughout history unchanged and all people would be able to verify these words and have a sound understanding of His meanings in the teaching. This means that we can bypass the many English translations and go directly to this 'frozen-in-time' language and check the true meaning of each word. We should have done this with Mt.5:28 concerning the mistranslated word to English as lust. The Koine Greek word here is epithumeo and means to desire to own what (and or who) that belongs to someone else, to covet. However, many translators (for some reason) decided to inject false teaching and translated the word in Mt.5:28 as orexis which means: excitement of the mind. This word is only found in Romans 1:27 "...burned in their lust one towards the other" It is gross misconduct for any translator to try to create the impression that this word is found in Mt.5:28. What happens is that Gnosticism is injected into the teaching. That the sexual desire of humanity is a sin. That we must become so Spiritually elevated as to become immune to this desire. This is what the 1st and 2nd century Gnostics taught and it tends to create human monsters like Ed Gein.







http://www.wisconsinsickness.com/ed-gein/

Because what is hidden within the man, his motives and agendas are hidden from GOD?

GOD knows the intents of our heart and our mind.

If our intents are not right and are indeed not good, GOD won't be fooled

Everything hidden will be made known

 

[Soyeong]

The significance of Matt 5:28 is that;

1) Mosaic law doesn't represent the whole Law of God. (Lust as a sin is never mentioned in Mosaic Law)
2) This piece of Law might or might not have given to humans as part of the "Law written in our hearts" (that is, our conscience and moral code.)

This signifies that both the LAW set aside for Jews and gentiles might not be the full set of God's Law. They are rather a set of Law which humans on earth (which is deeply influenced by Satan) can achieve.

That is to say, when humans are judged by God's full set of Law, no humans can pass the judgment. We can only be saved by God's Grace granted through His series of covenants. We can rely on an incomplete law set to be saved because God's has fulfilling the Law through Jesus Christ.

When Jesus said that anyone who looks at woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, he was not sinning by adding or subtracting commands in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, but was simply teaching the correct application of the 7th and 10th Commandments. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws and He has given no law that is not part of the moral code. Jesus fulfilled the law in the same way that Acts 15:18-19 says that Paul fulfilled the gospel, namely that he taught full obedience to it, not that he did away with it. The Mosaic law was never given as something to be obeyed in order to become saved, but rather we should obey it because we have been and are being saved, because God said that it was given for our own good, and because we have faith in God about how we should live (Deuteronomy 6:24, Deuteronomy 10:13). God did not lower His righteous standard so that we could be able to meet it, but rather He sent His Son to set us free from sin so that we would be free to obey His law and meets its righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4).