Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Greek was originally all caps so the NIV translators have taken liberty to distinguish between the two, thus inserting their own opinion/interpretation and perhaps even bias into the text. Not always a wise thing to do.
Why are none of the UR proof texts found where Jesus was speaking?Perhaps His warning has the desired effect.
It's just a theory anyway, in light of the many verses that proclaim universalism (I know you disagree).
If all be reconciled to God in Christ, then there can't be a bunch of unforgiven people left.
That's what I used to think. But just like eternal conscious torment; found out that I was badly mistaken upon scrutiny of what the text really states.Paul did in fact demolish the law. Claims that he continued to observe it are questionable.
Same with Christ. What do these verses tell us?
John 9:16
Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.
John 5:18
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
My first Greek professor Dr. Roger Omanson was on the first NIV translation committee. He often spoke about the care the translators exercised. It will take clear and convincing evidence to prove them wrong.The Greek was originally all caps so the NIV translators have taken liberty to distinguish between the two, thus inserting their own opinion/interpretation and perhaps even bias into the text. Not always a wise thing to do. The law never saved anyone - only faith in Jesus saves.
Why would Paul demolish the law when he himself continued to observe it? Jesus also observed the law.
Not quite correct.It's not so much "mistranslation" as a misunderstanding of the most literal translation. "Everlasting punishment" actually means "results that are not temporary".
For example hitting your hand with a hammer results in temporary punishment.
Cutting your hand off results in everlasting punishment.
Scripture refers to the second one.
From the cause and effect, it means the effect is permanent.
You are "cut off" from the option to have faith in God.
While we were still sinners, He sent his only Son to die for our sins. Is there something more required after your death to change your mind about His sincerity?
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the law was done away with but not the prophets?I applaud the clarity that the NOV translators brought to the text. It is clear that these texts were referring to the books. In English they SHOULD BE capitalized.
Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Matthew 22:40
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
Acts 13:15
After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”
Acts 24:14
However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,
Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.
Of course the translators will state that they took great care in their translation. What else would you expect them to say?? I don't question their sincerity. It is possible to be sincere - but sincerely wrong. BTW still waiting for your reply from my last post to you Der Alter but you are not obligated to reply.My first Greek professor Dr. Roger Omanson was on the first NIV translation committee. He often spoke about the care the translators exercised. It will take clear and convincing evidence to prove them wrong.
Not quite correct.
…..Concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,
“‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4
Verse 23 pertains more to verse 21 than to 20 is how I read it. 21 says you who were sometime alienated yet now hath been reconciled, 23 if ye continue in the faith.Why are none of the UR proof texts found where Jesus was speaking?
And the ones from the apostles are contradicted by the same apostles own writing.
E.g. Paul.
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.Colossians 1:20 which supposedly says all things on earth will be reconciled, righteous and unrighteous alike, even after death, no matter what. But 2 vss. later vs. 23, Paul says there are conditions
Col 1:23The condition is IF you continue in the faith etc. The converse of vs. 23 “if you do NOT continue in your faith [are] NOT grounded and NOT settled, and ARE moved away from the hope of the gospel, you will NOT be reconciled [vs. 20][/color]
(23)IF ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Still unclear to me. How is the law different from the Law?It appears that you are using the same definition for "the law" and "the Law". They are two different things. The Ten Commandments are part of the law, which is found in the Law. (the books of the Law)
Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Okay, I see now. If Jesus terminated the law, then as I explained earlier why did he continue to keep it despite the Pharisees condemnation of him breaking the Sabbath as I explained earlier?Two different things. Jesus fulfilled the Law. (capital "L") But he terminated the law. (small "l") Which means the law God gave to the Israelites alone through Moses.
I<SM> wish there was a 'hound of heaven' scripture. It's a lovely metaphor imho.
Personal testimony, everything in red, not supported by scripture is not compelling.
"If you continue in the faith" that is a condition which excludes those who do not continue in the faith.Verse 23 pertains more to verse 21 than to 20 is how I read it. 21 says you who were sometime alienated yet now hath been reconciled, 23 if ye continue in the faith.
Yes, but like I said it refers having been reconciled, perfect tense."If you continue in the faith" that is a condition which excludes those who do not continue in the faith.
I didn't mean he just said they took care, over the semester he often described the conferences they held to arrive at a translation. Have you ever checked a definition in the BDAG and took note of the historical sources they reviewed in determining the correct translation of words? I counted at least 35 for one single word "aionios." So if you want to challenge a translation then you better bring that kind of scholarship to the table. Just some "scholar" giving a different translation ain't going to cut it.Of course the translators will state that they took great care in their translation. What else would you expect them to say?? I don't question their sincerity. It is possible to be sincere - but sincerely wrong. BTW still waiting for your reply from my last post to you Der Alter but you are not obligated to reply.
That ain't the way Greek works.Yes, but like I said it refers having been reconciled, perfect tense.
It doesn't refer to the all in verse 20 but the you in verse 21, imo.
Paul (or God if you will, because I believe God is ultimately the author) changed the subject from reconciliation of all in verse 20 which is future tense, to the reader him-/herself's reconciliation to God as something already done (if they continue in the faith).
I agree that the verses 21-23 are connected, it was what I was saying. I see a distinction with verse 20 though, don't you?That ain't the way Greek works.
Col 1:20-23"you,""your" vs. 21, "you" vs. 22, "ye,""ye" vs. 23 are all the same group.
(20) And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
(21) And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
(22) In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
(23) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Not quite correct.
…..Concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,
“‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4
That was also a rebuttal of the argument that "eternal punishment" does not mean punishment that continues for ever, "what it really means is death, which is eternal." As Justin said, "It ain't punishment unless the person is conscious."I can agree with that. Loosing ones hand does not result in punishment
unless you miss having it.
That was also a rebuttal of the argument that "eternal punishment" does not mean punishment that continues for ever, "what it really means is death, which is eternal." As Justin said, "It ain't punishment unless the person is conscious."
I agree in general, but if Jesus came to uphold and promote the law, was this the way to do it? He challenged the law at every turn.That's what I used to think. But just like eternal conscious torment; found out that I was badly mistaken upon scrutiny of what the text really states.
It you examine the OT Torah, there is nothing in the written law that prohibits one from healing, doing good to one's neighbor, etc on the Sabbath. Works of service done out of love for others or for God is never forbidden on the Sabbath. Note that it is the Pharisees who accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. You and I know that Jesus repeatedly condemned the Pharisees so that should at least send a yellow flag up in our minds regarding the veracity of the Pharisees' claims. So why did they accuse Jesus of violating the Sabbath? The answer is because it violated their oral law, their rabbinical law which contains their tradition/interpretation of what the written law means and how it is to be strictly applied. Throughout his ministry, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for putting their oral law above the written law.
Matt 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions." 9And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' 11But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)- 12then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
Jesus called out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who knew that healing on the Sabbath was not prohibited in the written law but they were guilty of adding to the law through their oral traditions as specified in their Talmud, Mishnah.
Lk 14:1One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2There in front of him was a man suffering from abnormal swelling of his body. 3Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” 4But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way.
5Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child a or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?” 6And they had nothing to say.
I'm saying that the law (small "l") was done away with, not the Law (capital "L") and the Prophets (capital "P") meaning the books, which is what Jesus said he didn't come to abolish. Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecies in those books.Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the law was done away with but not the prophets?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?