A Thread To Discuss Anything About Scripture.

[fredoheaven]

First, I admit that I think I know the answer to this question. So I'm using it as a provocation to discussion on it. In John 7:39 the King James renders it; "(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)". But the word "given" is in italics to show that the word does not appear in the original texts. Thus, Darby (correctly) renders this verse;

"But this he said concerning the Spirit, which they that believed on him were about to receive; for [the] Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." (Darby)

But immediately a difficulty arises. The meaning of the verse changes dramaticaly. It now means that the Holy Spirit, which the Disciples received in John 20:22) did not exist yet in John 7:39! Young's literla translation agrees with Darby. It reads;

"and this he said of the Spirit, which those believing in him were about to receive; for not yet was the Holy Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (YLT)

What then is the truth? Was the Holy Spirit "not yet" - that is, He did not exist yet until Christ's resurrection?

Of course, the Holy Spirit did already exist for eternity. The YLT is of course had some trouble translating it from Greek and was wrong in this regard. The KJV translators may not have found it in the Greek so they put in italics. Italics though sometimes were to complete the sense but that is only one thing use of the Italics. Italics in the KJV also means that it is found in other language other than the Greek for the NT. Evidences why the word was there because they found via Latin, French and other known languages where they compare and even previous English translation. The Wessex Gospel 1175c are the oldest translations into English without the Latin and where we can find “given” and this might answer your dilemma.

The gospels are written in the Old English West Anglo-Saxon dialect of Northumbria. Desiderius Erasmus had access to these MSS before starting his translation of the Textus Receptus. In the five years prior to starting his translation work Erasmus was Professor of Divinity at Cambridge at a time when the university's benefactors owned these manuscripts.

The King James Bible translators had access to these manuscripts. All the six KJV translation companies where housed at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster and all had access to the Wessex Gospels.

http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Wessex/43/7

John 7:39

:39​

Ðæt he cwæð be þam gaste þe þa scolden under-fon þe on hym ge-lyfden. Ða get nes se gast ge-seald. for-þam þe se hælend næs þa gyt ge-wuldrod.



The OE “ge-seald” is a preterite tense of “ġesellende” from “gesellan” means 1. to give 2. to grant or bestow (as by God) 3. to deliver ; hand to 4. to hand over 5. to give in exchange 6. to give what may be demanded; to pay tribute ; tax ; fine or compensation 7. to give up ; surrender ; lose 8. to give forth or put forth words or statements; to make sound 9. to offer ; present ; or show for consideration 10. to assign ; appoint 11. to make have

https://www.oldenglishtranslator.co.uk/

The KJV of course is in no doubt correct in the matter including numerous English bibles where they have not put in italics.

 

[awelight]

This is just a nonsensical statement which is meant to twist things in order to accommodate your heresy.

1. The Holy Spirit is God, who with the Father and the Son exists from eternity to eternity -- "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS". He did not have His beginning after Christ was glorified. But He was poured out upon all flesh under the New Covenant -- on the day of Pentecost -- so that He would indwell and seal believers after they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

2. Every English translation (with a couple of exceptions) has included the word "given". This was NOT to subvert the truth but to clarify the truth. Which means that you are the one trying to subvert the truth.

3. There are numerous places in Scripture where the translators added words in italics to clarify the meaning. They are generally helpful and acceptable, and no one raised any objections until you came along.

4. Using the terms "puny, subverted and depraved mind" for Christians who faithfully translated Scripture is not only GROSSLY INSULTING but also completely false. Christians (learned and devout men) with the indwelling Holy Spirit who were committed to faithfully translating the original languages, and were guided by the Holy Spirit, did not have subverted and depraved minds, However, your insistence that "given" should be removed from that verse shows that you wish to pervert the truth and manufacture a bizarre doctrine.

5. The truth is that the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit could only be fulfilled after Christ has been crucified, resurrected, ascended, and glorified. The following words of Christ confirm that only after He had ascended to Heaven would the Spirit be sent down to earth.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5)

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24)

And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. (Acts 1:4)

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting... But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (Acts 2:1,2,16-28)

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)

Just curious, Why did you leave out this verse, while developing your argument?

Joh_14:17 even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.

The Holy Spirit never left. He was administering the New Birth, the whole time Christ was ministering. The Comforter is a different office of the Holy Spirit. He is coming to Baptize the Church, which Christ is building. To empower it and give to certain ones gifts, to aid in the furthering of the proclamation of the Gospel. Jesus Christ called The Spirit, in this capacity, the Comforter. He would do these things and many more.

 

[posthuman]

Of course, the Holy Spirit did already exist for eternity. The YLT is of course had some trouble translating it from Greek and was wrong in this regard. The KJV translators may not have found it in the Greek so they put in italics. Italics though sometimes were to complete the sense but that is only one thing use of the Italics. Italics in the KJV also means that it is found in other language other than the Greek for the NT. Evidences why the word was there because they found via Latin, French and other known languages where they compare and even previous English translation. The Wessex Gospel 1175c are the oldest translations into English without the Latin and where we can find “given” and this might answer your dilemma.

The gospels are written in the Old English West Anglo-Saxon dialect of Northumbria. Desiderius Erasmus had access to these MSS before starting his translation of the Textus Receptus. In the five years prior to starting his translation work Erasmus was Professor of Divinity at Cambridge at a time when the university's benefactors owned these manuscripts.

The King James Bible translators had access to these manuscripts. All the six KJV translation companies where housed at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster and all had access to the Wessex Gospels.

http://textusreceptusbibles.com/Wessex/43/7

John 7:39

:39​

Ðæt he cwæð be þam gaste þe þa scolden under-fon þe on hym ge-lyfden. Ða get nes se gast ge-seald. for-þam þe se hælend næs þa gyt ge-wuldrod.



The OE “ge-seald” is a preterite tense of “ġesellende” from “gesellan” means 1. to give 2. to grant or bestow (as by God) 3. to deliver ; hand to 4. to hand over 5. to give in exchange 6. to give what may be demanded; to pay tribute ; tax ; fine or compensation 7. to give up ; surrender ; lose 8. to give forth or put forth words or statements; to make sound 9. to offer ; present ; or show for consideration 10. to assign ; appoint 11. to make have

https://www.oldenglishtranslator.co.uk/

The KJV of course is in no doubt correct in the matter including numerous English bibles where they have not put in italics.

you don't even have to get into some argument about words -- the Spirit overshadowed Mary; John saw the Spirit descend & alight like a dove on Jesus; the Spirit is all over the OT. clearly John's parenthetical remark in 7:39 is not meant to say the Holy Spirit did not yet exist.

 

[EleventhHour]

Start with....

FAITH comes by hearing and HEARING by the word of GOD.

Then explain a gospel-less salvation that God willed with no choice.

Then explain how GOD said faith comes by HEARING HIS WORD and yet some peddle salvation without the word of God being proclaimed.

If they do not need to choose because according to this dogma they were already are in Him and selected before the foundation of the world ....

they should be born regenerated and have the Holy Spirit in their mother's womb like John the Baptist.

It really fails every which way and makes no sense.

 

[iamsoandso]

If they do not need to choose because according to this dogma they were already are in Him and selected before the foundation of the world ....

they should be born regenerated and have the Holy Spirit in their mother's womb like John the Baptist.

It really fails every which way and makes no sense.

I have never claimed to call myself names like dispesationist,preterist,cavanist ect. and still do not but if I could help at all with this I would point out this https://biblehub.com/interlinear/colossians/1-15.htm that is before the first man who needed to be "saved" in all this was the very savior who was to save them was present. That is those who would need to be saved were not first and then the one that would save them/us but the savor himself preexisted the ones that would need salvation. Salvation then is no afterthought based on necessity but rather the first thought and the will of God from the beggining.

 

[jackrosie]

I haven’t posted much lately after reading Romans 14,

If they do not need to choose because according to this dogma they were already are in Him and selected before the foundation of the world ....

they should be born regenerated and have the Holy Spirit in their mother's womb like John the Baptist.

It really fails every which way and makes no sense.

Unfortunately neither does your understanding of God knowing us before we were born.make sense in your post.

You are trying to figure it out in your head.

 

[jackrosie]

When God Saved me,I knew straight away that I was born again.....Christian is mentioned twice I think in the bible.
We’re the disciples called Christians?
I have never classed my self as a Christian....I am born again......people have told me Christian is the same thing...is it?

Joe bloggs told me he is a Christian...but knows nothing/ understanding of being born again.

Maybe a believer can throw some light on my question?...thank you.

 

[jackrosie]

A born again knows in their Spirit that they are a child of God...

The miracle as I see it of being born again,a new fleshy heart,new birth,alive in Christ.....

 

[jackrosie]

You must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

So Christian can’t be the same as a born again....as God’s word states.

You must be born again.....which I well and truly understand.

Not a born again Christian..?

 

[Guojing]

You must be born again to see the Kingdom of God.

So Christian can’t be the same as a born again....as God’s word states.

You must be born again.....which I well and truly understand.

Not a born again Christian..?

Have you realized that Paul never even used the term "born again" even once in Romans to Philemon?

It is a term that is unique to the Apostle John.

 

[Corban]

This is just a nonsensical statement which is meant to twist things in order to accommodate your heresy.

1. The Holy Spirit is God, who with the Father and the Son exists from eternity to eternity -- "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS". He did not have His beginning after Christ was glorified. But He was poured out upon all flesh under the New Covenant -- on the day of Pentecost -- so that He would indwell and seal believers after they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

2. Every English translation (with a couple of exceptions) has included the word "given". This was NOT to subvert the truth but to clarify the truth. Which means that you are the one trying to subvert the truth.

3. There are numerous places in Scripture where the translators added words in italics to clarify the meaning. They are generally helpful and acceptable, and no one raised any objections until you came along.

4. Using the terms "puny, subverted and depraved mind" for Christians who faithfully translated Scripture is not only GROSSLY INSULTING but also completely false. Christians (learned and devout men) with the indwelling Holy Spirit who were committed to faithfully translating the original languages, and were guided by the Holy Spirit, did not have subverted and depraved minds, However, your insistence that "given" should be removed from that verse shows that you wish to pervert the truth and manufacture a bizarre doctrine.

5. The truth is that the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit could only be fulfilled after Christ has been crucified, resurrected, ascended, and glorified. The following words of Christ confirm that only after He had ascended to Heaven would the Spirit be sent down to earth.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (John 17:5)

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24)

And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. (Acts 1:4)

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting... But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: (Acts 2:1,2,16-28)

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)

You have written much, which is your right. But none of it addresses the grammar of John 7:39. All I did was not include a word which the translators admitted was not included, and then sought to discover if the verse required man's addition. My discovery was that the verse made perfect sense without the addition. This, I laid forth in posting # 9. All you have done is shower accusations of false doctrine, even though you are unable to string two sentences together to counter my argument in posting # 9.

All the verses you posted above were never contended. You have created an shadow problem, and now you pound away at this non-existent problem - with emotions and not with sound exegesis. As a man sitting in judgement of another, you have not produced a single fact or argument why for 1,500 years, until the King James was translated, God's holy Word stood WITHOUT the word "given" - AND STILL STANDS IN THE ORIGINAL WITHOUT ANY ADDITION. You have heaped all manner of harsh talk on me because I dared to examine God's Word as it was given by Him. You promote, with abrasive rhetoric, that men should add to God's Word "to complete the concept".

However, there is much profit in this for me. I have now seen firsthand the attitude of fellow Christians towards God's Words and God's other servants. Some acknowledged the difficulty that this verse produces. They are thoughtful and inquiring. Others prefer to remain silent and watch how the argument develops. And then there are those who flail around at a non-existent enemy, but without the courtesy to bring PROOF of their accusations.

May the reader judge.

 

[Truth7t7]

You have written much, which is your right. But none of it addresses the grammar of John 7:39. All I did was not include a word which the translators admitted was not included, and then sought to discover if the verse required man's addition. My discovery was that the verse made perfect sense without the addition. This, I laid forth in posting # 9. All you have done is shower accusations of false doctrine, even though you are unable to string two sentences together to counter my argument in posting # 9.

All the verses you posted above were never contended. You have created an shadow problem, and now you pound away at this non-existent problem - with emotions and not with sound exegesis. As a man sitting in judgement of another, you have not produced a single fact or argument why for 1,500 years, until the King James was translated, God's holy Word stood WITHOUT the word "given" - AND STILL STANDS IN THE ORIGINAL WITHOUT ANY ADDITION. You have heaped all manner of harsh talk on me because I dared to examine God's Word as it was given by Him. You promote, with abrasive rhetoric, that men should add to God's Word "to complete the concept".

However, there is much profit in this for me. I have now seen firsthand the attitude of fellow Christians towards God's Words and God's other servants. Some acknowledged the difficulty that this verse produces. They are thoughtful and inquiring. Others prefer to remain silent and watch how the argument develops. And then there are those who flail around at a non-existent enemy, but without the courtesy to bring PROOF of their accusations.

May the reader judge.

I have seen your denial that David had the same Holy Spirit (Upon) his life as the believers in Acts, you promote (Fake News) as if your a victim of wrong doing, your doctrine is (False)

Corban said:
"Came UPON", not "entered". See Acts 2:17.[/QUOTE

Truth7t7 Response: Same Holy Spirit Upon The Old Testament Believers, Exactly The Same As The New Testament Believers

1 Samuel 16:13KJV
13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.

Acts 1:8KJV
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

1 Peter 4:14KJV
14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

 

[EleventhHour]

Unfortunately neither does your understanding of God knowing us before we were born.make sense in your post.

You are trying to figure it out in your head.

Oh well you can exegete it anytime according to scripture.and the principles of hermeneutics.

 

[Duskey]

Unfortunately neither does your understanding of God knowing us before we were born.make sense in your post.

You are trying to figure it out in your head.

What are you talking about regarding my post?

 

[jackrosie]

What are you talking about regarding my post?

Sorry Dusty....I can’t remember,I will go back to it...I think I was just going to also mention about being obedient and how we are blessed by it.

 

[Scribe]

Have you realized that Paul never even used the term "born again" even once in Romans to Philemon?

It is a term that is unique to the Apostle John.

Peter used the term. 1 Peter 1:23, 1n Pet 2:2, 1 Pet 1:3

 

[Scribe]

Have you realized that Paul never even used the term "born again" even once in Romans to Philemon?

It is a term that is unique to the Apostle John.

What do you think Paul meant in 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Sounds like he was talking about being born again.

 

[Corban]

It's not necessarily addition of a word, it's a lexical phenomena known as an ellipse. The word is implied but for brevity it is not supplied. The sentences grammar isn't quite complete without adding the word to the text, and the word that is implied is clear from the context. And so the translator supplies the obvious omission because while the ellipse is appropriate in Greek, the same is not true of English.

Thank you for this input. I am aware of this rule and understand that translating a rich language like Greek into a poorer language like English requires additions that are implied. But I think in the case of John 7:39 the translators faced the very problem we now face in this thread. That is, (i) they added this word "given" because they perceived the problem of saying that the Holy Spirit was not "yet", and/or (ii) they wanted to divert the reader to the main thought that is was not the Holy Spirit that was not yet, but the Spirit "which they would receive" that was still in the process of having Christ's resurrection added to Him. This is my proposal in my posting # 9. All I did was give a reason for the delay in giving this Spirit. It was, that when we receive this Holy Spirit, we receive a full package - a Divine Being but with the full human experience. And not only the full human experience, but God's seal of approval on it. The word "glory" means "made apparent".

Christ exiting the tomb in resurrection "made apparent" that God considered His death to have covered every single little sin ever committed. Had our Lord Jesus continued in the tomb, it would have "become apparent" that some sins still remained unaccounted for - for the wages of sin is death. Some students of scripture believe that the "glorification" alluded to in John 7:39 was His ascension to the right hand of the Father. This thought has merit because of 1st Timothy 3:16, but this is not the "glory" spoken of in John 7:39. The disciples received "that Spirit" on the eve of the day of Christ's resurrection in John 20:22.

This all would mean that the verse makes perfect sense without the word "given", but that the insertion of the word does not detract from the truth, as long as one is aware of the process that the Holy Spirit was undergoing. This grand truth is again shown in the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood (Jn.6:54-57). His flesh speaks of His humanity, and His blood speaks of His human vitality. The eating gets Christ into man in His perfect humanity, and so verse 56 indicates the goal - Christ IN us. The result is in verse 57. Christ lived His human life by the Father, and "SO" the man who takes Christ IN as his humanity, permeated with divinity, will live by Christ. But this is all achived not by flesh and blood, but through the Spirit (verse 63). That is, the perfect humanity mingled with divinity is available IN the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I wrote too much, but the picture, I think, is bigger than just the addition of a word - for whatever reason.

 

[Scribe]

Thank you for this input. I am aware of this rule and understand that translating a rich language like Greek into a poorer language like English requires additions that are implied. But I think in the case of John 7:39 the translators faced the very problem we now face in this thread. That is, (i) they added this word "given" because they perceived the problem of saying that the Holy Spirit was not "yet", and/or (ii) they wanted to divert the reader to the main thought that is was not the Holy Spirit that was not yet, but the Spirit "which they would receive" that was still in the process of having Christ's resurrection added to Him. This is my proposal in my posting # 9. All I did was give a reason for the delay in giving this Spirit. It was, that when we receive this Holy Spirit, we receive a full package - a Divine Being but with the full human experience. And not only the full human experience, but God's seal of approval on it. The word "glory" means "made apparent".

Christ exiting the tomb in resurrection "made apparent" that God considered His death to have covered every single little sin ever committed. Had our Lord Jesus continued in the tomb, it would have "become apparent" that some sins still remained unaccounted for - for the wages of sin is death. Some students of scripture believe that the "glorification" alluded to in John 7:39 was His ascension to the right hand of the Father. This thought has merit because of 1st Timothy 3:16, but this is not the "glory" spoken of in John 7:39. The disciples received "that Spirit" on the eve of the day of Christ's resurrection in John 20:22.

This all would mean that the verse makes perfect sense without the word "given", but that the insertion of the word does not detract from the truth, as long as one is aware of the process that the Holy Spirit was undergoing. This grand truth is again shown in the command to eat His flesh and drink His blood (Jn.6:54-57). His flesh speaks of His humanity, and His blood speaks of His human vitality. The eating gets Christ into man in His perfect humanity, and so verse 56 indicates the goal - Christ IN us. The result is in verse 57. Christ lived His human life by the Father, and "SO" the man who takes Christ IN as his humanity, permeated with divinity, will live by Christ. But this is all achived not by flesh and blood, but through the Spirit (verse 63). That is, the perfect humanity mingled with divinity is available IN the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I wrote too much, but the picture, I think, is bigger than just the addition of a word - for whatever reason.

 

[Corban]

What do you think Paul meant in 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Sounds like he was talking about being born again.

Correct. It refers back to John 12:24. We were IN Christ. When He died, we died. When He was raised we came into being as a new creature - and the New Creature is called "the New Man". When Paul writes to Churches AND individuals, he ASSUMES the rebirth. Also, an examination of every mention of "sons" in Paul's writings produces many "births". A "son" automatically implies being born to a certain Father. Paul's writngs are rife with the rebirth.