- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
4 edits
Why does the NIV state that Jesus is the firstborn ABOVE all creation?
I'll look into that.
I have never been too enthusiastic about the NIV. Because I am a Bible student I do have the NIV Greek/English Interlinear which I find helpful at times.
But I never warmed up to the NIV which rightly or wrongly reads to me like a paraphrase.
I do not read Greek or Hebrew. I did not read Greek the night Jesus Christ came into my heart. No scholars were there that night to tell me all about Nicene or Arian or Plato or Socrates or Russell for that matter. I know just what happened there alone with God Almighty that night.
I thought and thought about God. But when I uttered the word "Jesus, take me home" the flood gates of heaven opened in my soul. I know just what happened Robbie. God gave me something that the world cannot give and that the world cannot take away.
Shortly after that time I met two Jehovah's Witnesses. They were really knowledgeable. They tried to teach me that I had not met God and was not saved. But once Christ is joined to your innermost being you know what you know.
"He who believes into the Son of God has the testimony in himself ..." (1 John 5:10)
"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." (Romans 8:16)
This is deeper than an intellectual matter of language. Language is important. But Christ the life giving Spirit imparting divine life into your innermost being gives an assurance of salvation that is so intrinsic that teaches a man from within.
Your language arguments cannot give you what the life giving Spirit that Jesus became can impart into your heart.
"[T]he last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Why is the the text in John not rendered as, 'Vine, I am', or 'Shepherd, I am'? but it seems entirely appropriate to do so at John 8:58
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonshipstill no answers jaywill.Why does the NIV state that Jesus is the firstborn ABOVE all creation?
I'll look into that.
I have never been too enthusiastic about the NIV. Because I am a Bible student I do have the NIV Greek/English Interlinear which I find helpful at times.
But I never warmed up to the NIV which rightly or wrongly reads to me like a parap ...[text shortened]... 'Shepherd, I am'? but it seems entirely appropriate to do so at John 8:58 [/quote]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
3 edits
Why is the the text in John not rendered as, 'Vine, I am', or 'Shepherd, I am'? but it seems entirely appropriate to do so at John 8:58
I don't see the parallel in that regard between Jesus saying "I am the true vine" and "Before Abraham was, I am".
Now if you think the English is smoother this way "I am before Abraham" it doesn't make for you the case that Christ was CREATED before Abraham.
Your arguments over the grammer do not establish that His being before Abraham had a terminal beginning point in Him being created.
I pointed out that when they came to arrest Jesus in the garden, He said either "I am" or if you insist "I am He". Either way the crowd was so overwhelmed that they all fell back from the sheer power of His confession.
I find it no accident that John records this. He is probably underscoring that Christ's confession to being the "I am" as He had spoken in many places (bread of life, living bread, resurrection and the life, way the truth and the life, etc.) was so powerful.
Had He wanted to He could have destroyed all of His opposition. But He came as the Lamb of God in redemption to give His life for us on His cross.
He is before Abraham. He is also everything we need. What we are not He is. He is everything for us. Actually ONLY He is and we are not. Only He is ultimately real - the truth, the reality. He is and we really are not.
He is the I am who is all that we need - self existing and ever existing. He is everything for us.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Robbie,
You asked me "Why this in the NIV?" I replied that I don't usually consult NIV but would look into it.
I ask you things and you return rhetoric about pagan this and that conspiracy. They're all pagans out to do you in to make you a disciple of Plato.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it would be easier to accept your views if you answered the basic
its simply a constant battle against ignorance,
an argumentum ad populum Latin for "appeal to the people" is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
if many have translated it that way, then its so, ...[text shortened]... tanding, now you have the opportunity to educate yourself, i suggest that you do it, pronto.
question, where did you learn how to read and speak Greek! I asked you
believe it or to see if you learned it on the back of a bubble gum package,
some college, or it was your native language. You want me to take what
your saying seriously you should at least present why I should believe
your views about the language, otherwise you views are just some crack
pot spouting off as if he knows something that he really has no clue.
Kelly
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe are not refering to what most people believe, but what most of the people that are truly educated on a particular subject believe about it. That is, if most or all of the truly educated on Biblical Greek agree on a particular translation as correct, then that translation is more likely to be true than a different translation made by someone who doesn't no beans about it.
its simply a constant battle against ignorance,
an argumentum ad populum Latin for "appeal to the people" is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
if many have translated it that way, then its so, ...[text shortened]... tanding, now you have the opportunity to educate yourself, i suggest that you do it, pronto.
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindslogical fallacy, 'most people', argument is a logical fallacy, you do not seen to understand what that means, that is why you are simply churning out the same drivel, post after post.
We are not refering to what most people believe, but what most of the people that are truly educated on a particular subject believe about it. That is, if most or all of the truly educated on Biblical Greek agree on a particular translation as correct, then that translation is more likely to be true than a different translation made by someone who doesn't no beans about it.
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshiphow long does it need to take until you say that they have translated the verse because. . . . ., no, in fact, how long does it take you to say they have added the word, over, in the phrase, 'over the creation', because of a religious bias.
Robbie,
You asked me "Why this in the NIV?" I replied that I don't usually consult NIV but would look into it.
I ask you things and you return rhetoric about pagan this and that conspiracy. They're all pagans out to do you in to make you a disciple of Plato.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how long does it need to take until you say that they have translated the verse because. . . . ., no, in fact, how long does it take you to say they have added the word, over, in the phrase, 'over the creation', because of a religious bias.
how long does it need to take until you say that they have translated the verse because. . . . ., no, in fact, how long does it take you to say they have added the word, over, in the phrase, 'over the creation', because of a religious bias.
If your beef is that among the multitude of English Bibles out there and looser paraphrases you can find some incorrect translations which reveal someone's OPINION as to what they think it means, the answer is -
Yes, many such places can be found. Every translation involves some interpretation.
Since I do not USE the NIV very much, it doesn't particularly bother me.
But if you're saying "Hey I caught the NIV in putting in a word that is not there in the Greek." My reply is simply - "Okay. In that instance I agree."
You see the matter of Christ being God incarnate does not hinge on that one verse by any means.
Now when we SHOW you Christ uttering the things only the uncreated and eternal God should be seen saying, you return with either silence or snort on about pagan influence.
We are bound to drag you out from behind that handy "Pagan Influence !" complaint eventually.
Joel said whoever calls on the name of Jehovah shall be saved. Paul echoes Joel referring to that verse and the Lord is Jesus Christ.
Now you say when we take Paul at his word there we are dupes of Plato and Pagan led. That doesn't cut it.
Then the only criteria for being Pagan led and influenced by neo-platonian thought is, well, disagreeing with Arian Christology.
25 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not talking about "most people" in general as in the logical fallacy. My "most people" are limited to the "most educated people on a particular subject" which is not very many at all. So your argument is a fallacy instead of mine.
logical fallacy, 'most people', argument is a logical fallacy, you do not seen to understand what that means, that is why you are simply churning out the same drivel, post after post.
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat about the NWT when it adds words that are not there? Why aren't you concerned about that?
how long does it need to take until you say that they have translated the verse because. . . . ., no, in fact, how long does it take you to say they have added the word, over, in the phrase, 'over the creation', because of a religious bias.
The Instructor
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonshipwhy can you not say it Jaywill, they have added the term, 'above', because they are trinitarians and what to make it appear that Christ is distinct from the creation, i know it, you know it and the very stones are crying it out, but I want to hear you say it.how long does it need to take until you say that they have translated the verse because. . . . ., no, in fact, how long does it take you to say they have added the word, over, in the phrase, 'over the creation', because of a religious bias.
If your beef is that among the multitude of English Bibles out there and looser paraphrases you ca ...[text shortened]... nd influenced by neo-platonian thought is, well, disagreeing with Arian Christology.
25 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAny words that we add in our bibles are put in parenthesis so that the reader knows, they are not slyly hidden away like in other publications. This is done to give sense, not to change the sense as is the case in the NIV. Why will you not admit that they have added a word and changed the meaning?
What about the NWT when it adds words that are not there? Why aren't you concerned about that?
The Instructor