IF THE LAW OF MOSES WAS SET ASIDE , WHY ROM 13:9?

[LoveGodsWord]

Person can say something again and again, it doesn't mean other people understand what they're saying. A good way to check that out is to ask them to say back to you in their own words what they think you mean.

Well we can take responsibility for our own actions or blame it on others. Most people seem to go for the second option sadly.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I certainly don't see it that way, and no, I wasn't intending to derail your topic.

@SabbathBlessings and I were discussing the Greek word anomía and its use in 1 John 3:4.

I noted that the word "law" does not appear in the verse, though the King James makes it appear as though it does.

@SabbathBlessings and I were discussing the Greek word "anomía" and its use in 1 John 3:4. That's where post #257 comes in.

It's not just the KJV, they all do.

New International Version
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

New Living Translation
Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.

English Standard Version
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

Berean Study Bible
Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness.

Berean Literal Bible
Everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

King James Bible
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

New King James Version
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

New American Standard Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

NASB 1995
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

NASB 1977
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Amplified Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness [ignoring God’s law by action or neglect or by tolerating wrongdoing—being unrestrained by His commands and His will].

Christian Standard Bible
Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.

American Standard Version
Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But whoever commits sin commits evil, for sin is entirely evil.

Contemporary English Version
Everyone who sins breaks God's law, because sin is the same as breaking God's law.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whosoever committeth sin commmitteth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.

Good News Translation
Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.

International Standard Version
Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience.

Literal Standard Version
Everyone who is doing sin, he also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness,

New American Bible
Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.

NET Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.

New Revised Standard Version
Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

New Heart English Bible
Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.

Weymouth New Testament
Every one who is guilty of sin is also guilty of violating Law; for sin is the violation of Law.

World English Bible
Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.

Young's Literal Translation
Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,


lawlessness
ἀνομίαν (anomian)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 458: Lawlessness, iniquity, disobedience, sin. From anomos; illegality, i.e. Violation of law or wickedness.

 

[Leaf473]

Well we can take responsibility for our own actions or blame it on others. Most people opt for the second option sadly.

Again, I agree 100%.

 

[Clare73]

One of the primary definitions of logos is reason in the sense of reasoning, (not a reason but thought, reasoning),

As well as word, speech and matter.

and from that, the reasoning put into (a collection or grouping of) words: that's why it is used in John 1:1 and that's why
Paul calls the Messiah the Power of God and the Wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24.

Actually, it is the foolishness of the gospel message of the cross that is the wisdom of God, and it is the weakness of death on a cross that is the power of God, they both being operative in Jesus make him the Wisdom of God and the Power of God in operation. (1 Corinthians 1:18-19).

Jesus based final judgment on the acceptance or rejection of his words (John 12:48),
for he spoke only the Father's words, (John 12:49),
thereby making him the Incarnate Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14).

 

[Leaf473]

New International Version
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

New Living Translation
Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.

English Standard Version
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

Berean Study Bible
Everyone who practices sin practices lawlessness as well. Indeed, sin is lawlessness.

Berean Literal Bible
Everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

King James Bible
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

New King James Version
Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

New American Standard Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

NASB 1995
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

NASB 1977
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Amplified Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness [ignoring God’s law by action or neglect or by tolerating wrongdoing—being unrestrained by His commands and His will].

Christian Standard Bible
Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.

American Standard Version
Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But whoever commits sin commits evil, for sin is entirely evil.

Contemporary English Version
Everyone who sins breaks God's law, because sin is the same as breaking God's law.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Whosoever committeth sin commmitteth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.

Good News Translation
Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.

International Standard Version
Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience.

Literal Standard Version
Everyone who is doing sin, he also does lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness,

New American Bible
Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.

NET Bible
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.

New Revised Standard Version
Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.

New Heart English Bible
Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.

Weymouth New Testament
Every one who is guilty of sin is also guilty of violating Law; for sin is the violation of Law.

World English Bible
Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.

Young's Literal Translation
Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,


lawlessness
ἀνομίαν (anomian)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 458: Lawlessness, iniquity, disobedience, sin. From anomos; illegality, i.e. Violation of law or wickedness.

Thank you for that, and since we were talking about the Greek text, I'd like to add one more:
Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.

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

 

[daq]

I would suggest arriving at a definition that is acceptable to both.

If such a definition can't be arrived at and unique definitions have to be used, I think it's very important that all parties be aware that unique definitions are being used.

That can help avoid angry exchanges imo.

That has already been done. Why else would I respond to your question the way in which I did? If a word has several different but related meanings and a poster uses that word, and places his or her meaning in brackets, then the poster has made the necessary clarification so that others will hopefully not be confused about the definition or meaning of the word which the poster has used. To insist that the poster does not really mean what he or she says they mean is to lay accusation against that poster. I don't know how this can be made anymore clear.

If the poster has told you what he or she means by the usage of a disputed word, and you do not believe what the poster has stated that he or she meant when using the disputed word, it then becomes personal because you would be laying an accusation against the poster: to put it nicely, disingenuous comes to mind.

 

[pescador]

Romans 13:9, "The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

No problem. If you love your neighbor as yourself (and love God) then you have fulfilled all the requirements of the OT law.

Of course, it is impossible to keep the OT law perfectly by human effort, and if you violate just one of the OT laws, then you are guilty. That is the reason for Christ's sacrifice.

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Corinthians 3:6

 

[Leaf473]

That has already been done. Why else would I respond to your question the way in which I did? If a word has several different but related meanings and a poster uses that word, and places his or her meaning in brackets, then the poster has made the necessary clarification so that others will hopefully not be confused about the definition or meaning of the word which the poster has used. To insist that the poster does not really mean what he or she says they mean is to lay accusation against that poster. I don't know how this can be made anymore clear.

If the poster has told you what he or she means by the usage of a disputed word, and you do not believe what the poster has stated that he or she meant when using the disputed word, it then becomes personal because you would be laying an accusation against the poster: to put it nicely, disingenuous comes to mind.

I wasn't insisting that any poster does not really mean what he or she says they mean.

But other people may not understand that that is what their meaning is.

If that seems to be the case, it's a good idea to explore the issue imo.

One way to do that is to ask the other person what they think you are saying. You're not asking them to agree with you, just to say in their own words what they think you are saying.

 

[expos4ever]

A police car pulls a speeder over and the following conversation ensues:

Officer: I am writing you a ticket - you are demonstrating lawlessness - the maximum speed in this state is 60 and you were doing 80.

Speeder: No, I am not guilty of lawlessness since I define lawlessness as only having meaning in relation to the 10 Commandments. And the 10 Commandments do not proscribe speeding so I cannot be guilty of lawlessness.

Officer: Tell it to the judge.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

A police car pulls a speeder over and the following conversation ensues:

Officer: I am writing you a ticket - you are demonstrating lawlessness - the maximum speed in this state is 60 and you were doing 80.

Speeder: No, I am not guilty of lawlessness since I define lawlessness as only having meaning in relation to the 10 Commandments. And the 10 Commandments do not proscribe speeding so I cannot be guilty of lawlessness.

Officer: Tell it to the judge.

Not relevant to the context of our discussion and application to your teachings of lawlessness (meaning without law or no law) trying to claim that Gods' 10 commandments have been abolished. Your seeking to change the discussion into something that is not being discussed again.

 

[expos4ever]

No dear friend I didn't you are simply trying to make the argument about something I am not talking about. I can understand why. The context of our discussion is to your claims that God's 10 commandments are abolished which is a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law).

Let me ask you this question: Did people sin before the Law of Moses was given?

A simple yes or no is requested.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Let me ask you this question: Did people sin before the Law of Moses was given? A simple yes or no is requested.

What has that got anything to do with a teaching that God's 10 commandments being abolished in the new covenant being a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law) which is not biblical? - Nothing. Nothing at all.

 

[expos4ever]

....your teachings of lawlessness (no law) that God's 10 commandments have been abolished in the new covenant that your unwilling to discuss with me.

Falsehood. I have never embraced lawlessness even remotely. Yes, in your world where you get to redefine the meaning of words, I plead guilty.

 

[expos4ever]

What has that got anything to do with a teaching that God's 10 commandments being abolished in the new covenant being a teaching of lawlessness (without law or no law) which is not biblical?

I knew you would not answer.

And we all know why.

You know that if you answer "yes", that is that people did indeed sin before the giving of the law, you will then have to explain how this is even possible since, according to you, lawlessness is defined Biblically in specific relation to the 10 commandments. Since these did not exist before Moses, your position requires you to affirm there was no sin before Moses.

Since you obviously cannot do that, you dance away from my question.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Falsehood. I have never embraced lawlessness even remotely. Yes, in your world where you get to redefine the meaning of words, I plead guilty.

It is not a falsehood. You do indeed embrace lawlessness (without law). You teach that God's 10 commandments have been abolished in the new covenant. This is a false teaching of lawlessness (meaning without law or no law).

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I knew you would not answer.

And we all know why.

You know that if you answer "yes", that is that people did indeed sin before the giving of the law, you will then have to explain how this is even possible since, according to you, lawlessness is defined Biblically in specific relation to the 10 commandments. Since these did not exist before Moses, your position requires you to affirm there was no sin before Moses.

Since you cannot do that without shooting yourself in the foot, you dance away from my question.

Why would I need to answer something we are not discussing and no one is talking about? Distraction and strawman.

 

[expos4ever]

It is not a falsehood. You do indeed embrace lawlessness (without law). You teach that God's 10 commandments have been abolished in the new covenant. This is a false teaching of lawlessness (meaning without law or no law).

Did people sin before the Law of Moses was given?

 

[expos4ever]

Why would I need to answer something we are not discussing and no one is talking about?

The only conceivable motivation for not answering a clear, meaningful question is that you know you cannot answer it without undermining your entire position on what "lawlessness" means.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Let's stop playing games - everyone know why you are not answering. The only conceivable motivation for not answering a clear, meaningful question is that you know you cannot answer it without undermining your entire position on what "lawlessness" means.

Well I was never playing any games. You are welcome to stop playing games if you want to stop now as you suggest in your post if that is what you were doing. Again why would I need to respond to a question you are asking now that no one is talking about when you do not respond or address any of my posts and scriptures shared with you providing context that disagrees with your posts and teachings while you ignore all the questions I ask of you in my posts? Let's be honest now. You assuming I do not know the answer to your question is an assumption not based on any past fact or experience when in all my past discussions and posts to you responding to your teachings of lawlessness (without law) of God's 10 commandments being abolished in the new covenant have all been addressed with detailed scripture responses providing the context that disagree with your teachings and address and answer all your questions. Instead of addressing the content of my posts and scriptures that provide scripture contexts to your claims that show your teachings are not biblical you make false claims and accusation unsupported by and fact. So please tell me. why should I now stay on the same merry go round and receive more of the same?

Take Care.

 

[expos4ever]

Well I was never playing any games....

Did people sin before the Law of Moses was given?