New Covenant

Once again, from post #8:

"Nicodemus's non-enlightenment should not affect the correct rendering of Christ's intent with the word 'anothen' here. Anothen ( from above, from a higher place, of things which come from heaven or God, from the first, from the beginning, from the very first, anew, over again) can mean 'anew' or 'over again', but that's not what Christ meant, thus His further explanation in the next verse:

5 Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;
6 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. Jn 1 YLT

Christ wasn't speaking of an earthly physical birth which Nicodemus wrongly perceived, He was speaking of a spiritual birth FROM ABOVE...."

 

That's OK. It just doesn't make sense if "born from above" caused Nick to think he must being born all over again from his mother's womb, unless Jesus said you must be born again.

 

One more time, 'anothen' can be construed as 'anew' or 'over again', but that's not what Christ meant, thus His further explanation.

You choose to go with Nicodemus's error. I choose Christ's real intent.

'Born again' totally detracts from a wonderful 'celestial motif' from within the scriptures beginning at Genesis 3:15 to Psalms 87 to Isaiah 54 to Galatians 4:26-29 to Revelation 12. 'Born from above' leads us to the 'city of God', the mother of us all.

 

Yes two different births;

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

Since the word ἄνωθεν "above" or "again" has a wide area of meaning, why not translate it in a way that prompted Nick's response? The meaning is unchanged. It just makes more sense to call it as the KJV. MEV, and ESV call it.

 

That's a joke coming from you.

Yea, context is clearly on my side here. Post 8. So is consistency, post 15.

Christ isn't speaking of a 'second birth' here. He's telling of the heavenly birth.

 

Refresher.

 

“Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (John 3:4)
If born-again fits better, and the KJV, MEV, and ESV scholars chose it as the best option, why all the fuss?

 

Lol, you ever pondered on this?:

17 For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ. 2 Cor 3

Hoi polloi, the many, the most, the majority, 'corrupting' (was used in reference to wine merchants watering down the wine) the word of God; the same 'hoi polloi' of Romans 5:15 and other places. You think the synergist/free willer/Arminian translators never had influence with how this was rendered?

From post #15:

"Born ‘again’, or ‘anew', breaks the continuity of how John consistently uses the word anothen in other places, even in that very chapter a mere 24 verses later, AND, it caters to and appeases the synergists in that it allows them wiggle room to claim having a part in it. 'Born from above' strongly denotes the truth that man is totally passive in the heavenly birth and it melds perfectly with all of John’s other ’born from above’ statements:"

 

How is this corrupting God's word? If the Greek source allows for it as one of several options. And if it makes more sense to use "again" instead of "above"? If you want to import Calvinist doctrine into your choice of words, fine. But there are many other ways to refute synergism without compromising this text.

 

I suppose you missed the point of the influence of free willer translators 'watering down' 'born from above' to 'born again'.

I've given ample reasons on why it makes sense to hold to the literal rendering of 'born from above'.

I'm being pulled in another direction-duty calls.

 

I'm saying, let's not butcher one text to make it say what we want. Let's have it say what it rightfully says and use texts that deal directly with "free will" to do the rest.

 

The Old Covenant was also one of grace, as none ever saved were saved by the Law, but by His Grace!

 

The blood of Jesus was not yet applied as an offering to God for the atonement, so how could they be reborn until God accepted his death, as shown by ripping the sheet in the Temple? His take of them being born again, and then receiving the Spirit in power sounds like pentacostal 101 I was taught in school!

 

Galatians 3:8, Paul linked OT to grace, not to Law to save!
Paul also looked back to David and Abraham as those under OT who still showed to us God always salvation wise dealt by grace and faith!