Google Ads

Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: The NIV Challenge

Your Message

Click here to log in

Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 02-05-2010, 02:18 PM
    Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    EXACTLY.what I was referring to. Several lexicons add biblical interpretations to words. "full number is just one and parousia is another.
    Rose started a thread devoted to this topic. It's just plain hilarious (when we forget the tragic effects it has had on understanding Scripture). Here's the link:

    Strong futuristic bias in Strong's definitions

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    Romans 9-11 could be a good study to disect in the Biblical studies forum.

    Did you know that the phrase "all Israel" shall be saved was said to be a phrase spoken by the Rabbi's at some times (not sure of circumstances) and then afterward they would begin speaking exclusions to which that 'salvation' applied. Paul may have been phrasing the words in association with being a 'Rabbi' of the new covenant. In addition we know that the church was under severe persecution, so any openly overt statements against judaism would have increased the pressure.
    Yes - it would be excellent to do a full, detailed, and careful study of Rom 9-11. I'll think I'll start a thread (if you don't beat me to it, ).

    I have read somewhere about the Rabbinic exclusions of "all Israel" but I will have to search for it again. But really, it's about the most OBVIOUS thing in the world since the rabbinic writings are filled with references to who will and will not have a "place in the world to come" (Olam HaBa).

    I doubt there is anybody worth disputing who would suggest that "all Israel" means "each and every blood descendant of Jacob who has ever lived."

    As for Paul's meaning of "all Israel" - I think he defined it. It appears exactly twice in his writings. Once at the beginning of Rom 9-11, and once in the end (this is not an accident):

    • Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
    • Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

    I believe that phrase has the same meaning in both passages. The fact that "all Israel" will be saved says nothing about every person that is "of Israel."

    QED
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    I think I added the question 'What does the word "so" mean in vs 26 after you replied. But the word "so" is not the greek word for 'then' or "afterward". It is the Greek word for "in this manner".
    Exactly correct! It's strange how few folks understand such basic things.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    And yes, your right also. "Jacob" representing unconverted human life) sins were removed judicially at the same time everyone else in the world's were: at the cross. It is by faith and acceptance that that forgiveness is received unto becoming 'sons of God'. (John 1:12-13).

    Again; "all Israel" is summed up in vs those of the covenant of MERCY 'even us from among the nations". The earlier verses in chapter 9 align perfectly as Paul representing the laws of soteriology and the laws of the covenant of Mercy that were figuratively stated thought the lives and experiences of Abraham, Isaac,, Jacob/Israel as stated in Ps 105: 8-10.
    I agree with the ideas you present, but I never use the phrase "covenant of mercy." It seems to me to be a theological invention. I never would have come up with it by just reading the Bible, so it doesn't have any meaning to me.

    Many blessings my friend,

    Richard
  • 02-05-2010, 02:05 PM
    EndtimesDeut32/70AD
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Excellent points. I agree completely. Here is my favorite example of a lexicon infected with an idiosyncratic and arbitrary theology:
    Strong's 3952 parousia {par-oo-see'-ah}
    Meaning: 1) presence 2) the coming, arrival, advent 2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God
    Who knew that the lexicon of secular Koine Greek would be so densely packed with literalistic futurist Christian theology???

    Richard
    EXACTLY.what I was referring to. Several lexicons add biblical interpretations to words. "full number is just one and parousia is another.

    Romans 9-11 could be a good study to disect in the Biblical studies forum.

    Did you know that the phrase "all Israel" shall be saved was said to be a phrase spoken by the Rabbi's at some times (not sure of circumstances) and then afterward they would begin speaking exclusions to which that 'salvation' applied. Paul may have been phrasing the words in association with being a 'Rabbi' of the new covenant. In addition we know that the church was under severe persecution, so any openly overt statements against judaism would have increased the pressure.

    I think I added the question 'What does the word "so" mean in vs 26 after you replied. But the word "so" is not the greek word for 'then' or "afterward". It is the Greek word for "in this manner".

    And yes, your right also. "Jacob" representing unconverted human life) sins were removed judicially at the same time everyone else in the world's were: at the cross. It is by faith and acceptance that that forgiveness is received unto becoming 'sons of God'. (John 1:12-13).

    Again; "all Israel" is summed up in vs those of the covenant of MERCY 'even us from among the nations". The earlier verses in chapter 9 align perfectly as Paul representing the laws of soteriology and the laws of the covenant of Mercy that were figuratively stated thought the lives and experiences of Abraham, Isaac,, Jacob/Israel as stated in Ps 105: 8-10.
  • 02-05-2010, 08:41 AM
    Rose
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Excellent points. I agree completely. Here is my favorite example of a lexicon infected with an idiosyncratic and arbitrary theology:
    Strong's 3952 parousia {par-oo-see'-ah}
    Meaning: 1) presence 2) the coming, arrival, advent 2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God
    Who knew that the lexicon of secular Koine Greek would be so densely packed with literalistic futurist Christian theology???

    Yes indeed, we can all be sure that the word "parousia" had that specific meaning in the common language of first century Greeks! Nice "lexicon," eh?


    Here's another one for you....
    Strong's 2015:
    επιφανεια epiphaneia {ep-if-an'-i-ah} from 2016; TDNT - 9:7,1244; n f AV - appearing 5, brightness 1; 6 1) an appearing, appearance Often used of the glorious manifestation of the gods, and esp. of their advent to help; in the NT the advent of Christ, -- not only that which has already taken place and by which his presence and power appear in the saving light he has shed upon mankind, but also that illustrious return from heaven to earth to occur in the future.


    We need to start a collection of all the Strong's definitions that have a clear futuristic bias to their definitions...

    Rose
  • 02-04-2010, 09:33 PM
    Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    One of the dangers of Lexicons and dictionaries is that IF they define a word by their own personal interpretation of it's biblical usage or the consensus interpretation of it's biblical usage, it then becomes an acceptable definition of the word. Its a cyclical error which becomes embedded in future lexicons. Joe and I had touched on this a little a few months back.(or was it you). Thus can we really trust lexicons and dictionaries in every instance and circumstances if they are compiled by fallible, subjective men?.
    Excellent points. I agree completely. Here is my favorite example of a lexicon infected with an idiosyncratic and arbitrary theology:
    Strong's 3952 parousia {par-oo-see'-ah}
    Meaning: 1) presence 2) the coming, arrival, advent 2a) the future visible return from heaven of Jesus, to raise the dead, hold the last judgment, and set up formally and gloriously the kingdom of God
    Who knew that the lexicon of secular Koine Greek would be so densely packed with literalistic futurist Christian theology???

    Yes indeed, we can all be sure that the word "parousia" had that specific meaning in the common language of first century Greeks! Nice "lexicon," eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    There would seem to be no reason to add "full number" as a 'special interpretation' other than to support the interpretation of it's use in this verse.
    You may be correct, but there could be other aspects of the context that suggest the idea of "full number." I need to look more closely at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    My personal belief is that this interpretation is the 'only' interpretation that fits with the very context of the chapter and with the surrounding chapters especially since Paul includes (and almost focuses on the 'jealousy factor' that would be used to call some of the remaining elect within the end generation of national Israel.

    The summary verses of 28-32 and it's emphasis of NOW, (in 60 AD and referring to after the filling of God has been coming into the nations. Of course this principle can and does continue even though 'national Israel' of the mosaic covenant and genealogical seed has ended. But the dispensational teaching that 'all "national" Israel will be saved' is a great hinderence.
    Agreed. Especially in light of the reference to "their pleroma" (speaking of the pleroma of divine blessings Israel had from God) mentioned in just a few verses earlier in Romans 11:12.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    Question. When were sins removed from 'Israel"
    At the same time the "sins" were removed from the world. Christ the Lamb of God took away the sins of the world at the cross.

    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    Question 2. What do you think/feel/believe would be a better meaning for this context; especially in view of the doctirnal precedents Paul set forth in the Previous chapters of Romans AND how he has defined "all Israel" to mean those of the covenant of Mercy, Grace, Election... including those of the nations recieving Mercy.
    I don't think there is a better translation than the divine fulness of Christ flooding the nations as it had Israel. I think more study on this particular point will be fruitful so I can get a more precise articulation.

    Thanks for bringing this up.

    Richard
  • 02-04-2010, 09:13 PM
    EndtimesDeut32/70AD
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I'm unsure if that is a poor translation or not. I checked Thayer's and he reviews the full spectrum of meanings of pleroma and he lists its use in Romans 11:25 as a special case where it means "full number." The meaning you suggest has a lot of merit, but I'm not certain it really fits with the context in this case.

    Richard
    One of the dangers of Lexicons and dictionaries is that IF they define a word by their own personal interpretation of it's biblical usage or the consensus interpretation of it's biblical usage, it then becomes an acceptable definition of the word. Its a cyclical error which becomes embedded in future lexicons. Joe and I had touched on this a little a few months back.(or was it you). Thus can we really trust lexicons and dictionaries in every instance and circumstances if they are compiled by fallible, subjective men?.

    There would seem to be no reason to add "full number" as a 'special interpretation' other than to support the interpretation of it's use in this verse.

    My personal belief is that this interpretation is the 'only' interpretation that fits with the very context of the chapter and with the surrounding chapters especially since Paul includes (and almost focuses on) the 'jealousy factor' that would be used to irrevocably call some of the remaining elect from within the end generation of yet unbelieving national Israel. The 'jealousy factor' and the testimony of the filling of the Holy Spirit within the believing individuals from the nations was source by Paul from Deut 32 !!! and quoted in Rom 10:19.
    The summary verses of Rom 11:28-32 and it's emphasis of NOW, (in 60 AD and referring to after the filling of God has been coming into the nations. Of course this principle can and does continue even though 'national Israel' of the mosaic covenant and genealogical seed has ended. But the dispensational teaching that 'all "national" Israel will be saved' is a great hinderence.

    Question. When were sins removed from 'Israel"
    Question 2. What do you think/feel/believe would be a better meaning for this context; especially in view of the doctrinal precedents Paul set forth in the Previous chapters of Romans AND how he has defined "all Israel" to mean those of the covenant of Mercy, Grace, Election... including those of the nations receiving Mercy.
    Question 3. What does the word "so" mean in vs 26.
  • 02-04-2010, 08:14 PM
    Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    Just know that the prior to the dead sea scrolls, the oldest old testament manuscripts were in Greek too, the oldest Hebrew manuscript being the Masoretic text, dated about 900 AD. Not having any originals, old or new testaments, is not grounds for dismissing evidence found which could indicate what language an original would have come from. Since there are no originals at all, we can look at archeological evidence, historical evidence, and comparing the Greek manuscripts with the Aramaic Peshitta to find logical reasons for many of the manuscript differences. God has given us his word, and we have it preserved, both in Aramaic copies as well as Greek copies, and now in virtually every language on earth. I believe the evidence points to Aramaic originals.

    Ron
    Hi Ron,

    It seems we have a very different case with the Hebrew Scriptures because there is universal consent that they were originally written in Hebrew. This is not case with the NT. As far as I know, the overwhelming manuscript evidence points to Greek originals, except possibly in the case of Matthew and Hebrews.

    This topic has come up a number of times in our discussions. Do you think it is time to devote a thread to the evidence? That could be very interesting as well as enlightening.

    Many blessings my friend,

    Richard
  • 02-04-2010, 05:56 PM
    gregoryfl
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    That's an interesting approach, but that implies that the Greek text is just a translation and not the original. I know you have said you find this idea appealing, but it has the unintended consequence of implying that God has not given us His Word since the oldest manuscripts are all Greek. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. I'm familiar with the tradition that says Matthew's Gospel was originally Aramaic, and some say Hebrews too, but I know of no evidence to suggest that Paul letters were not originally Greek.

    So if our Greek NT is just a fallible translation, then we are bereft of a truly inspired NT.
    Just know that the prior to the dead sea scrolls, the oldest old testament manuscripts were in Greek too, the oldest Hebrew manuscript being the Masoretic text, dated about 900 AD. Not having any originals, old or new testaments, is not grounds for dismissing evidence found which could indicate what language an original would have come from. Since there are no originals at all, we can look at archeological evidence, historical evidence, and comparing the Greek manuscripts with the Aramaic Peshitta to find logical reasons for many of the manuscript differences. God has given us his word, and we have it preserved, both in Aramaic copies as well as Greek copies, and now in virtually every language on earth. I believe the evidence points to Aramaic originals.

    Ron
  • 02-04-2010, 02:22 PM
    Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    A couple of the reasons for many of the textual variants are because of an Aramaic word which have 2 or more known meanings, known as split-words. What this shows is one translator seeing the Aramaic word and choosing one meaning to translate it, while another looks at the same word and chooses the other meaning.

    Another reason is the dead sea scroll Aramaic script in particular has many words which often are very easy to mistake one word for another, where a translator into Greek saw an Aramaic word and mistook it for another one.

    This most certainly does not explain every single textual variant, but it does help with many dozens of them throughout the text.

    Ron
    That's an interesting approach, but that implies that the Greek text is just a translation and not the original. I know you have said you find this idea appealing, but it has the unintended consequence of implying that God has not given us His Word since the oldest manuscripts are all Greek. As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. I'm familiar with the tradition that says Matthew's Gospel was originally Aramaic, and some say Hebrews too, but I know of no evidence to suggest that Paul letters were not originally Greek.

    So if our Greek NT is just a fallible translation, then we are bereft of a truly inspired NT.
  • 02-04-2010, 02:04 PM
    gregoryfl
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hi TruthSeeker,

    You bring up a very important question - How are we supposed to understand the textual variations in the original Greek text of the Bible? Since we don't have the original autographs of Scripture, how do we establish which ancient texts are correct, and which have errors?


    Richard
    A couple of the reasons for many of the textual variants are because of an Aramaic word which have 2 or more known meanings, known as split-words. What this shows is one translator seeing the Aramaic word and choosing one meaning to translate it, while another looks at the same word and chooses the other meaning.

    Another reason is the dead sea scroll Aramaic script in particular has many words which often are very easy to mistake one word for another, where a translator into Greek saw an Aramaic word and mistook it for another one.

    This most certainly does not explain every single textual variant, but it does help with many dozens of them throughout the text.

    Ron
  • 02-04-2010, 11:41 AM
    Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by EndtimesDeut32 View Post
    My personal pet peeve with the NIV is the translation of Pleroma in Roman 11:25 as 'full number" in support of the dispy theology. It's an open and blatant misrepresentation of the intent of the passage. Pleroma is used only a few verses earlier as 'fullness' or filling. In vs 25, It's talking of the filling of Grace, truth and love of God and the Spirit to individuals in the nations of international Roman empire so that the prophecy of God making individuals still within national Israel jealous unto faith that was prophecied in Deut 32:20. Part of the yet elect of national Israel would come to faith though the mercy shown to them by those belivers in the nations. And he was probably primarily referring to prior to the desolation, but is applicable still, though the national covenant ended.
    God had not cast off those of national Israel.... even though some may be enemies of the gospel, some were yet elect to recieve God's Mercy through the mercy shown them.... even as Paul was once an enemy of the Gospel.
    I'm unsure if that is a poor translation or not. I checked Thayer's and he reviews the full spectrum of meanings of pleroma and he lists its use in Romans 11:25 as a special case where it means "full number." The meaning you suggest has a lot of merit, but I'm not certain it really fits with the context in this case.

    My pet peeve with NIV is their introduction of a concept entirely foreign to the Bible, namely, sin nature. Believe it or not, that's how they often translated the word sarx which means flesh. On this count alone, the NIV is exposed as an abominable translation which is good for little more than lining bird cages or starting fires.

    Richard
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •