The Law Fulfilled in Christ

[tall73]

I decline; it can be figured out by actually reading my study at http://666man.net/Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/colintro.html



This is where Ron DuPreez's work comes to the fore. He shows the linguistic features that help one to determine why the same term can mean different things depending on how it is used.

So now you change your story that the plural is significant and shift it to the linguistic markers argument. If it was only significant due to linguistic markers then why not say that to begin with?



I have read his book. His "linguistic markers" are in fact just indications of where words are used in proximity etc. It is just a way to categorize context.

But given that the mo'ed include all of the feasts according to Lev. 23 then there is no reason to read them back in a second time.

As to the translation I found one that you posted on CARM:


http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showpost.php?p=1371012&postcount=29


16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by your eating and drinking on (or, "in that part of" = "with regard to") a feast, New Moon celebration or ceremonial sabbath days. 17 These are a shadow of the things that are to come; but the body of Christ.

 

[tall73]

Here are two more translations that you give in your study.





Therefore let no man condemn you (as the ascetics are doing)
in (regards to your) eating and in drinking,
either in regards to (the way, or how you celebrate)
a feast day, or a new moon, or the Sabbath day:
Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body of Christ (that is, let the church decide these matters).

In regards to your feasting or fasting, as the case may be, on the festivals, new moons, and ceremonial sabbaths don’t let the ascetic guide you in these things rather let the church teach you about how these are shadows of things to come. [FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]Now, so that I can get your whole view here, based on these translations, a few questions:

What particularly do you see as shadows? The eating and drinking? The celebrations mentioned? All?

 

[JohnT]

1st of all some translations say "in what you eat and drink"--the word "what" does not occur in the Greek mss and there are no drink laws. So, as Eadie pointed out the text should be translated as "in eating and drinking"--it is the act that is in view here.

All this is irrelevant to the text. You fail to take into consideration the context of the passage, and the preceding verse in particular. The first thing you need to ask is what is the therefore there for? The answer is in verse 15" And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross (NIV).

Paul refers to the spectacle of humiliating defeat the cross of Christ was for the demons. (Can I hear an amen?)


(My quote)
So the effect of the verse is to say, “Since the forces of evil were defeated, therefore... (remember versification is a modern invention, not in the original mss) let no one judge you.[/quote]In what should there be no judgment? The nouns translated “eating” and “drinking” are dative cases, both singular, and different genders. Dative case is the case of the indirect object. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to add “as to” here. Both nouns are singular, and a literal translation would be “eat” and “drink”.

Most translations have it accurately as singular nouns, and as good a scholar as Eadie is, making gerunds from simple nouns is not warranted by the original text.

2nd the words "in respect to" make sense if you think in terms of a Venn diagram. The first circle is ab't eating and drinking and the second is ab't the days that are mentioned in the text--the "in respect to" covers the area where the two circles overlap.

Venn is a graphic organizer. It is not a substitute for exegesis. Exegesis deals with what is in the text. Venn diagrams can only deal with what others translated.

3rd in the NT this is the only text in the KJV which mistranslates "heorte" (feast); one should have expeceted the NASB to have corrected the error vs repeating it.

There is no mistranslation, and if there was, what would it prove? NOTHING Too bad you did not look at Strongs before you erroneously pontificate: ἑορτή [heorte /heh·or·tay/] . Of uncertain affinity; 2038; 27 occurrences; translates as “feast” 26 times, and “holy day” once. 1 a feast day, festival
Since it is of uncertain affinity, your analysis is extremely uncertain, for you make an absolute where there is no basis for doing so.

4th in the Greek the word "sabbaton" is in the plural, not the singular.

So what? The emphasis is a series of GENITIVE NOUNS. Its case is more significant than its number.

5th this translation inserts an unwarranted word in vs 17--"mere."

So what? The translator created an expression in English that emphasized Paul’s making inconsequential al those things above.

6th note that the shadow is of something that is to come in the future not cast from something in the past. The fall ceremonial sabbaths are to befulfilled in and slightly prior to the 2nd coming of Christ.

You mix type and antitype. Type always comes first, the antitype always comes second. Jesus is the fulfillment of everything in the OT– that is the argument of Hebrews. There is absolutely no basis for your insertion of your SDA doctrine here.

7th the last clause in vs 17 has been completely mis-translated. It should have been "but the body of Christ" which is a reference to the church which makes this clause the postive counter-part to the negative "let no man judge you."

It was not the church that died on the cross The Greek words are σματο Χριστο., meaning the body of Christ. There is no reference to the church in the entire pericope. The antecedent is in verse 15 and it is also referring to the cross so your interpolation of church is utterly warrant less.

Now please know this: There is absolutely no Greek version of the NT that supports any of the cockamamie SDA doctrines such as IJ, soul sleep or 1844.etc.

 

[JohnT]

DJC

I followed your thread on CARM where Patty asked you to write what you thought the translation should be.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by your eating and drinking on (or, "in that part of" = "with regard to") a feast, New Moon celebration or ceremonial sabbath days. 17 These are a shadow of the things that are to come; but the body of Christ.

Where exactly did the contravening conjunction, "but" come from in the Greek text?

Are you creating your own Scripture to suit your theology?

OOPS!!

I erred, and therefore I am imperfect


DJ,

I was thinking of something else, and that I was struck with your using it as an adversative particle when the context is clearly not that.

The correct usage of this is emphatic or intensive particle meaning indeed, really, or in fact You can see how those words can be placed in front of the words, the body of Christ, and be in full agreement with context

hey, I like this edit feature! On CARM, I have only one hour to fix boo boos

 

[djconklin]

All this is irrelevant to the text. You fail to take into consideration the context of the passage, and the preceding verse in particular. The first thing you need to ask is what is the therefore there for? The answer is in verse 15" And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross (NIV)

I fail to see the proof for your claim in the first sentence.

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by your eating and drinking on (or, "in that part of" = "with regard to") a feast, New Moon celebration or ceremonial sabbath days. 17 These are a shadow of the things that are to come; but the body of Christ.

Where exactly did the contravening conjunction, "but" come from in the Greek text?

Are you creating your own Scripture to suit your theology?

From actually reading the Greek text (in this case the word is "de")--doing it over a period of time makes one intimately familiar with the text.

iT is the critics who twist Scripture to make it fit their precobcieved opinions. Much better to start an analysis with none as I did.

Nice to see that you realized you were in error--now you have a first hand experience with the old adage "haste makes waste."