Micah 1:6, Translation Error in KJV?

[HankD]

that is why Jesus came in the "likeness" of our human flesh, but not the 'sameness/exactness", or else he would be a sinner methinks!

hge is the EXACT image of God, but thankfully not of me or you!

Of course.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course.

HankD

Of coure, some would want to have it translated that he is exactly as we are, in order to avoid us being born sinners!

 

[HankD]

Of coure, some would want to have it translated that he is exactly as we are, in order to avoid us being born sinners!

Be kind, no one is perfect.

However, I don't like the phrase "Original Sin" because it's to romish.
They believe original sin is washed away by water baptism and you are born again into a state of "sanctifying grace" (which state is lost after actual sin and must be maintained by sacramentalism).

Only the blood of Christ cleanses from sin,... all sin.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.​

So, IMV the church of Rome and Augustine were wrong.

But, also, in my view, you are correct. We have sin as part of our being, both the ability and propensity to sin passed on to every one of us through our adamic birth.

The NKJV has (IMO) one of the best renderings of the koine (the inspired original language text) for Rom 5:12:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned --​

The proof of the pudding is that "because all sinned" is aorist active indicative.​

Aorist is usually simply past (although there are many kinds of aorist).​

I believe the meaning is that on that day in the garden (in the past) we all actually and actively sinned in Adam otherwise it would read both in the Koine and subsequently in the English thus:​

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sin (present tense).​

Or -- all will sin (future tense).​

But it doesn't say either of those. It reads all sinned.​

For me that settles it because the aorist tense cannot be explained otherwise.​

HankD​

 

[Yeshua1]

Be kind, no one is perfect.

However, I don't like the phrase "Original Sin" because it's to romish.
They believe original sin is washed away by water baptism and you are born again into a state of "sanctifying grace" (which state is lost after actual sin and must be maintained by sacramentalism).

Only the blood of Christ cleanses from sin,... all sin.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.​

So, IMV the church of Rome and Augustine were wrong.

But, also, in my view, you are correct. We have sin as part of our being, both the ability and propensity to sin passed on to every one of us through our adamic birth.

The NKJV has (IMO) one of the best renderings of the koine (the inspired original language text) for Rom 5:12:

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned --​

The proof of the pudding is that "because all sinned" is aorist active indicative.​

Aorist is usually simply past (although there are many kinds of aorist).​

I believe the meaning is that on that day in the garden (in the past) we all actually and actively sinned in Adam otherwise it would read both in the Koine and subsequently in the English thus:​

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sin (present tense).​

Or -- all will sin (future tense).​

But it doesn't say either of those. It reads all sinned.​

For me that settles it because the aorist tense cannot be explained otherwise.​

HankD​

I usually see it as "In Adam, all have become spiritually dead"
In Christ"Spiritually alive again"

Not Jew/Gentile, just In Adam or In Christ!

 

[HankD]

I usually see it as "In Adam, all have become spiritually dead"
In Christ"Spiritually alive again"

Not Jew/Gentile, just In Adam or In Christ!

True:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

HankD​

 

[Yeshua1]

True:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

HankD​

And notice we start eternal life right now, not until we get to heaven! Most think that starts when dead!

 

[Van]

Right on

Hi Van,

Sometimes the context of a passage has enough weight to change the nuance of a word although its the same word used elsewhere with a different meaning and the translator(s) must decide.

It's not uncommon, words in differrent languages often do not have identical English nuances. In some, rarely.

e.g.

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.​

Luke 22:15 And he (Jesus) said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:​

In both these passages the words "lust" and "desire"
have the same koine root: epithumeo.​

02442 epiqumew

long for, desire; covet; lust for: UBS Greek Dictionary.​

HankD​

Yes and in these cases the translators should translate the Greek word (eqiqumew) with the same English word. Both verses are translated desire in the NET for example. Consistency helps make the underlying message more clear. There is no merit to the willy nilly inconsistency of many translations.

 

[HankD]

Yes and in these cases the translators should translate the Greek word (eqiqumew) with the same English word. Both verses are translated desire in the NET for example. Consistency helps make the underlying message more clear. There is no merit to the willy nilly inconsistency of many translations.

Good point.

HankD