Quoted by Jesusfreak5000:
Ben - after doing much etymological study, I have at least come upon this, that the greek root being "eidon" has not as you claim, one primary meaning "to physically behold", but two primary meaning depending upon usage. To simply state that "physically behold" is the primary meaning, therefore entitling you to the better translation simply because it is stated as the first definition in your lexicon is not a reason to accept it as the better interpretation. We have also so far only based our discussion on root words and not on phrasing or specific usage used, which obviously will give much insight as to what the actual intention of John was when he wrote this.
Looking at Blueletterbible's list of "eidon", there are 25 pages of occurrances. Looking at just the first page, these have the meaning of "physically see":Ben - after doing much etymological study, I have at least come upon this, that the greek root being "eidon" has not as you claim, one primary meaning "to physically behold", but two primary meaning depending upon usage. To simply state that "physically behold" is the primary meaning, therefore entitling you to the better translation simply because it is stated as the first definition in your lexicon is not a reason to accept it as the better interpretation. We have also so far only based our discussion on root words and not on phrasing or specific usage used, which obviously will give much insight as to what the actual intention of John was when he wrote this.
Mat 2:2 Mat 2:9 Mat 2:10 Mat 2:11 Mat 2:16 Mat 3:7 Mat 3:16 Mat 4:16 Mat 4:18 Mat 4:21 Mat 5:1 Mat 5:16 Mat 8:14 Mat 8:18Mat 8:34 Mat 9:2 Mat 9:8 Mat 9:9 Mat 9:11 Mat 9:22 Mat 9:23
And these have the meaning of "know": Mat 6:8 6:32 7:11 Mat 9:4 Mat 9:6
On page 2 there are 6 occurrances of "know", and 20 of "behold". On page 3 it's 13/13. Page 4 is 9 "know" and 17 "see".
So "see" is more common than "know" --- but really all that is unnecessary, the context is "unless born-again see", and "unless born of Spirit enter". If "born again" and "born of the Spirit" is the same, then there is no basis to perceive (pun intended) that "see" is not "enter". "you'll never see", means "you'll never get there"...
Quote:
Now I have read a few different texts, and actually a few different renditions of the word are used. Using the "received text", I have found that the greek word used for "see" is "idein". Now bring this over to your lexicon and check out the meanings -
1. to see
to perceive with the eyes
to perceive by any of the senses
to perceive, notice, discern, discover
to see
i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
to pay attention, observe
to see about something
i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
to inspect, examine
to look at, behold
to experience any state or condition
to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
2. to know
to know of anything
to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
of any fact
the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
to know how, to be skilled in
to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1 Thessalonians 5:12)
This is what I'm talking about when I say there are two primary meanings. It is translated "to know" 281 times and "to see" 314 times in the KJV. That's a pretty close number.
The whole argument can be resolved in deciding if "born-again" is equivalent to "born of the Spirit". If so (and it is), then there is no reason to think "see" does not mean "behold/enter".Now I have read a few different texts, and actually a few different renditions of the word are used. Using the "received text", I have found that the greek word used for "see" is "idein". Now bring this over to your lexicon and check out the meanings -
1. to see
to perceive with the eyes
to perceive by any of the senses
to perceive, notice, discern, discover
to see
i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
to pay attention, observe
to see about something
i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
to inspect, examine
to look at, behold
to experience any state or condition
to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
2. to know
to know of anything
to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
of any fact
the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
to know how, to be skilled in
to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1 Thessalonians 5:12)
This is what I'm talking about when I say there are two primary meanings. It is translated "to know" 281 times and "to see" 314 times in the KJV. That's a pretty close number.
Quote:
Now, you must admit that within the definition of "to see", there also lies more of a meaning than just "physically behold". You may want to turn your attention to "any of the senses" or the phrase "the mind, the attention to anything". Even the translating of "see" has an idea of comprehension.
The second concept, is "Unless born-of-the-Spirit, cannot ENTER" --- does "born-of-the-Spirit" equate to "born-again"? The only answer, is "yes".Now, you must admit that within the definition of "to see", there also lies more of a meaning than just "physically behold". You may want to turn your attention to "any of the senses" or the phrase "the mind, the attention to anything". Even the translating of "see" has an idea of comprehension.
"Unless born-again cannot enter"
"Unless born-again cannot perceive".
"Unless born-again cannot enter"
"Unless born-again cannot physically see".
Why does the first make more sense than the second? The second is contextually consistent.
Quote:
I still put forth the idea the "to know" is the better translation, and I have very good reason to do this.
Out of the textus receptus-
Iesous apokrinomai kai epo autos amen amen lego soi ean me tis gennao anothen dunamai ou eido basileia theos.
Now, mind you, this is all of transliteration. Of course, reading the transliteration, we lose the original tense, even the entire word. For some reason, they seem to transliterate the word's root instead of the word itself. The word used for "see" is spelled-
omnicron - o
iota - i
delta - d
alpha - a
"oida", yet transliterated "eido". What a shame.
Now, we take "oida" and go to Gerhard Kittel's theological dictionary, and get this -
"Oida is an Indo-Eur. perf. of the root "eid-", "id-" (-> eidos, eidenai, idein), though always used in the pres.: "to have realised = to know."
I could quote the rest, but the general idea is that "oida" never refers to "physically beholding" something, always to "perceive", as it is used of some 320 passages always refering to the idea "to know".
We read, "perceive with the eyes". The context equates "born-again" with "born of the Spirit"; and unless BOTH, cannot see/enter". It does not make sense to understand "cannot perceive/enter", rather than "behold/enter". I still put forth the idea the "to know" is the better translation, and I have very good reason to do this.
Out of the textus receptus-
Iesous apokrinomai kai epo autos amen amen lego soi ean me tis gennao anothen dunamai ou eido basileia theos.
Now, mind you, this is all of transliteration. Of course, reading the transliteration, we lose the original tense, even the entire word. For some reason, they seem to transliterate the word's root instead of the word itself. The word used for "see" is spelled-
omnicron - o
iota - i
delta - d
alpha - a
"oida", yet transliterated "eido". What a shame.
Now, we take "oida" and go to Gerhard Kittel's theological dictionary, and get this -
"Oida is an Indo-Eur. perf. of the root "eid-", "id-" (-> eidos, eidenai, idein), though always used in the pres.: "to have realised = to know."
I could quote the rest, but the general idea is that "oida" never refers to "physically beholding" something, always to "perceive", as it is used of some 320 passages always refering to the idea "to know".
Quote:
This idea is portrayed in the passages -
Gal 4:8 - Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Have you ever addressed Gal4-5? How can someone KNOWN by God (4:9), become severed from Christ and fallen from grace (5:4)?This idea is portrayed in the passages -
Gal 4:8 - Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Quote
and synonymous with "ginosko" throughout all of 1 John 4 -
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
How can those who once had KNOWN the way of righteousness (epiginosko), then turned away FROM it (epistrepho-ek)?and synonymous with "ginosko" throughout all of 1 John 4 -
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
Quote:
and
1Jo 4:6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1Jo 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
I think I have a healthy amount of proof to interpret John 3 as meaning "see" or "perceive" to prove regeneration prior to justification, Ben.
Please give me your response concerning etymology.
The context still equates "born-again" with "born of the Spirit". It seems the context endorses the purple understanding "behold/enter", rather than the green one "perceive/enter".and
1Jo 4:6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1Jo 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.
I think I have a healthy amount of proof to interpret John 3 as meaning "see" or "perceive" to prove regeneration prior to justification, Ben.
Please give me your response concerning etymology.
Upvote
0
