Missing Verses -- What's the Big Deal?

Quotes? References?
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Nida wrote: "Most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, interpret the references to the redemption of the believer by Jesus Christ, not as evidence of any commerical transaction by any quid pro quo between Christ and God or between the 'two natures of God' (his love and his justice), but as a figure of the 'cost,' in terms of suffering."

Nida also wrote: "Blood is used in this passage (Rom. 3:25) in the same way that it is used in a number of other places in the New Testament, that is, to indicate a violent death. Although this noun [propitiation] (and its related forms) is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation (that is, an act to appease or placate a god), it is never used this way in the Old Testament."

Nida is wrong. The sacrifice of Calvary required the offering of blood, NOT a violent death! Nida denies the blood atonement.

 

First, I don't see where he "denies" the blood atonement (see a dictionary for the definition of 'deny'). T he second quote is simply discussing how the word "blood" is used, the quote says nothing about Nida's view of atonement. Second, can you provide book and page numbers, or better yet post the entire surrounding paragraphs, so it is possible to determine context? Third, these quotes are dealing primarily with what others think, but say extremely little about what Nida himself thinks. Fourth, you earlier mentioned W&H. Anything from them you want to quote (with book and page numbers)?

 

ok, i'm not blindly pro-Nida or anything, but i think this needs to be clarified. in fact, i do reject his at times liberal bias.

does requiring "the offering of blood, NOT a violent death!" mean that Jesus cld have given blood at a local blood bank w efficacious results?

does it mean that He didn't need to die, n it wld have sufficed as long as blood got shed?

affirming one aspect (n not overloading/underloading the target language), is one way of producing a closest natural equivalent. BUT it in no way "denies" the other aspects.

when the author of Heb says that u've not "resisted unto blood," does it mean that his reader had not pushed a bag of serum?

does "his blood be upon us" denote a request for face paint made of blood?

what does it mean? how best to communicate it? i'm all for discussion rather than shutting it down w a simple "Nida is wrong." well, he may be--but it's useful to talk abt it n find out.

 

We are talking about translations, not men. Your arguments against these men have nothing to do with this topic of conversation. I encourage you to get back on topic.

 

You have asserted without evidence, yes even in the face of the evidence, that these codices and editions are not the word of God. The only reason you make such a statement is because they do not support your idea of what the word of God says. I have news for you: These codices are the word of God and when you attack them, you are attacking the word of God. That is plain and simple. Your own personal ideas and agendas must be put aside.

This is untrue. And it is a shame for you to attack the word of God with this charge. Get our your NASB and read the very next verse. It says "Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee. (v. 9). So what we learn is that the MVs show us that Jesus was not lying, he did not go up at that time because his time had not yet come. This is so simple. The MVs prove that you are not telling the truth about this.

Except that I have shown it to be true.

Or perhaps because it wasn't there when he copied it. Did you ever think about the most obvious asnwer to your dilemma??? Again, this is so simple.

I don't see a problem with it ... except the fact that John most likely didn't write it. We cannot add truth simply because it is glorious. The task of the textual critic and translator is not "glorious readings." It is to be accurate to what was originally written.

But yet again, you have run out of substance and chosen to attack my "scriptural knowledge." Why??

Or perhaps the Holy Spirit was very active in never inspiring these two "glorious readings." Unless you have the autographs you cannot prove conclusively either way. All you can do is make derogatory statements about those who disagree with you. That is not a good way to go about theology.

 

How faithful the translations are depends on how faithful the translators are to God.

 

Your comments concerning Nida's denials are very vague. Read Nida's quotation again carefully.

 

I'm being vague?

OK, here's what you need to do:

- Look up "deny" in a dictionary (very important!)
- provide context and/or book/page number for reference when quoting someone
- realize that the first quote you provided has nothing to do with Nida's view, but is simply Nida discussing the view of others.
- explain, using precise quoted text and the dictionary definition obtained in step one, where Nida denies the blood atonement in the second quote you provided.

 

If Nida does deny blood atonement then this denial is a religious one, and no secular dictionaries are needed, at least they are not the primary standard for defining such a denial. Go to God's word and learn how the word arneomai is used by the inspiring Spirit of God. This verb is used e.g. in 2Peter 2:1, Jude 4 etc. God the Spirit used at least two words which versions do not so much distinguish between inasmuch as both are generally rendered alike, "deny". If you do what I told and still do not understand how the Spirit of the Almighty used arneomai then ask and I will tell.

Harald

 

How faithful the translations are depends on how faithful the translators are to God. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]In that case, the KJV should be immediately discarded in favor of the NASB. The KJV was translated by Anglicans who persecuted Baptist and sprinkled babies. The NASB was translated with men who affirmed inerrancy and the fundamental doctrines of the Bible including salvation by grace.

 

Not at all. The most faithful person to God in the world cannot translate a lick if they do not know the languages from which and to which they are translating. The vilest sinner can translate anything if they know the languages from which and to which they are translating. Many a godly pastor and godly Christian cannot translate the first word because they have no knowledge of the language. So what matters is not how faithful the translator is to God, but how faithful the translator is to the text.

Translating does not require spiritual discernment. It is a task of taking the words from one language and putting them into another. No one has yet to show any case where spiritual life makes any difference in translation. Translation requires an in-depth knowledge of the language.

 

good point indeed!

it doesn't take a believer in the magical to accurately translate Alice in the Wonderland, Harry Potter, or Snow White. it does take someone with a command of languages, an understanding of people fr diverse cultural backgrounds, a desire to accurately convey the MEANING fr one language to another.

is it likely that a scientific-minded person smooth out the fantastic n magical elements in the literary texts he or she is translating?

hmm, not unless the translator doesn't value the job of the literary critic! if u remove a target in the translation, u don't have a target later.

which is why the liberals are often UNlikely to change the text, the doctrinal n the miraculous, in translation -- which they proceed to attack in their Commentary n Higher Critical works.

 

"arenomai" means "deny". Like when Peter denied Christ. Like the meaning of antichrist, denying that Christ came in the flesh. In the KJV, it is translated 31 times as "deny" and 2 times as "refuse". Again, nowhere in that Nida quote do I see him "denying" or "refusing" anything, nor even any mention of atonement. Since the quote has nothing to do with atonement, and there is no denial in it, it does not make any sense to say the quote is a denial of the atonement.

Do tell. Enlighten us.

 

Major argumentative error. The word arnemomai (which I am familiar with since it is in tomorrow's text) is not being used today. A word has meanign in context. The person accusing Nida of "denying" the blood atonement (a charge that has not been proven) did not use the word arneomai and therefore whatever armeomai means is irrelevant for this discussion. Do not confuse things by trying to sound educated and knowledgeable.

 

Then Jesus was not fully man. It was just a big farce and waste of time that He came to earth. Luke 22:39-46 (along with Mark 14:32-42 and Matt. 26:36-46) was just a big show. Matt. 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13 are all lies. Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15 must be lies as well.

If Jesus could not be tempted, He was not fully man. However, Jesus, though tempted in the flesh, submitted to the will of the Father. He is the ultimate servant. I would ask you, was Jesus not able to sin or able not to sin? I would say that He was able not to sin because the other option greatly reduces His humanity.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Then Jesus was not fully man. </font>[/QUOTE]methinks Harald (wazzit?) mighta just confused the issue of Christ's being tempted w His (in-)ability to sin.

riding the militant wagon furiously has its consequences.

 

What did Nida hide his denial on his quotations is that you did not see his "denial."

I agree with Harald's comment.

 

BrianT. I will propound my view of arneomai. And what I say I firmly believe is what sound men of the past also understood, albeit they may not have expounded upon the original so much. Lexically if one looks up arneomai it is usually defined as "deny". And I do not deny that its meaning or sense is "deny". But a simple "deny" is unsatisfactory in many instance where the word is used. It had been better if the versions had been more specific. I believe arneomai is often used in the sense of "contradict", and some lexicon gave this as one meaning. When the NT speaks of people who "deny" God or Christ it very rarely, if ever, refers to people who mean like "there is no God", "there is no Messias". That is not the kind of denial arneomai is used to portray in general. The stronger word for "deny", aparneomai, is more likely to portray such denial. In John's first epistle arneomai is set as opposite to "confess", which is homologeô in the Greek. Look at homologeô in that epistle, and learn what the lexicons say about it, and contrast with arneomai, and you should learn what kind of denial is portrayed.

Unlearned men have a simplistic understanding of "confessing Christ" and "denying Christ". In my country most religious professors think "confessing Christ" is the same as verbally utter a catch phrase before men, like say "Jesus is Lord". If they find a person uttering that aloud they say he is confessing Christ and is a "born again" person. What utter stupidity! Even the pope of Rome, the Antichrist with capital A, says "Jesus is Lord", but every judicious person knows he is a chief servant of Satan. Likewise the professors think "denying Christ" is, generally taken, an act of publicly renouncing Christ, like saying, "there never was such a person as Jesus Christ, he is a myth". Such people get stigmatized as "antichrist" by dead professors who are more antichrist themselves albeit they "confess" Christ all the time inasmuch as they are able to repeat the same slogans like "Jesus is Lord", "Jesus is the Christ who became flesh" etc.

Titus 1:16 gives a good definition in brief of what it is to "deny" God. The person referred to there by Paul were not "atheists" or satanists or such like who are openly hostile to the Christian religion. No, the persons spoken of were professors of religion, men who claimed to know God and Christ. But yet Paul says they "deny" Him. How? Answer: by their works they deny God and Christ, being abominable and unto all good works reprobate. These were people who may have said "I am a born again believer in Christ", they claimed to know God. But their profession meant nothing seeing they denied the validity of their profession by their wicked works of disobedience. They did not verbally "deny" God, like satanists and atheists and devil worshippers etc., but by contradicting their own pious sounding profession through worthless works of their own contrivance. This is the plight of the vast majority today who profess Christ. Easy believism and all kinds of similar heresies run rampant. Such men do not openly disavow Christ or God, but by their contradictory works and beliefs etc. they deny Him.

"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them"

People who profess vital religion but who speak not according to God's word on a continual basis are deniers of God and of Christ, no matter how many thousand times they may have repeated phrases like "Jesus is Lord" etc.

Nida is manifestly a denier of God and Christ. His own Bible contradicting teachings (= heresies) and notions bespeak this fact. The same goes for a host of others linked with DE and modern versions. They are such evident wolves and vultures that there are no need to speak about sheep clothing in their case. The vast majority of the translators of the RSV were manifest Christ-denying heretics, men who denied many teachings of the Bible. Therefore it is not wonder that people in general rejected that perversion as corrupt. God is not mocked. Modernists cannot render God's words aright.

The greatest threat to wolves in sheep clothing is teaching and preaching the word of God under the unction and empowerment of God the Holy Spirit, in the authority of Christ, not as scholars and scribes, but as Christ, who did not teach like others, but He taught with all authority. And if the word of God is additionally taught with precision and minute accurateness there will be little ground left for deceivers to stand on. Mark my words.

Harald

 

Um, what?

Askjo, show me. Make it clear. No more games.

 

I have said before and repeat even now again. Anyone who believes in and trust a peccable Jesus has not Jesus at all. The word "peccable" commonly is said to mean "capable of sinning". The very Jesus testified of in the word of God was and is ever impeccable. Absolutely impeccable. In the course of the history of Christianity so called people who have denied the absolute impeccability of Christ Jesus have been called heretics. And so should they be called even today. If Jesus the Lord was impeccable, which He verily was during the days of His flesh, then how come can some say He experienced temptation to or towards sin within Himself? What kind of a Jesus have ye? A person who experiences temptation to commit sin must of necessity be possessed of something less than an absolutely holy nature. Such is the Jesus of the peccabilists. If Jesus had a defiled humanity then He experienced temptation to sin within Himself. But the Bible, the Book of God, testifies as to God's Jesus that He was absolutely undefiled and harmless and separate from sinners and in Him was no sin, and the prince of this world was come and he had nothing in Him. That is as impeccable as can get. Jesus Christ the Lord did not experience temptation to commit sin within. An absolutely holy and pure human nature, like Jesus the Nazarene, the Son of God, was and is possessed of, cannot possibly have any impure thoughts or sensations or propensities or motives or affections etc. within himself. Such things would testify of a depraved human nature. An depraved human nature, like the one I am possessed of, has all these base things and qualities (negative), but not an ounce of such in the impeccable son of Mary. If Jesus Christ felt or experienced temptation within that means His human nature was tainted with depravity to a lesser or greater degree. It is up to the peccabilitists to tell how much or how little He was depraved. I want to have nothing to do with such a phantom Jesus, he can save nobody.

To believe in a Jesus who was capable of sinning when upon earth is the same as to believe in a Jesus who is capable of the same while in heaven. But such a Jesus does not exist except as a figment of imagination in the minds of deluded souls. Jesus Christ's humanity was and is a 100 per cent humanity, yet apart from sin. Therefore He could not experience temptation to commit sin, wherefore He also said that the prince of this world has come "and has nothing in me". Peccabilitists by their belief rather say the Devil did have something in Christ. Who tells the truth? God is not the author of confusion, but of harmony and concord.

Harald