In my opinion these verses are talking about the Holy Spirit. And maybe I'm not understanding what you are getting at here, but I do believe the Spirit of Christ (ghost) does dwell within us. The point I was making earlier is that the Spirit of Christ in those verses wasn't the "ghost" it was the scripture. Those verses equate the word of God with the Word of God.
Favourite Bible Translations
- Thread starter true_believer
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
i can see, that it could be read as though the subject that 'testified' is what the Spirit in the prophets 'signified' -- so that 'it' would fit.
i could also see, that it could be read as though the subject testifying is the Spirit that was also signifying -- so 'He' would fit.
so overall my comment on that subject is just that i think it's not a big doctrinal difference; it's equivalent in both KJV and NASB. i tried to say that earlier but maybe i could phrase it better now: it's like this, if i quote some passage of scripture i could say,
or i could say
overall, my view of the broad subject, is that language is a medium for communicating ideas & concepts. those concepts/ideas are the thing that is written or spoken; that is what God has preserved on earth. when a person reads or hears the Bible, no matter who they are and what language they speak and what time period they are living in, concepts & ideas are being communicated to them by the Spirit who breathed them. someone in China isn't hearing the same 'words' made up of sounds or reading the same 'words' signified by marks on a paper when they read John 1, but they are reading the same thing being communicated to them by the same Spirit. so 'the Word' of God, the scripture, isn't 'text' at all -- it's more than that. it's something transcendent, that we as humans use oral & written language to describe; language in and of itself is only a tangible representation of a metaphysical thing that is communicated.
example: blue.
note that the text is colored black, but the idea isn't
i could also see, that it could be read as though the subject testifying is the Spirit that was also signifying -- so 'He' would fit.
so overall my comment on that subject is just that i think it's not a big doctrinal difference; it's equivalent in both KJV and NASB. i tried to say that earlier but maybe i could phrase it better now: it's like this, if i quote some passage of scripture i could say,
the Bible says " . . . . "
or i could say
God says " . . . . "
and there is no material difference between those two ways of saying it. the Bible would take the English pronoun 'it' and God in English would take the pronoun 'He' -- i could say it says; i could say He says. whichever way doesn't change the meaning of what i do by quoting the Bible.
overall, my view of the broad subject, is that language is a medium for communicating ideas & concepts. those concepts/ideas are the thing that is written or spoken; that is what God has preserved on earth. when a person reads or hears the Bible, no matter who they are and what language they speak and what time period they are living in, concepts & ideas are being communicated to them by the Spirit who breathed them. someone in China isn't hearing the same 'words' made up of sounds or reading the same 'words' signified by marks on a paper when they read John 1, but they are reading the same thing being communicated to them by the same Spirit. so 'the Word' of God, the scripture, isn't 'text' at all -- it's more than that. it's something transcendent, that we as humans use oral & written language to describe; language in and of itself is only a tangible representation of a metaphysical thing that is communicated.
example: blue.
note that the text is colored black, but the idea isn't
my larger point tho -- was that IMO 'the greatest revival on earth' was with the coming of John the Baptist, the prophesied Elijah who was to turn the hearts of the people toward God & prepare the way, and the advent of Christ and the giving of the gospel and the birth of the church.
at this time there wasn't a KJV. the most widely used Bible was the OT having been translated to Greek. that's very likely what the apostles largely preached from when they brought the good news to the Jews ((many of whom didn't speak Hebrew anymore)) and the Gentiles -- Gentiles who didn't know Hebrew but spoke Greek. if they knew the Torah, they knew it in Greek, and even if they didn't, they were being preached to in Greek so it was Greek quotes they were being preached to with.
so your original argument about 'the translation used during the greatest revival' -- i certainly get your point but i'd argue that it's the LXX that fits that description better than the KJV does, that's all
at this time there wasn't a KJV. the most widely used Bible was the OT having been translated to Greek. that's very likely what the apostles largely preached from when they brought the good news to the Jews ((many of whom didn't speak Hebrew anymore)) and the Gentiles -- Gentiles who didn't know Hebrew but spoke Greek. if they knew the Torah, they knew it in Greek, and even if they didn't, they were being preached to in Greek so it was Greek quotes they were being preached to with.
so your original argument about 'the translation used during the greatest revival' -- i certainly get your point but i'd argue that it's the LXX that fits that description better than the KJV does, that's all
This really made me LOL. Thank you John.
Seriously though, In Egypt at that time most of the Jews didn't speak Hebrew. They needed a translation of the scriptures in Greek.
Seriously though, In Egypt at that time most of the Jews didn't speak Hebrew. They needed a translation of the scriptures in Greek.
If there had been an authoritative pre-Christian LXX in wide use and circulation, there would not have been any need for people like Jerome, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, Lucian and Hesychius to make their own translations years later. There are several so called Septuagints out there and none of them agree with the others. There are only a few remaining scraps that could possibly be dated as B.C. writings, and even those sites that mention them tell us that they do not agree with other Septuagint copies. In all likelihood they are nothing more than the confused remnants of an independent individual's own attempt at a translation, just as several others did at a later date.
This really made me LOL. Thank you John.
Seriously though, In Egypt at that time most of the Jews didn't speak Hebrew. They needed a translation of the scriptures in Greek.
Seriously though, In Egypt at that time most of the Jews didn't speak Hebrew. They needed a translation of the scriptures in Greek.
This really made me LOL. Thank you John.
Seriously though, In Egypt at that time most of the Jews didn't speak Hebrew. They needed a translation of the scriptures in Greek.
Seriously though, In Egypt at that time most of the Jews didn't speak Hebrew. They needed a translation of the scriptures in Greek.
The Bible itself contradicts the idea that God would approve of an authoritative Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures that would then be used by the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the making of the New Testament.
The Levites were guardians of the O.T. Scriptures
"Do not go back to Egypt"
Jots and Tittles shall not pass away
The Hebrew language was still widely used in the time of Jesus Christ.
My favorite translation is Hawaii Pidgin:
Da time eryting wen start, had one Guy. “God, He Talk,” dass who him. God an dat Guy, dey stick togedda, an da Guy stay God fo real kine. Dass da Guy, da time eryting start, him an God stay tight wit each odda. John 1:1-2.
This just proves that it doesn't matter how you proclaim that Jesus is God, just as long as you do, and everyone in your culture understands it.
Da time eryting wen start, had one Guy. “God, He Talk,” dass who him. God an dat Guy, dey stick togedda, an da Guy stay God fo real kine. Dass da Guy, da time eryting start, him an God stay tight wit each odda. John 1:1-2.
This just proves that it doesn't matter how you proclaim that Jesus is God, just as long as you do, and everyone in your culture understands it.
-
2
-
2
- Show all
Yes, I can, and I did, because the KJV rendering is unclear and theologically unsound. Your explanation is woefully weak. As I already stated, there is nothing in the passage hinting that "it" refers to "Scripture". You can pretend there is, but you aren't convincing anyone.
No, it doesn't. You lose this round on grammar alone.
No, it doesn't. You lose this round on grammar alone.
The 2 codex manuscripts you've cited are copies of the Septuagint. They didn't have a print function in those days.
The cult indoctrination level you are demonstrating is staggering. Denying there ever was a Septuagint OT at Alexandria!
Satan loves your story and often uses the same as "proof" that the Bible cannot be trusted.
*The Bible is corrupt" "The Bible has been changed" "The Bible is not reliable"
All these are the same taunts Muslims, Pagans & Atheists use. Are you for Christ or against him?
This from the guy who continually claims that God can translate His word perfectly. Oh, the irony!
Uh huh. That doesn't support your argument at all.
Irrelevant. Perhaps you have never read the actual history of the Septuagint, but have only read the KJV-only propaganda.
Also irrelevant.
Truth claims require evidence. Where is yours?
Uh huh. That doesn't support your argument at all.
Irrelevant. Perhaps you have never read the actual history of the Septuagint, but have only read the KJV-only propaganda.
Also irrelevant.
Truth claims require evidence. Where is yours?
-
1
- Show all
You are too obviously no student of history. You are also taking scripture out of context. I didn't say Hebrew wasn't used at the time of Jesus. I said Egyptian Jews didn't use it. They were living in the time of a massive Greek Empire. Well known fact.
The Koine Greek brings both OT & NT scripture into a unified whole. God used it for the time of the early church to great effect.
The Koine Greek brings both OT & NT scripture into a unified whole. God used it for the time of the early church to great effect.
-
1
- Show all