• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

New Heaven and New Earth

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Hervey, Jan 15, 2002.

  1. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    You said > "This leaves only one reason why Paul would quote Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10:6-8: He quotes it to apply the principle described in Deuteronomy 30:11-14 to the righteousness which is of faith in Romans 10:6-8. Thus, Romans 10:6-7 expresses the principle that to possess the righteousness which is of faith is to NOT look for someone else to do what Christ has already done. To look for someone else to do these things is to reject what Christ has already done, thus in a sense to undo His ascension and descent, or “to bring Christ down from above” and “to bring up Christ again from the dead.”

    There are times that I don't think you think through what you are saying !

    You just said, that the way to posses the righteousness which is of faith, is to not look for somone else to these things, is to reject what Christ has already done"

    I understand what your trying to say, but the manner in which you say it is contradictory.

    You are saying to look towards Christ , and not another, for what Christ has already done. But your interjections are what become contradictory.

    The righteousness of faith is not received by "not" looking elsewhere for what Christ has accomplished !

    The righteousness of faith is received, by "believing" , which is "faith".

    You have a correction before any explanation about faith. In fact, you have to go to another verse after verses 6 & 7 to explain yourself as to what faith is.

    Romans 10:6 tells us "what" the righteousness of faith "is". Paul says in verse 8 that what he preaches "is" faith. He just got done teaching what faith "is" in verses 6 & 7.

    A person is walking in the righeousness of faith, on this wise --> Say not in thine heart who ascends or who decends.

    Verse 6 tells us this --- "Speaketh on this wise" --- Then you must ask yourself , what did he speak ? He is explaining , by preaching, the Word of faith.

    The word of faith is "not" to look elsewhere ! That does not teach the Gentiles what to look for ! But Paul "teaches" them to not say in their hearts who ascends or who descends. By not saying in one's heart, then one is walking in the righteousness of faith !

    You want to continue to twist what these verses are actually saying ! These two verses then would also be saying, that if you do say in your hearts , who ascends or who descends , that you would not be walking in the righteousness of faith ! But Paul does use the word "not" in his explanation ! He uses the words "say not" to ephasis what one should do , by not considering these thoughts !

    You are a good one to tell me that the word "wise" does not mean "wisdom". When you are the one that claims, that the Greek word "hades" means hell, which then means the bottomless pit.

    The greek word for this word "wise" is - "houto" - which means "accordingly". Or - "in like manner". This means, according to the manner in which the explanation has been given. It is "wisdom" to receive this account in the manner in which it has been given ! "On this wise" explains the wisdom of the words ! I did not say that the word "wise" was the word wisdom ! I put a parenthises around the word "wisdom" to expess my thoughts about the wisdom of these words .

    Your words are not words of wisdom, because of how they twist everything backwards from their original intent, and do nothing more than cause confusion !

    You said > "

    Those who are saved have the righteousness which is of faith, whereas those who are NOT saved do NOT have the righteousness which is of faith. Therefore, what is described in 10:6-7 is associated with those who are NOT saved, whereas what is described in 10:8-9 is associated with those who are saved.

    All I can say, is wrong again Jim ! Verses 6 & 7 & 8 show us "what" righteousness of faith "is" -- a way in which to apply "believing", which would be -- the righteousnes of faith ! Verses 9 & 10 tells them "how" to get saved.



    I said - then you said >

    Hervey:

    You Jim, are explaining what righteous wisdom - "is not" - thus declaring anyone who does this, is an unbeliever, and not saved.


    Jim:

    No. Romans 10:6-7 describes what the righteousness which is of faith is NOT (“Say NOT …”). Those who say in their hearts the things that the righteousness which is of faith tells us NOT to say, which things are described in 10:6-7, are NOT saved.

    Jim, you just contradicted yourself here !

    Again - Even though it says - "Say not" it is telling them what to "do" , and the righteousness of faith is on "this wise" !

    Love IN Christ - HErvey
     
  2. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    The word of faith is "not" to look elsewhere ! That does not teach the Gentiles what to look for ! But Paul "teaches" them to not say in their hearts who ascends or who descends. By not saying in one's heart, then one is walking in the righteousness of faith !


    Moses (regarding the commandment of God’s covenant of law with Israel):

    For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.


    Paul (quoting the above words of God through Moses to Israel but applying these words to the Gospel):

    But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


    Jim:

    Paul is not teaching the Church either to do or not to do anything here. He is describing the difference between that to which Israel has submitted itself (the righteousness which is of the law – 10:5) and that to which Israel has not submitted itself (the righteousness which is of faith – 10:6-9). He is applying the words of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and the principle expressed in those words to describe in Romans 10:6-9 that to which Israel has not submitted itself. The subject of discussion in Romans 10 is the failure of the majority of Israel to avail itself of the righteousness which is of faith that has been presented to everyone.

    Those who are saved already have the righteousness which is of faith. Therefore, by definition, they do not say in their hearts, “Who shall ascend [for us]?” or, “Who shall descend [for us]?” Only unsaved people say these things in their hearts. Moreover, only unsaved Jews say these things in their hearts, as unsaved Gentiles are not looking for the Messiah.

    I enclosed the phrase “for us” in brackets in the above quotes from Romans 10:6-7 because that is the meaning of those quotes, as they are derived from Deuteronomy 30:11-15, which says, “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us ...?” The question asked in the hearts of unsaved Israel isn’t who goes to heaven or hell but this: Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? and, Who shall descend [for us] into the deep?

    That portion of Israel that has rejected Jesus Christ as their Messiah continues to ask these questions in their hearts, as they have rejected what Messiah has already done for them. Thus, they do not avail themselves of the righteousness which is of faith.

    That portion of Israel that has accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah does not ask such questions in their hearts, as they have accepted what Messiah has already done for them. Instead of asking the questions described in Romans 10:6-7, they do what is described in verses 10:8-9; they confess with their mouths the Lord Jesus and they believe in their hearts that God has raised Him from the dead, as does everyone who possesses the righteousness which is of faith; for “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."

    Paul opens chapter 10 with specific focus on Israel in verses 10:1-3, and he closes this chapter with specific focus on Israel in verses 10:16-21. If Paul were speaking in general terms without continuing to be focused on Israel in verses 10:4-9, he could have skipped verses 10:5-8 and could have simply said, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. … If though shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

    Instead, Paul describes in verses 10:5-8 the difference between the righteousness which is of the law and the righteousness which is of faith, quoting from Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14, which are passages that are addressed exclusively to Israel. Why would Paul quote Old Testament passages that are addressed exclusively to Israel in what he says in Romans 10:5-8 if he were not speaking of Israel? It seems to me that Paul would not have brought Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 into his discussion if the discussion did not continue to focus on Israel.

    A continued focus on Israel in Romans 10:5-9 is consistent with Paul’s decision to bring quotations from Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:11-15 into the discussion, it’s consistent with unbelieving Israel (which has not availed itself of the righteousness which is of faith) continuing to look for another Messiah to do for it what Christ has already accomplished, and it’s consistent with the fact that the subject of discussion in Romans 10 is the failure of the majority of Israel to avail itself of the righteousness which is of faith.

    To say that Paul is teaching Gentiles to do or not to do certain things in Romans 10:6-9 is to take those verses out of context with the Old Testament passage (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) on which they are framed and out of context with the subject of discussion in Romans 10, which is the failure of the majority of Israel to avail itself of the righteousness which is of faith.


    Hervey:

    Jim, you just contradicted yourself here ! Again – Even though it says - "Say not" it is telling them what to "do" , and the righteousness of faith is on "this wise" !


    Jim:

    Romans 10:6-9 first describes what the righteousness which is of faith is not (10:6-7); then it describes what the righteousness which is of faith is (10:8-9). What the righteousness which is of faith is NOT is this: it is NOT to say in one’s heart, Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? or, Who shall descend [for us] into the deep? Those who say such things in their hearts (unbelieving Israel) do not have the righteousness which is of faith. What the righteousness which is of faith IS, is this: it is to confess the Lord Jesus and to believe that God raised Him from the dead. All (the Greek as well as the Jew) who confess the Lord Jesus and believe that God raised Him from the dead have the righteousness which is of faith.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  3. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    You have gone right back to expressing Romans 10:6 & 7 as being addressed unto the Jews ! There is not one thing said in the book of Romans, that is addressed to the unbelieving Jews ! !

    You said >

    Jim:

    Romans 10:6-9 first describes what the righteousness which is of faith is not


    No Jim , it does not ! The words are "Say not " ---- not --- is not

    The words "Say not", is a directive. You have turned this directive around, and are saying that it is telling them what the righteousness which of faith, "is not". How much of the Word of God do you have to destroy, in order to change the wording, to try and make your point ?

    What are you going to do when you come to verse 9 , where it says to confess with thy mouth ? Are you going to tell us what it "is not", or "Say not ?

    Jim , you said >
    Those who are saved already have the righteousness which is of faith.

    Again, I disagree, and the true answer , is right in Romans chapter 10.

    Two places that shows what I am saying -->

    #1 - verse 10 - "For with the heart , man believeth unto righteousness" -- Also take note how one gets saved - "with the mouth, confession is made unto "salvation". By confessing what ? The answer, is what is written in verse 9 ! So what is verse 9 ? = Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God ! Faith comes first ! Then the righteousness follows !

    #2 - verse 17 - "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" --- Hearing with what ? Your ears ? Not really . Hearing by way of your ears, but "with your heart". Faith comes first ! Then the righteousness follows !

    Now you go back to verse 6 and do not twist the words all up, and read them as they are written, and you will have the correct understanding of Paul's preaching , "as" they "hear" in their hearts, what he is "Saying" !

    Verse 6 - "But the righteousness which is of faith is on this wise, Say not in thy heart, who shall ascend, nor who shall descend"

    Romans 10:3 tells us that Israel went about trying to establish their own righteousness, and because of this , are ignorant of God's righteousness. That is exactly what you are trying to do , with verses 6 & 7.

    The reason that these words of Paul's, in verses 6 & 7 are words of righteousness, is because it is God's business as to whom will ascend into heaven, so "Say not" in thine heart , who will ascend up into heaven ! And because it is God's business who will be taken out of the book of life, so "Say not" in thine heart who will descend down to the "deep" (the bottomless pit). <-- These are the words of "wisdom", which are the "righteousness" of God, and we receive these words of wisdom, by "faith".

    Faith comes first ! Then the righteousness follows !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  4. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    The words "Say not", is a directive.


    Jim:

    This is not a directive. It’s an Old Testament quotation.

    Hervey:

    The reason that these words of Paul's, in verses 6 & 7 are words of righteousness, is because it is God's business as to whom will ascend into heaven, so "Say not" in thine heart , who will ascend up into heaven !


    Jim:

    I refer you back to the quotations of Deuteronomy 30:12 and Romans 10:6 above. Your interpretation that Romans 10:6 is a directive regarding judgmentalism is out of context with the meaning of the Old Testament quotation which Paul uses as the framework for what he says. Paul is not speaking with his own words to direct people not to judge who will go to heaven. He is quoting Moses, who is not expressing a directive about judgmentalism. Moses speaks for God to Israel, saying, “[The commandment] is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?” This is not a judgment but a question. The commandment has already been given to Israel. It is not in heaven that Israel should ask the question, Who will go to heaven for us and bring it to us? Paul is quoting these very words of Moses in Romans 10:6, saying, “Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? This is not a judgmental statement but a question that is quoted from Moses. In using the question mark in Romans 10:6, the translators didn’t make a mistake; they correctly understood that Paul was expressing a question as a quotation of Moses.

    Your interpretation of Romans 10:6 erases: (1) the question mark, which correctly identifies the clause as a quoted question instead of an original statement, and (2) the parenthetical statement, which explains the meaning of the quoted question in regard to the Gospel. Thus, your interpretation throws out half of the text and imposes an out-of-context interpretation on what's left.

    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  5. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    You said >Your interpretation of Romans 10:6 erases: (1) the question mark, which correctly identifies the clause as a quoted question instead of an original statement, and (2) the parenthetical statement, which explains the meaning of the quoted question in regard to the Gospel. Thus, your interpretation throws out half of the text and imposes an out-of-context interpretation on what's left.

    You have got to be kidding me Jim ! You are now claiming that my interpretation is throwing out the question mark ? :confused:

    I was wondering how far you would go , in your attempt at these two verses ! ?

    I never questioned the question marks ! Although we do know that they were added by the translators, right ? Even though the question marks can remain as they are. Still, it does not change one thing that I have said !!

    You also said >
    Your interpretation that Romans 10:6 is a directive regarding judgmentalism is out of context with the meaning of the Old Testament

    #1 - Romans 10:6 & 7 is not the OT

    #2 - What I have explained in detail, does, in no way, alter what is said in the OT "unto Israel !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  6. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey (previous post):

    … it is God's business as to whom will ascend into heaven, so "Say not" in thine heart , who will ascend up into heaven!


    Jim (responding post):

    Your interpretation of Romans 10:6 erases … the question mark, which correctly identifies the clause as a quoted question instead of an original statement.


    Hervey (last post):

    I never questioned the question marks !


    Jim:

    Your statement in your previous post quoted above is written in the form of an exclamatory statement with an exclamation point instead of in the form of a question. I was responding to what you wrote. If you meant something other than what you wrote, I was not able to tell.

    What you wrote appeared to me to present Paul’s quotation of Moses’ question as a judgmental statement within the heart regarding who should go to heaven as a reward for righteous conduct.

    Whether your interpretation of Romans 10:6 acknowledges the form of the quotation as a question or not, it still appears to apply to the quotation a meaning that is not consistent with what is clearly expressed in Deuteronomy 30:12, where the question is not who will go to heaven as a reward for righteous conduct, but this: “Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring [the commandment] unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?” This is not a general question about judgment and reward but a question about a select person going up for Israel to heaven in order to bring to Israel what she needs to do God’s will.

    The likeness of such a select person to the Messiah is not lost on Paul, as he chooses this very passage to quote in Romans 10:6 as a reference to the Messiah, where he quotes the question, Who shall ascend [for us] into heaven? In the parenthetical statement that immediately follows, Paul explains that to ask such a question in one’s heart is “to bring Christ down from above,” or to ignore, undo or disbelieve the fact that the Messiah (Christ) has already ascended for Israel into heaven.

    In the next verse, Paul extends this analysis to include the question, Who shall descend [for us] into the deep? In the parenthetical statement that immediately follows, Paul explains that to ask such a question in one’s heart is “to bring up Christ again from the dead,” or to ignore, undo or disbelieve the fact that the Messiah (Christ) has already descended for Israel into the deep.

    You reject this analysis because it equates the “hades” (86, hell) in Acts 2:27-31 with the “abussos” (12, the deep, the bottomless pit) in Romans 10:7 and in Revelation 11:7 and 17:8. Your solution to the conflict between your view and the text is to conclude that the parenthetical statements in Romans 10:6-7 are unintelligible and false and that the person identified by the pronoun “who” in these verses is not the Messiah but people in general.

    This solution takes the quotation in Romans 10:6 completely out of context with the meaning that is so clearly expressed in Deuteronomy 30:12, and it takes a scalpel to the Biblical text to excise those portions of the text that prove to be inconvenient to your view. Thus, this solution does not interpret the Bible; it edits the Bible.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  7. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    There were no punctuation marks in the Greek, and if you want a question mark - (?) , here is one for you. My point Jim , is this. Just because you see a question mark in Deut. does not mean that Romans 10:6 is a question. But if it is a question, it does not make any difference. "Say not in thine heart" -- does not say -- Ask not in thine heart, it says -"Say not - in thine heart" ! Who shall ascend up into heaven ? <-- Is this "look", better to your suiting ? As for me, I prefer the exclamation point ! !

    Deut. was "too" Israel !

    Romans 10:6 - is too the Saints ! Not Israel !

    Jim, you said >

    In the next verse, Paul extends this analysis to include the question, Who shall descend [for us] into the deep? In the parenthetical statement that immediately follows, Paul explains that to ask such a question in one’s heart is “to bring up Christ again from the dead,” or to ignore, undo or disbelieve the fact that the Messiah (Christ) has already descended for Israel into the deep.

    Jim, why can you not see it ? The statement in Romans 10:7 says , not to "say" in your heart "who will decend into the deep" (?) ! ! The parenthetical reverses, what the question is asking ! ! It is a total opposite of the question ! ! <-- This is when you have to give "your" private interpretation of what the words in the parenthetical are saying ! ! "Your interpretation" is not "in" this record "in" the Word of God !!!

    Why have you not figured this out yet ? ? When does anyone have to accept Jim's interpretation, of the parenthetical, in order to understand, what the parenthetical is saying ? ? ? And why are you trying to make Romans 10:6 & 7 be exact , in every way , form and manner, with what it says in Deut. ? Why not just remind the unbelieving Jews, of what Deut. says ? ?

    It is my understanding of the scriptures, and that we can not allow man to introduce any of his own words into the Word of God. And by throwing them out, we do not , in any way, alter that which is written !

    I am throwing out your private interpretation of what is said inside of the parentheticals, as well as the parentheticals themselves ! The reason I can do this , with the utmost respect to God and His Word, is because of careful consideration of all the scriptures concerning this subject, as well as other subjects that hinge upon these , or any statements, in the Word, that coincide with one another.

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  8. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    Just because you see a question mark in Deut. does not mean that Romans 10:6 is a question. But if it is a question, it does not make any difference. "Say not in thine heart" -- does not say -- Ask not in thine heart, it says -"Say not - in thine heart" !


    Jim:

    So then you accept that Romans 10:6 is framed on a quotation from Deuteronomy 30:12, but you don’t accept the meaning of the quotation. Correct?


    Hervey:

    The statement in Romans 10:7 says , not to "say" in your heart "who will decend into the deep" (?) ! ! The parenthetical reverses, what the question is asking ! ! It is a total opposite of the question ! !


    Jim:

    If I were giving you directions for driving to city A, and in those directions I told you that you would come to a fork in the road, and I told you NOT to take the left road because that would take you to city B, would you conclude from this that NOT taking the left road would lead to city B, or would you conclude that taking the left road would lead to city B? You would conclude that taking the left road would lead to city B, wouldn’t you?

    Likewise, NOT SAYING (or asking) in one’s heart, Who will descend (for us) into the deep? is not what brings Christ up again from the dead; rather, SAYING (or asking) in one’s heart, Who will descend (for us) into the deep? is what brings Christ up again from the dead.

    Is being brought up again from the dead the opposite of descending into the deep? Yes. That’s exactly Paul’s point. To ask in one’s heart, Who will descend for us into the deep? as if it hasn’t been done yet, is to bring Christ up again from the dead; that is, it is to ignore, undo or disbelieve the fact that Christ has already descended for Israel (and for everyone) into the deep.

    Thus, what Paul is using a quotation from Deuteronomy 30:11-14 to describe in Romans 10:6-7 is unbelief toward Christ as the Messiah. Verses 10:6-7 describe unbelief toward Christ as the Messiah, and verses 10:8-9 describe belief toward Christ as the Messiah. The righteousness which is of faith says NOT to do what is described in verses 10:6-7, and it says to do what is described in verses 10:8-9. It says not to disbelieve (10:6-7) but to believe (10:8-9).

    Paul is not contrasting being judgmental in 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:8-9. He is contrasting NOT believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:8-9.

    The judgmentalism interpretation of 10:6-7 establishes an illogical comparison with believing in Christ as the Messiah in 10:8-9.

    In order for a comparison to be logical, both sides of the comparison must address the same issue. For example, to say that this car is blue but that car is small is an illogical comparison; however, to say that this car is blue but that car is red is a logical comparison.

    Similarly, to say that Romans 10:6-9 compares being judgmental in verses 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in verses 10:8-9 is illogical; however, to say that it compares NOT believing in Christ as the Messiah in verses 10:6-7 with believing in Christ as the Messiah in verses 10:8-9 is logical.


    Hervey:

    And why are you trying to make Romans 10:6 & 7 be exact , in every way , form and manner, with what it says in Deut. ? Why not just remind the unbelieving Jews, of what Deut. says ? ?


    Jim:

    Why would Paul quote Deuteronomy 30:12 in Romans 10:6 if he did not intend to apply the meaning of the quote to what he was saying? Why then even use the quote? The very fact that Paul used the quote indicates that he applied its meaning to what he said.


    Hervey:

    I am throwing out your private interpretation of what is said inside of the parentheticals, as well as the parentheticals themselves !


    Jim:

    What you do with the Biblical text is your business. However, it is generally considered unacceptable to discard portions of the Biblical text.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  9. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    You said and asked >Jim:

    Why would Paul quote Deuteronomy 30:12 in Romans 10:6 if he did not intend to apply the meaning of the quote to what he was saying? Why then even use the quote? The very fact that Paul used the quote indicates that he applied its meaning to what he said.

    First off Jim, he did not quote Deut. 30 word for word ! In fact, verse 7 of Romans 10 says "deep" , and this is not the deep of the sea, either ! We have already discussed this greek word for "deep", as being the bottomless pit. Yet, in Deut. 30:13 it asks , "who will go over the "sea". It does not say in Deut. 30:13 "IN" the sea either. It says "over" the sea. And the "sea" is not even mentioned in Romans 10:7. That is, unless you want to make it say that, by adding another one of your own parenthethises, and change what it is saying in Romans 10:7 ! ?

    Just like you added the words (for us) , to make it say what "you" wanted it to say in Romans 10:6 & 7 , just because "you" saw the words (for us) in Deut. 30:12. Do you think that they forgot these words, so you would just put them back in their proper place, as if these words were never missing ? What other words from Deut. 30 do you need to add to Romans 10:6 & 7 , so that you can make it say what you want it to say ? Jim, if you want to use Deut. 30, and want what it says verbatim, then why don't you just quote it, word for word ? Then add it to Romans 10:6 & 7 and put words here and put words there to make these two verses say exactly what "you" want them to say ? ? Why don't you change the word "deep" to say "sea" and put parenthesis around the word "sea" (sea), and make these two verses your own ? Then declare your words -- The Words of God <-- why not just do that ? So many other people have done it, why not you ?

    When Jesus Christ went into the synagogue , they handed him the book of Esaias (Isaiah). And he opened it, and started reading from it where it was written (Isaiah 61:1 & 2) - Luke 4:18 - 19 , then he closed the book. Why did he not finish reading verse 2 ? Was not the words In Isaiah 61:1 & 2 Isaiah talking about himself ? The truth is, is that it was twofold , this record in Isaiah 61:1 & 2. Isaiah was speaking of himself, when he said - "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me", but it also was prophecy about the future Christ (Messiah). But it is not revealed until Christ reads this passage, and then closes the book ! ! Then and only then does Christ say in Luke 4:21 - "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears". <--- This was a "revealing", that this record in Isaiah 61:1 & 2 does not mention ! Jesus Christ was making a declaration about himself, using scripture from Isaiah , who was talking about himself when he said those words in Isaiah 61:1 & 2. Is Jesus Christ a liar ? Of course not, nor is the apostle Paul who brought forth this message in Romans 10:6 & 7. But here is the problem Jim, Paul did not speak these words that are in the parentheticals ! They were added by man, and men like you who like to add parentheticals, when and whereever you would like to change the Word of God to suit your own purposes ! You can change Jim, and stop doing this at any time , if you would like to humble yourself to the Words of God, and leave the Word of God alone, and quit trying to change what it is saying !

    Not only did those men who added the parentheticals , properly show us their addition by using the parenthises, but they have shown us their other added words by using italics, which you can see in the parenthetical in Romans 10:6.

    God is not the author of confusion Jim. And the parentheticals left the way they are , are nothing more than that - confusion. In fact, if you were to switch them, then at least they would make more sense. Put the parenthetical that is in verse 7 into verse 6 and the one in verse 6 into verse 7. Then at least they make sense. But that is not the way that they are in our translations , are they ? Say not in thine heart , who shall ascend into heaven, does not mean to bring Christ down ! ! That is ludicrous ! When are you going to admit to this fact ? When are you going to stop adding to the scriptures to make them say , what you want them to say ?

    If Paul wanted to tell Israel what it says in Deut. 30 , he would have told them , by quoting these passages.

    But these words of Paul in Romans 10 are not "for" the unbelievers ! Unbelievers do not walk by the righteousness of faith. Believers do ! In Romans 10:6 Paul is talking to "believers", not unbelievers , as you suggest ! The "righteousness of faith is on this wise" -- "Say not in thine heart , who shall ascend or descend ! (?). <--- this question mark is just for you Jim. Does that satisfy you ? ?

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  10. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    But here is the problem Jim, Paul did not speak these words that are in the parentheticals ! They were added by man, and men like you who like to add parentheticals, when and whereever you would like to change the Word of God to suit your own purposes !


    Jim:

    What is the basis for your conclusion that a parenthesis in the Biblical text signals a change in the source autographs, other than wishful thinking? The only basis you’ve offered thus far for your conclusion that Biblical text found within parenthetical punctuation has a different source than the rest of the text has is your personal opinion that the parenthetical text doesn’t make sense. Do you have any basis more authoritative than your own personal opinion for your conclusion?


    Hervey:

    Not only did those men who added the parentheticals , properly show us their addition by using the parenthises, but they have shown us their other added words by using italics, which you can see in the parenthetical in Romans 10:6.


    Jim:

    Where is it stated by the translators that text found within parenthetical punctuation is added by the translators, just as those words printed in italics are? If you cannot direct me to an official document that states that parenthetical statements in the Biblical text do not have the same source that the rest of the text has, then I suggest that you and I stop debating this specific issue from positions of ignorance and that we address this question to the one group of people who would be in a position to settle this issue: the translators themselves. I’m sure than any publisher of the King James Version of the Bible would have access to documents from the translators themselves explaining what everything means in the translation. So just tell me which publisher you wish me to contact, and I’ll direct this question to that publisher.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  11. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    Of course you know, that I am still wondering if you have come to your senses yet , about the illogic usage of the parentheticals ? :)

    The publishers will not be able to tell you "how" the parentheticals got in there. The translators are the one's who put them in there, and other translations have copied them over the period of time that we aquire our newer translation to come out about one every year. Or so it seems . :(

    The translator's of the KJV are dead and long ago have they returned unto dust ! :p

    You will however be able to find most of this information from those scholars who know about the history of the translations of the bible.

    At one point, I gave you one of those scholar's name's, and his book, that would clear up a lot of our present conversation.

    The book is - "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" - by - Bart D. Ehrman. He is, or was the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    He is a scholar on the history of how we received our translations down through time.

    Let me share with you a small quote from his book >

    I find this on the very first page of his book >

    "The one level I will concerned with in the present study involves the manuscripts of the evolving Christian scriptures -- what would eventually be called the New Testament. The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless reproduction. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day . Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way they transcribed their sacred Scriptures ? The burden of the present study is that they did, that theological disputes , specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently "orthodox" and less susceptible to "abuse" by the opponents of orthodoxy.
    I can not begin to detail the evidence of this kind of scribal activity without first establishing its socio-historical context.

    This Jim, is just on the first page of his book, and what he says is "not" disputed among the theologins who are of the highest honesty about the history of where and how we got our scriptures. And how they have been altered over time.

    Take your car, and the precise way in which your engine is built, to run at is most capable ability. If you fool with it, and alter it, it then will not be the car engine that the manufacture intended for you to experience with its performance, that came from the factory. The same is with the Word of God ! !

    If I can help you in any other way, please, don't hesitate to ask. I am more than willing to help in any way that I can .

    This book is worth every penny you pay for it ! !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  12. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    You will however be able to find most of this information from those scholars who know about the history of the translations of the bible. At one point, I gave you one of those scholar's name's, and his book, that would clear up a lot of our present conversation. The book is - "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" - by - Bart D. Ehrman. He is, or was the Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. … If I can help you in any other way, please, don't hesitate to ask. I am more than willing to help in any way that I can .


    Jim:

    Please quote to me from this book the statement that parenthetical statements in the Biblical text either have a different source material than the rest of the text has or does not come from the source material but is added by the translators. Please include the page number. I’m assuming that you’ve read this somewhere and haven’t just come to this conclusion on your own.


    Hervey:

    The publishers will not be able to tell you "how" the parentheticals got in there. The translators are the one's who put them in there, and other translations have copied them over the period of time that we aquire our newer translation to come out about one every year. The translator's of the KJV are dead and long ago have they returned unto dust !


    Jim:

    I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Parentheses are not found in the source material for any of the translations, as the language of the manuscripts from which the translations are made is Greek and has no punctuation. As far as I know, the same manuscripts from which the Authorized Version was translated in 1611 are also the source material for subsequent translations, including the New King James Version that was translated in the late 1970’s.

    Either your position is that a parenthesis is a signal from the translators themselves of a change in the source material (the manuscripts) from which they made their translation, or your position is that a parenthesis is a signal from the translators themselves that the text encased in parentheses comes not from the manuscripts but from the translators themselves. I’m not sure which is your position, as I’ve seen you express both opinions. So, yes, these translators are very much alive to tell us what is meant by the parentheses which they themselves inserted into their translations.

    I’ve already E-mailed the Bible Editorial Department of Thomas Nelson Publishers with this question. I’m awaiting their reply.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  13. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    I’ve found a web page that explains in a relatively concise fashion the history of the English translations of the Bible and the source material on which they are based: click here.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  14. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    Thanks for the info, but the information was already known by me from other sources. However, one still needs to be very careful with KJV as well. Even though I use the KJV , for which I call, obvious reasons. I still hold that it carries within it many added features, that still alter the Word of God, in such a way, that even the KJV can not be trusted !

    Throughout time, man has had his influence incorporated into the translatings. A lot of things can be documented, where the influence of man, has brought about fragments within scripture, that becomes not trustworthy. One can see the obvious contradictions within a translation, which in itself , shows that the translators tried their best to alter a meaning , or statement, by the slightest change in wording, punctuation, addition of words, or the omitting of words.

    The only true authority, is God, because it is 'His' Word !

    I use the KJV because it has been tampered with the least. However, I totally rely upon God, in revealing unto me, the ways in which one can read His Word without reading the flaws of mankind, and thus, not allowing their influences , to alter my understanding of the will of God.

    There is a way in which to read the words, within the Word of God, while maintaining the truths that God intended to convey, without reading those things which try to alter His Word.

    I would be more than willing to share the mysteries , that are within His Word , which are used by God, to protect His Word from being destroyed by the adversary of God.

    The biggest problem I come up against, is when people want to hang onto their traditions, and or religious beliefs in which they were raised, or taught. They are unwilling to change their minds , about how they feel the scriptures are expressing their meaning to them, and their hearts. Most of this , is basic fears of mankind, and a fear that others will look at them as being outside the orthodox of our Christian society.

    Thanks again , for the site you provided.

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  15. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Am I correct in assuming that it is strictly your own conclusion that parenthetical punctuation marks in the New Testament are a signal from the translators that the enclosed text is not from the same source that the surrounding text is, and that such a conclusion is not found in any of the books of the scholars that you mentioned in your previous post?


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  16. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    It is not strictly my conclusion , that the parentheticals , were indeed added by man. It is an agreed conclusion, that they were added. Words in Italics, are a sign , that has been give to the reader, that these words in italics, are added words of influence. This also tells, when I find words in italics, and inside a parenthetical, that there were "two" different sources for these added words. One source put the parenthises around the added words, and another person , added his words, but used italics to indicate to us, his added words, to help express thoughts that he thought were not fulfilling enough , if left without his added words ( in italics) to help in clarification.

    I have to assume, that you believe without any doubts, that punctuation marks were not in the Greek manuscripts. But let me ask, have you checked for yourself, to see if this is true ? Or do you take the words of others, who tell you with their authority on the Greek manuscripts, that there were not punctuation marks anywhere in the Greek manuscripts. Also let me ask, do you understand the purpose of a parenthetical ? I am sure you do, but think about this for a moment. Did Paul use a parenthetical, when he was speaking these words in Romans 10:6 & 7 ?

    Comman sense tells you - no. Logic , tells you - no. Why ? Because he would not have left his wording in such a confliction of terms , as to complicate the understanding to these who were listening to him speak. Some things spiritually , are hard to discern, but evern the hard things of spirituallity , that are hard to discern, still holds together with a certainty of logic. Just like the parables were not understood by many, even Jesus Christ had to explain his words, by giving an interpretation unto his own disciples. However, his explanation, which was an interpretation, held together , with logic, side by side, with the parable itself. The interpretation of the parable, never changes the purpose and logic of the parable itself. The interpretation is the meat , and purpose of the parable. But the parable also shows us, that the way in which God designed the things of this earth, can also show the spiritual understanding by the purpose and proper understanding of the literal things exposing the spiritual. Romans 1:20 gives us this understanding. God is "logical".

    Say not in thine heart, who is going to ascend up into heaven -- Means what it says, and says what it means, and needs no further interpretation to clarify the meaning within these words. Not only has there been an interpretation added, by the parenthetical, but a further addition was made with the words in italics. Not only does the interpretation inside the parenthetical totally contradict the statement made prior to the parenthetical. It also itself, needs someone to give another interpretation, because of the conflict with the words outside the parenthetical verses the words inside the parenthetical. So what do we end up with ? More private interpretation, correct ? Interpretation to interpret an interpreters, interpretation. <-- Now, if that is not stacking dung, one upon another, I just don't know what else does ? ! Translators were suppose to translate from one language to another with proper clarity, which would need no further clarifications to clarify their translation of words from one language to another !

    We know that different English words were translated from the same Greek word, and the purpose was to clarify the meaning to the best of the translators ability. However, that was then, and this is now. Like the word "hades", or the word "sheol". Also like the word "soul" which was translated using many different English words, like "mind", "heart" a "person" etc. Which came from the "same" Hebrew or Greek word.

    What we need to do, is to "understand" what is being said, from what we read, without there being any confusion as to what is being said, in the scriptures. There are ways to clarify things, that seem to cause confusion in our minds. But we know that many did not understand Jesus Christ when he spoke, and asked him for clarity. And there were ways used, by the translators, in which to clarify things said. That gives the appearance of an addition into the Word of God, for the purpose of clarification, but does noting but cause confusion and leads people who read these additions in the wrong direction of understanding.

    We "know" that it is God's business as to whom is going to ascend up into heaven. And we know that it is God's business as to whom is going into the Lake of fire , because their names were not found in the book of life. Both of these are the Lord God Almighty's business.

    Righteousness which is of faith , speaketh on this wise - "Say not in thine heart , who shall ascend up into heaven, or who will descend into the deep ! (?)

    It is not our "business" to say in our hearts by asking - who ! Righteousness of faith , will not say in one's heart, by asking - who ! It would be righteous , and of faith, to not ask - who ! Which is none of our business !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  17. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    It is not strictly my conclusion …


    Jim:

    OK. Please tell me the name of the book (along with the page number and its author) where you have seen it stated that parenthetical punctuation marks in the New Testament are a signal from the translators that the enclosed text is not from the same source that the surrounding text is. I'm interested in knowing what scholar(s) shares your conclusion.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  18. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
  19. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey (previous post):

    It is not strictly my conclusion …


    Jim (responding post):

    OK. Please tell me the name of the book (along with the page number and its author) where you have seen it stated that parenthetical punctuation marks in the New Testament are a signal from the translators that the enclosed text is not from the same source that the surrounding text is. I'm interested in knowing what scholar(s) shares your conclusion.


    Hervey (last post):

    Here is a little history , that you may or may not find interesting [directing me to an article regarding the evolution of punctuation in the Middle Ages].


    Jim (this post):

    I assume from your failure to provide bibliographic support for your conclusion regarding the significance of parenthetic punctuation in the English Biblical text that your conclusion is uniquely yours.

    Here’s a copy of my E-mail to Thomas Nelson Publishers regarding this issue:

    Here is their response that I received today:

    What I’ve just been instructed by Thomas Nelson Publishers to do to prove that the parenthetical statements in the Biblical text are not words added by the translators, but are translated from the same source material from which the surrounding text is translated, is the very thing that I initially did in directing you to the Interlinear Bible (5th page of this thread, post dated 02/02/02, 01:07pm), which shows that the English text in parentheses is translated from the same source material from which the surrounding English text is translated, that source material being the Greek that is displayed (shown in transliterated form) below the English translation in the Interlinear Bible.

    Thomas Nelson Publishers has just specifically told me (us) that the parenthetical statements in the Biblical text do “NOT” represent “textual variations or supplied words.” It is easily seen that both the parenthetical text and its surrounding text are translated from the same source: the “Textus Receptus,” or Received Text, from which both the King James (Authorized) and New King James Versions are translated.

    Right now I’m looking at the Preface to a New King James Version of the Bible. In the section of the Preface entitled “The New Testament Text,” the translators explain:
    In the next section of the Preface, entitled “Footnotes,” the translators explain:
    Thus, the New King James Version of the Bible (NKJV) identifies with footnotes where there is variation between the Received Text, which is the basis for the NKJV (as well as the KJV) translation, and the Alexandrian and/or Majority Text. The NKJV does not show any such footnotes associated with Romans 10:6-7. Thus, according to the translators of the NKJV, all of the text in these two verses is translated from the Received Text.

    Thus, according to the Interlinear Bible, and according to the translators of the NKJV, your conclusion that the parenthetical text in Romans 10:6-7 either is added by the translators or is translated from a different source material than that from which the surrounding text is translated has no merit.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  20. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    Jim, you just came to your own conclusion based upon the way in which you interpreted the words from your source.

    Here from your post I pasted and now am posting the response given by your source >

    It should be sufficient simply to compare the KJV with the Textus Receptus in a few places.

    For examples, see Acts 8:16; 1 Cor. 9:21; 2 Cor. 5:7. We see that Greek words corresponding to the words in parentheses are present in the TR.

    Parentheses in the KJV are normal sentence punctuation. They are not meant to signify textual variations or supplied words.


    Jim: It says here, that they are "not meant" to signify textual variation or supplied words. So says them !!!!!

    He did not tell you where they came from did he ? ?

    Especially since parenthises never were around prior to the fifteen century ! So why did they use them, and how did they show up ? From outside of the original translation , or after the translation had been made ?

    He also told you to do a comparison ! Did you ? Or are you just taking his words on this ? ?

    He claims that parentheticals are normal punctuation. What a false statement that was ! ! Especially when there were never any punctuation in the Greek manuscripts to begin with !! Or have you forgotten ? A comma , or question mark, or period, of exclamation points , added or put in the wrong place, can make a huge difference in the outcome of the reading of the text !

    Not only did you not tell him which parenthetical you were talking about, but he gave you certain verses , that I ask myself that pertain to what ? Since he didn't even know which parenthetical you were talking about !! ?? Did you notice Jim, that your reference in Romans 10:6 & 7 was not among the list of verses he corresponded back to you ? WE can discuss those verses if you want !

    Jim, You have proven "nothing" here whatsoever, until you can answer my questions above in this post ! !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
Loading...