Good research, amazing how one will go to create a false doctrine, using a single word falsely, sad
A Thread To Discuss Anything About Scripture.
- Thread starter jackrosie
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I would offer no man can serve two teaching masters .(1)our father not seen and(2)the Son of man, Jesus seen . The flesh and the Spirit.
The same reason Blasphemy is not forgivable against the unseen power of faith but is forgivable against the things seen the flesh of Christ. When Jesus disappeared out of sight the comforter could be recognized fully as the power that works from within..
Matthew 12:31-32 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
E
EleventhHour
Guest
Jesus never defended himself?
Jesus very skillfully defended Himself several times.
John 5
Jesus never defended himself?
Jesus very skillfully defended Himself several times.
John 5
Once again you have completely misinterpreted what @oldethennew ,was saying to me.
You seriously,need to stop putting words into members mouths.
Hopefully @oldethennew can clear up your confusion on what she meant by defending ourselves.
Once again....completely taken what was said out of context.
Jesus never defended himself?
Jesus very skillfully defended Himself several times.
John 5
He was obedient to His Father,so much so that He gave His Life.....that’s how much he defended himself.
Same as me,I do not have to defend my salvation,that was what @oldethennew was getting across to me.
I have said many times to you,take a break.....don’t jump into to our conversation and skew what we are discussing.thank you.
Matthew 26:50-54KJV
50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
E
EleventhHour
Guest
This is a discussion board not a conversation board and perhaps you should learn how it works.
Bold is the man who "completes the thought" of the Holy Spirit! He puts his puny, subverted and depraved mind above that of the Living God.
The Holy Spirit said something. It bothered men, so they added to the Holy Spirit. My proposal was that the Holy Spirit made perfect sense WITHOUT men's addition. A translator is an expert in language. He does not have to be gifted with revelation of the content he translates. The King James translators where the best that England could muster, and they were able to fulfill their job without an agenda. They did a wonderful job. But it turns out that they were influenced by contemporary, and historical thought. So they tried to answer the verse by ADDING. Well and good. They did not try to hide it. They ADMIT, by the italics, that this word is NOT in the original texts.
You would do well to admit the same and consider why. Otherwise, anybody can add anything and claim that it is necessary. It is man's job to be FAITHFUL to what that Great God has written - not adjust it.
Thank you for your reply. I must admit I cannot see the connection to what I wrote above. I proposed that the word "given" could be removed (as it does not appear in the original) and that the verse still made perfect sense. This, I posted in a later posting, which stands unanswered till now. What has this to do with blasphemy?
Good research, amazing how one will go to create a false doctrine, using a single word falsely, sad
The thing is, I gave a reasonable explanation in a later posting, and it stands unanswered. The unchanging argument brought by our esteemed brother is that men needed to add to God's Word "to complete the thought" of the Author. This is nothing more than a license to write into God's Word anything you like. A man who will not look at the possibility that the verse made perfect sense without the additional word is simply not interested in the truth. I might be wrong, but neither he, nor you, have even entered into discussion with my explanation. His (and you agree) one and only argument is that we men need to add to God's Word to make it fit OUR concepts. You both have talked about "false doctrine", but you have yet to even acknowledge what was said - a funny way of discussion, I might say.
You might dismiss me for being precise with Gods Word, but just think how you would react if I added to your sentence above. Knowing you are my opponent, I might render it;
"Good research blooper, amazing how one will go to create a false doctrine, using a single word falsely, sad
"You would be the first to scream; "I didn't write that". The word "blooper" however might be pertinent because (i) no research is needed. One can call that up on Biblehub with one click, and (ii) all he showed was what I said - that the word "given" is admitted by the majority of translators NOT to be in the original. Real research would have turned up at least two arguments - one why it is needed, and another why it makes perfect sense without the added word. THAT ... is research. But then again, that second argument is printed right on this thread and no-one answered it - almost comical for intelligent humans.
S
Scribe
Guest
The thing is, I gave a reasonable explanation in a later posting, and it stands unanswered. The unchanging argument brought by our esteemed brother is that men needed to add to God's Word "to complete the thought" of the Author. This is nothing more than a license to write into God's Word anything you like. A man who will not look at the possibility that the verse made perfect sense without the additional word is simply not interested in the truth. I might be wrong, but neither he, nor you, have even entered into discussion with my explanation. His (and you agree) one and only argument is that we men need to add to God's Word to make it fit OUR concepts. You both have talked about "false doctrine", but you have yet to even acknowledge what was said - a funny way of discussion, I might say.
You might dismiss me for being precise with Gods Word, but just think how you would react if I added to your sentence above. Knowing you are my opponent, I might render it;
"Good research blooper, amazing how one will go to create a false doctrine, using a single word falsely, sad
You would be the first to scream; "I didn't write that". The word "blooper" however might be pertinent because (i) no research is needed. One can call that up on Biblehub with one click, and (ii) all he showed was what I said - that the word "given" is admitted by the majority of translators NOT to be in the original. Real research would have turned up at least two arguments - one why it is needed, and another why it makes perfect sense without the added word. THAT ... is research. But then again, that second argument is printed right on this thread and no-one answered it - almost comical for intelligent humans.
This whole topic seems to be ignoring the challenge of translating Greek into English. The same challenges and more are involved in translating Hebrew into English. As you can see by reading an Interlinear Translation there is a great deal of meaning missing in English without adding prepositions and words to complete sentences or thoughts.
I would thing that the only way you can really know that the word "given" should be added in order to be faithful to the original Greek is to take at least 3 years of formal Greek classes. By then you might be able to know based on sentence structure and Greek grammar whether they added given unnecessarily or whether it was imperative to convey the thought from Greek and complete the sentence.
Another thought that comes to mind is that once you are familiar with the flow of Greek thought and grammar you would be able to grasp the meaning of "the spirit was not yet" and know if it was the same as saying, "not yet poured out" , "not yet given in response to prophecy fulfilled about the promise of the father" "the promise of the spirit was not yet" just because it says that the "spirit was not yet" does not support your particular explanation of what you think that means without backing it up with an expert knowledge in the rules of the Greek language and a familiarity with the Greek language that you do not seem to possess.
I am not persuaded that the word 'given' does not belong. Maybe it does not if you were expert in Greek, or it was not necessary for the original audience that understood the Greek language of that day, but it might be necessary for an English audience to grasp the meaning as it would have been conveyed in Greek. "the spirit was not yet" was style of saying "the promise of the Father about the comforter was not yet" which we can see from the context itself.
Can we get a Greek language expert to weight in on this? Not people who are using Lexicons and have no formal training in the Greek language, that is not very helpful as most people make lots of mistakes when they do that because they do not understand Greek lexical and syntactical rules of the language such as sentence structure, context, tenses etc much like English rules only different and something you will not understand without taking Greek classes for about three years.
I haven’t posted much lately after reading Romans 14, and it’s been incredibly liberating.
“Welcome those who are weak in the faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.”
“Welcome those who are weak in the faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions.”
Thank you for your measured answer. I agree with what you have said. I would also go so far as to say that the 49 scholars who did the King James translation where of the caliber you speak of. Many are the words added to make the Greek readable in English, and they have their place in the translation. But it is interesting that 200 years later, Darby, who one might not agree on all things with, but who was reported to be a Master of these languages - leaves it out. So of course does Young's Literal. In my posting #9, which no-one has addressed, I gave a reason why the word "given" is missing from the Source, the Holy Spirit. I might be wrong, but up until your posting, the sole argument of my opponents has been their emotions.
Thank you once again for your cool appraisal.
Who can contradict scripture? You are correct. I think rather that this Forum, and all others, are there for the student of scripture to learn while remaining anonymous - quite an advantage when egos are involved. I'd like to think that the members here can be like normal humans. Over the years you gather new information and change your opinion. I know the modern Assemblies allow little room for students and aspirants, and everyone has to walk on eggshells or get excommunicated, but the Bible is big and complicated. Some issues take years to get light on.
But you're right. It is refreshing not have to haggle every day.
Hey, Jackrosie, looks like at least one the subjects needed airing. Good thread.
S
Scribe
Guest
It is edifying to attempt to discover original intent in interpretation of scripture. It is a good topic. I am glad you brought it up.
We can be comforted to know that as valuable as knowing the original languages can be they also rely on context as much as English in most cases we can understand from context and other scriptures on the same topic what the Holy Spirit intended. I think in this case the emphasis is on the promise of the out pouring having not yet happened. And that the reason was because Jesus was not yet glorified.
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39(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.)
So I do think you are on trek with the "not yet glorified" being a necessity for the promise, but your wording would probably start a war in the middle ages if it didn't already.
It sounds open to accusations of heresy on several fronts.I have not yet read about this processed spirit in theology.
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)
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.
S
