Jeremiah 29:11

[RaptureReady]

Has anyone ever said to you that "God hates me or does not love me?" When I've been asked this question, I think of Jeremiah 29:11. When I saw this verse quoted by someone else today (not here) I had not idea where in the Bible it came from, so I looked into ,<snipped by moderator>, the NIV.

an attack on the Word of God was noted and deleted

I apologise that my edit somehow deleted the references in the OP. I have no idea how that happened and it was not intentional

[ November 11, 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[natters]

Get a dictionary, and look up the words "completely", "destroy", "totally" and "opposite".

Oh, and also "context".

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by natters:
Get a dictionary, and look up the words "completely", "destroy", "totally" and "opposite".

Oh, and also "context".

I don't get it. Please elaborate.

 

[TC]

Definition from Strong's Concordence.

1. completeness, soundness, welfare, peace
a. completeness (in number)
b. safety, soundness (in body)
c. welfare, health, prosperity
d. peace, quiet, tranquillity, contentment
f. peace, friendship
1. of human relationships
2. with God especially in covenant relationship
g. peace (from war)
h. peace (as adjective)


The NIV doesn't destroy anything. It is a perfectly acceptable translation of the underlying Hebrew.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by RaptureReady:
Has anyone ever said to you that "God hates me or does not love me?" When I've been asked this question, I think of Jeremiah 29:11. When I saw this verse quoted by someone else today (not here) I had not idea where in the Bible it came from, so I looked into another book, the NIV.

Don't know about the NIV destroying a great truth, because I use the KJV exclusively. My memory verses from childhood were KJV. However, there is an underlying question in my mind, being the simple mind that it is. It seems obvious (again to my simple mind) that the two translations have entirely different meanings for the passages. Based upon my study of the Bible over the years, it is possible that I could die poor, or of cancer, or in an automobile accident, even though I have been a Christian for over thirty years. Granted that I am not a theologian, and definately not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but why does it seem to say two completely different things?

 

[natters]

1. The NIV does NOT "completely destroy" or say "totally the opposite". Totally the opposite would be "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of evil, and not of peace, to give you an unexpected end."

2. The context of the verse is to Israel, and how God will deal with them after the Babylonian captivity. It has nothing to do with TV evangelists.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by TC:
Definition from Strong's Concordence.

1. completeness, soundness, welfare, peace
1. completeness (in number)
2. safety, soundness (in body)
3. welfare, health, prosperity
4. peace, quiet, tranquillity, contentment
5. peace, friendship
1. of human relationships
2. with God especially in covenant relationship
6. peace (from war)
7. peace (as adjective)


The NIV doesn't destroy anything. It is a perfectly acceptable translation of the underlying Hebrew.

I'm sorry. I still can't get it. I know that I am guaranteed a future (eternal life), but I do not get that I am guaranteed "3. welfare, health, prosperity". Of course, in my earlier post, I did admit that I am not a Bible scholar. I simply read my Bible and pray. I read it and take it for exactly what it says. If someone came up to me and stated the verse from the NIV, then it would not be anything close to what I got from the KJV. I would think that those more familiar with the NIV would feel the same way about the KJV verse.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by williemakeit:
Don't know about the NIV destroying a great truth, because I use the KJV exclusively. My memory verses from childhood were KJV. However, there is an underlying question in my mind, being the simple mind that it is. It seems obvious (again to my simple mind) that the two translations have entirely different meanings for the passages. Based upon my study of the Bible over the years, it is possible that I could die poor, or of cancer, or in an automobile accident, even though I have been a Christian for over thirty years. Granted that I am not a theologian, and definately not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but why does it seem to say two completely different things?

Prosperity doesn't always mean money. Are you a mature, strong Christian? If you are, then your Christian walk has been prosperous.

From www.dictionary.com

prosperity

\Pros*per"i*ty\, n. [F. prosp['e]rit['e], L. prosperitas. See Prosperous.] The state of being prosperous; advance or gain in anything good or desirable; successful progress in any business or enterprise; attainment of the object desired; good fortune; success; as, commercial prosperity; national prosperity.

Now prosperity begins to mellow. --Shak.

Prosperities can only be enjoyed by them who fear not at all to lose them. -- Jer. Taylor.

Syn: Prosperousness; thrift; weal; welfare; well being; happiness.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by williemakeit:
]I'm sorry. I still can't get it. I know that I am guaranteed a future (eternal life), but I do not get that I am guaranteed "3. welfare, health, prosperity". Of course, in my earlier post, I did admit that I am not a Bible scholar. I simply read my Bible and pray. I read it and take it for exactly what it says. If someone came up to me and stated the verse from the NIV, then it would not be anything close to what I got from the KJV. I would think that those more familiar with the NIV would feel the same way about the KJV verse.

Then study - I can't do all the work for you. I used to question why some versions seemed so different. After spending some time looking at what the Hebrew and Greek actually said and what it meant, most of those questions have been answered. You just got to sweat through it for yourself.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by TC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by williemakeit:
Don't know about the NIV destroying a great truth, because I use the KJV exclusively. My memory verses from childhood were KJV. However, there is an underlying question in my mind, being the simple mind that it is. It seems obvious (again to my simple mind) that the two translations have entirely different meanings for the passages. Based upon my study of the Bible over the years, it is possible that I could die poor, or of cancer, or in an automobile accident, even though I have been a Christian for over thirty years. Granted that I am not a theologian, and definately not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but why does it seem to say two completely different things?

Prosperity doesn't always mean money. Are you a mature, strong Christian? If you are, then your Christian walk has been prosperous.

From www.dictionary.com

prosperity

\Pros*per"i*ty\, n. [F. prosp['e]rit['e], L. prosperitas. See Prosperous.] The state of being prosperous; advance or gain in anything good or desirable; successful progress in any business or enterprise; attainment of the object desired; good fortune; success; as, commercial prosperity; national prosperity.

Now prosperity begins to mellow. --Shak.

Prosperities can only be enjoyed by them who fear not at all to lose them. -- Jer. Taylor.

Syn: Prosperousness; thrift; weal; welfare; well being; happiness. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought Shaq used a q in his name, and not a k.

Anyway, I believe that I probably read my Bible more than the average church goer, and probably a lot less than a lot of you on this board. If you present the average person (church goer or not) with the term prosper, and they will take it same way as I do. Of course, I consider my family, my job, my home, etc. tremendous blessings from God, and consider myself very, very fortunate; however, we I do my taxes each year, I would not consider myself prosperous. I can see that prosperity can mean different things now, but I'm not sure if everyone is going to reach for the dictionary during their bible study, and will take it for what it seems to mean to them. IMHO, the NIV can easily be construed as meaning that I will die a wealthy man, and the KJV construed as meaning that I will die with peace.

 

[natters]

williemakeit said "IMHO, the NIV can easily be construed as meaning that I will die a wealthy man, and the KJV construed as meaning that I will die with peace."

The context of the verse is to Israel, and how God will deal with them after the Babylonian captivity.

 

[Ziggy]

NIV Jer 29:11, "..."plans to *prosper* you and not to harm you"

It all centers on how far one is willing to take the word "Shalom", which is what the NIV is rendering as "prosper" in this passage.

I would suggest *not* telling Benny Hinn about the NIV rendering of this verse.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by natters:
williemakeit said "IMHO, the NIV can easily be construed as meaning that I will die a wealthy man, and the KJV construed as meaning that I will die with peace."

The context of the verse is to Israel, and how God will deal with them after the Babylonian captivity.

Yes, but can we ever apply the truth in the verse to our everyday life?

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by Ziggy:
NIV Jer 29:11, "..."plans to *prosper* you and not to harm you"

It all centers on how far one is willing to take the word "Shalom", which is what the NIV is rendering as "prosper" in this passage.

I would suggest *not* telling Benny Hinn about the NIV rendering of this verse.

My lips are sealed....

 

[TC]

but I'm not sure if everyone is going to reach for the dictionary during their bible study, and will take it for what it seems to mean to them.

IMHO, laziness is no excuse.

IMHO, the NIV can easily be construed as meaning that I will die a wealthy man, and the KJV construed as meaning that I will die with peace.

Only if you refuse to study the verse in context.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by natters:
2. The context of the verse is to Israel, and how God will deal with them after the Babylonian captivity. It has nothing to do with TV evangelists.

I never said that it did. But, most of them say that if you send your money, God will give it back a hundred fold and accordingly to the NIV, that can happen.

The verse talks about God NOT having thoughts of evil toward his people, you and I can be considered one of those people. That is a very comforting thought that God has thoughts of peace toward me and not evil. Thank God for the KJB.

God bless,
RR

 

[TC]

Originally posted by williemakeit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by natters:
williemakeit said "IMHO, the NIV can easily be construed as meaning that I will die a wealthy man, and the KJV construed as meaning that I will die with peace."

The context of the verse is to Israel, and how God will deal with them after the Babylonian captivity.

Yes, but can we ever apply the truth in the verse to our everyday life? </font>[/QUOTE]Are you going through Babylonian captivity? When are you going to return to Israel?

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by TC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />but I'm not sure if everyone is going to reach for the dictionary during their bible study, and will take it for what it seems to mean to them.

IMHO, laziness is no excuse.

IMHO, the NIV can easily be construed as meaning that I will die a wealthy man, and the KJV construed as meaning that I will die with peace.

Only if you refuse to study the verse in context. </font>[/QUOTE]IMHO, it would not be considered laziness. I believe one of the tenets of using a modern version is that a dictionary is not needed due to the ease of understanding the modern language.

Regarding context, I hear too many sermons where preachers/pastors bring a specific verse out of anywhere in the Bible, and apply its truth to circumstances and situations of today. In context, David slew Goliath, end of story. How many sermons have you heard on that one?

 

[TC]

IMHO, it would not be considered laziness. I believe one of the tenets of using a modern version is that a dictionary is not needed due to the ease of understanding the modern language.

Not in my book. I use a dictionary all the time.

Regarding context, I hear too many sermons where preachers/pastors bring a specific verse out of anywhere in the Bible, and apply its truth to circumstances and situations of today. In context, David slew Goliath, end of story. How many sermons have you heard on that one?

Just because someone else does it, does not mean it is ok. If you see a bunch of people jumping off of a bridge, do you follow them and jump too? Or do you find out why first?

 

[natters]

Primary context is king. The NIV's reading fits primary context beautifully, and rejecting it because you like the KJV's possible secondary application is a strange way to determine which reading is better.