GracePeace
Well-Known Member
OK we differ on what those texts mean, and I don't have them overturning Jer 31:34.
Did Jesus claim to be God?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
You differ with Jesus ...
Rev. 3:12 The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.
There is not a temple in heavens where Jesus is the God ...
If Jesus is High Priest in heaven, who do you think he will render sacred service to?
Rev. 3:12 The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.
There is not a temple in heavens where Jesus is the God ...
If Jesus is High Priest in heaven, who do you think he will render sacred service to?
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
No, again and again, I'm not taking a side, I'm only saying I don't see eternal life being decided by the issue. People on both sides can know God.
I hear you. Listen what the Scriptures say:
Heb. 5:5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek.”
If you know the Scriptures you'll understand what that means:
Psal. 110:4 Jehovah has sworn an oath, and he will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever
In the manner of Melchizedek!”
Heb. 5:5 So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” 6 As he also says in another place, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek.”
If you know the Scriptures you'll understand what that means:
Psal. 110:4 Jehovah has sworn an oath, and he will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever
In the manner of Melchizedek!”
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Wow, I guess you'll never get it. I'm not arguing against your "Jesus isn't God" view, only disagreeing with the notion that eternal life hinges on this issue.
I understand you, but you haven't realized that you have chosen one side: that of the people who say that it doesn't matter what you believe about the identity of God and Jesus. It's a wrong side, but for some reason the biblical information I'm sharing with you isn't of much use to you.
Perhaps you can take some time to analyze it more carefully and meditate on it, because it is important that you consider what the Bible says about it and agree and support it, not contradict things that are obvious as if they were difficult to understand.
Have a great weekend.
Perhaps you can take some time to analyze it more carefully and meditate on it, because it is important that you consider what the Bible says about it and agree and support it, not contradict things that are obvious as if they were difficult to understand.
Have a great weekend.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Well, it actually is not so simple for me. God said He was husband to His people, yet, in the New Covenant, Jesus is the husband to God's people. That's a huge problem for me in arriving at a solid "Jesus is not God".
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
In other words, how do I reconcile these passages saying Jesus has a God with the fact that Jesus is occupying a role only God can occupy ?
Well, I'll answer that before disconecting to take a break:
You think that "Jesus is occupying a role only God can occupy" and that makes it difficult to you to reconcile those verses that say Jesus has a God.
Remember: you THINK that. Why you think those roles are God's? Just because you think that should be that way?
Shouldn't quotes like this clarify the reason for Jesus' high position?
Matt. 28:18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
Phil. 2:8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Hb. 1:3 (...) after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. (...) 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Acts 2:36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”
You seriously can't realize that it is Jehovah who made Jesus Lord?
You think that "Jesus is occupying a role only God can occupy" and that makes it difficult to you to reconcile those verses that say Jesus has a God.
Remember: you THINK that. Why you think those roles are God's? Just because you think that should be that way?
Shouldn't quotes like this clarify the reason for Jesus' high position?
Matt. 28:18 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
Phil. 2:8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Hb. 1:3 (...) after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. 4 So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. (...) 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Acts 2:36 Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you executed on a stake.”
You seriously can't realize that it is Jehovah who made Jesus Lord?
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
No, I'm saying I accept the verses that say Jesus has a God, but, taken together with the fact that Christ is husband to God's people (when God is husband to His people--plus, the verse says "Your Maker is your husband...", and John says "Without [Christ], nothing was made that was made"), the unavoidable outcome that that represents (ie, God has a God) is... odd. You'll probably hear people saying it's because as a human (which He still is) He has a God. That's a potential explanation, but I'm not sure it's entirely satisfactory.
No, it's really not as simple as saying "Jesus is exalted": God relates to His people as their God, as their Father, as their Husband, as their Master. If they are having a different "husband" (remember some of these people--eg, the Patriarchs--were God's people when "God" was their husband, but they will now be Jesus's bride (a father doesn't give His wife to his son as a way of "exalting" him!), so... whose are they?), they are, ipso facto, having a different god!
(That's not Biblically acceptable--it's a lot less Biblically acceptable than saying that, somehow, "God has a God", because there are possible explanations for that, but there are no explanations for it somehow being acceptable for God's people to go commit idolatry.)
This infers Jesus was always the "husband" to God's people. John also says when Isaiah saw God, it was actually just Jesus "explaining" God... yet, it's too late, the text called Jesus's representation of God "God". This reminds me of "That all should honor the Son as they honor the Father". How do men "honor" God?
So, anyway, it's not so straightforward when you're actually honoring all the facts, not just trying to cram your view in.
Anyway, I'm realizing that discussing this with you is basically the same foolish waste of time as discussing Paul's "not under Law" doctrine with "Torah observant" Christians. You're not interested in having a nice conversation, and recognizing facts, like normal people. This single issue is your addiction, and I'm not getting drawn into your miserable Black hole with you. I actually have a life to live before God, no need to waste my time trying to prove my point to people to whom it is not possible to prove my point (bc they found a button they can press to get dopamine, and that's all they're mindlessly interested in). You are not having a conversation, you are pretending to so as to dispense this ideology. You are lost--and I'm not getting drawn in.
Last edited:
Hi you don’t believe Jesus is God ? 1 John the word was God. In the Old Testament it’s says there is no rock but God in the New Testament it says the calls Jesus the rock that follow Isarel. In the Old Testament it says God is the first and the last in the New Testament it says Jesus is the first and last. In the Old Testament it says the lord thy God is one lord in the new testament it says there is one God the father and one lord Jesus. If Jesus is truly his son then he has the same nature which is God. Like we have human nature from our father. Jesus is God that because human.
I discern from your responses that you see yourself as somewhat of a ‘fence-sitter’....but you have to know that there is no fence......a decision has to be made as to what is the truth and what is not, concerning this serious issue. It matters not what the majority believe or promote.....there is only what is true and what is not true. If you can’t tell the difference then God has not revealed it to you. (John 6:65)
“Lots of people” would be the “many” Jesus spoke of....(the majority).....not the “few”. (Matt 7:13-14) It is to the “many” that Jesus directs his rejection. (Matt 7:21-23) “I NEVER knew you” means that Christ has NEVER recognised that ‘majority’ of self professed believers, as his own. (Luke 13:23-24)
John 17:3 has been mentioned a few times, but that very verse states that this is a salvation issue....you have to “know” God and his son for who they really are, or you will be serving the wrong god, and calling on the wrong name.
The people whom Jesus rejects believe that they are Christians in good standing, calling Jesus their “Lord”, and presenting him with all the things they did “in his name”.....does Jesus relent and accept them for their bearing some of the “fruits of the spirit” in their good works? Apparently not.
Did God ever say that he was going to save “good” people? There are a lot of “good” people in the world who have no interest in God at all...they are simply good humanitarians because they don’t like to see humans or animals treated inhumanely. Do they do this out of love? Yes......love directed to other humans and animals, but not to God.
When Israel turned to the worship of false gods, what was Yahweh’s response? He punished them for worshipping someone or something, other than the true God. What is the lesson?
Those who never come to know the true God are less reprehensible than those who are the “weeds” of Jesus’ parable....the counterfeit “Christians” who might think that they are doing well, but as Jesus says to those who believe that they are serving him in faith.....”I never knew you”...its not like they were expecting his rejection....it is a shock to hear those words because pathetic justifications follow, as if Jesus has somehow made a terrible mistake....this judge makes no mistakes.
My opinion counts for nothing.....”people” do not need to answer to me...nor do they have to agree with me or @ElieG12 ....Jesus indicated that the majority are not going to accept the truth about who he is, which is the very reason he casts them off......
Unless what you believe about God...about Christ...and about the redemption of mankind is in harmony with what the Bible says....no eternal life will result. Why do you think God has preserved his word down through the centuries, despite many attempts to destroy it? It is our instruction manual and we need to do what all of God’s servants have done in the past and present....adhere to God’s word and reject the traditions and contradictory teachings of men. (Matt 15:7-9)
God’s love does not extend to those who love the convenient lies accepted as truth by the majority for centuries.....his love is, as it always has been....for those who will go the whole nine yards defending an unpopular truth, even if it means being ostracised....or even forfeiting their lives.
If they knew that… then why didn’t they accuse him of saying that at his Sanhedrin trial? That trial was recorded in all 4 Gospels, but none say that Jesus was accused of implying he was God!
This proves the “I AM = God” interpretation is erroneous.
Ego eimi implies existence, nothing more. So why did they intend to stone Jesus? Because he had just said that he was existing “before Abraham was,” that he was over 1800 years old!
That’s why they were picking up stones.
Nothing more.
It was a common phrase…
See John 9:9. Was the former blind man saying he was God?
I always ask people, “Who did Jesus worship?” His Father, the God of Israel. - John 4:23,24; John 20:17.
If we follow Christ, then His Father is who we should worship.
Dt 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
2 Sa 22:32 For who is God, but Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God?
2 Ki 19:14–15 And Hezekiah prayed before Yahweh and said: “Yahweh, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth."
And lastly, if we have made another God besides Yahweh, I am certain there is some guilt to consider.
Ex 34:12–15 Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice,
As for those who believe Yeshua always existed and always had authority and will for eternity, how would you understand:
1 Co 15:21–28. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Personal convictions matter here. We will all answer for the things we said, did, and believed.
With this, your mileage may very, but I know where I stand.
2 Sa 22:32 For who is God, but Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God?
2 Ki 19:14–15 And Hezekiah prayed before Yahweh and said: “Yahweh, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth."
And lastly, if we have made another God besides Yahweh, I am certain there is some guilt to consider.
Ex 34:12–15 Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice,
As for those who believe Yeshua always existed and always had authority and will for eternity, how would you understand:
1 Co 15:21–28. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.
Personal convictions matter here. We will all answer for the things we said, did, and believed.
With this, your mileage may very, but I know where I stand.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Johann
Well-Known Member
If you study the Grammar construct and morphology of the text-you will find much more-why did they intend to stone Jesus? Because He claimed to be God.
J.
Ronald David Bruno
Well-Known Member
As I said, some can't grasp the concept. It's okay. I know JW's think Jesus is Michael ( mentioned in only five verses in the entire Bible) and they will hold onto that belief till they die.
It's interesting though that the name Jesus was mentioned 942 times in the New Testament; but then when you add the times He is referred to as the "Son of Man", " Son of God", "Lord", I Am", "He", The WORD", it totals over 1200 times. And yet, for some reason, Jehovah Witnesses come to Revelation 12:7-12 and think Jesus finally reveals Himself as Michael the archangel (who in reality W O R K S
F O R J E S U S)! This is a real stretch of the imagination!
You couldn't possibly grasp that one major flaw in your religion, because if you did, it would turn your religion upside down for you. You would begin to wonder how many other of our doctrines are flawed? Well, pretty much all of the ones you are in opposition to with Protestant Christianity and some doctrines of Catholicism. There are many flaws, misunderstandings, mis-interpretations, mis-translations in Christianity as a whole, but most differences are in the non-essentials. We are in unity about the fundamentals, especially about who Jesus is.
And this why JW's don't worship Jesus, because they think he's an angel and angels have always refused worship, said it was wrong. When people bowed down to them, they would say, " No, don't do that, get up ..." Well someday soon everyone will bow a knee to Christ and worship Him ... those who are living.
Jesus will clear things up for you later. He'll introduce you to Michael, then you'll bow down. Actually when He returns, He will bebwith His arch angel Michael and legions of more angels at His command and every eye will see Him.
Last edited:
Johann
Well-Known Member
Theological outline of the poem/hymn/creed
eternal, divine, creator, redeemer Christ, John 1:1-3 (Jesus as Word)
prophetic witness to Christ, John 1:4-5, 7-8, 15 (Jesus as Light)
incarnate Christ reveals God, John 1:10-18 (Jesus as Son)
Theological structure of John 1:1-18 and recurrent themes
Jesus was pre-existent with God the Father (John 1:1a)
Jesus was in intimate fellowship with God the Father (John 1:1b, 2, 18c)
Jesus shares God the Father's very essence (John 1:1c, 18b)
God the Father's means of redemption and adoption (John 1:12-13)
incarnation, deity becomes a man (John 1:9, 14)
revelation, deity fully revealed and understood (John 1:18d)
Hebrew and Greek background of logos (word)
Hebrew background
the power of the spoken word (Isa. 55:11; Ps. 33:6; 107:20; 147:15,18), as in Creation (Gen. 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24, 26,29) and the Patriarchal blessing (Gen. 27:1ff; 49:1)
Proverbs 8:12-23 personifies "Wisdom" as God's first creation and agent of all creation (cf. Ps. 33:6 and the non-canonical Wisdom of Solomon, 9:9)
the Targums (Aramaic translations and commentaries) substitute the phrase "Word of God" for logos because of their discomfort with anthropomorphic terms
Greek background
Heracleitus ‒ the world was in flux; the impersonal divine and unchanging logos held it together and guided the changing process
Plato ‒ the impersonal and unchanging logos kept the planets on course and determined the seasons
Stoics ‒ the logos was the "world reason" or manager, but was semi-personal
Philo ‒ he personified the concept of logos as "High Priest that set the soul of man before God," or "the bridge between man and God," or "the tiller by which the Pilot of the universe steers all things" (kosmocrater)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"was" (thrice)
This is an IMPERFECT TENSE (cf. John 1:1,2,4,10) which focuses on continual existence in past time.
This TENSE is used to show the Logos' pre-existence (cf. John 8:57-58; 17:5,24; 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 1:17; Heb. 10:5-9). It is contrasted with the AORIST TENSES of John 1:3 (i.e., creation), 6 (i.e., John the Baptist, and 14 (i.e., the incarnation).
"the Word"
The Greek term logos referred to a message, not just a single word. In this context it is a title which the Greeks used to describe "world reason" and the Hebrews as analogus with "Wisdom." John chose this term to assert that God's Word is both a person and a message.
"with God"
"With" could be paraphrased "face to face." It depicts intimate fellowship. It also points toward the concept of one divine essence and three personal eternal manifestations. The NT asserts the paradox that Jesus is separate from the Father, but also that He is one with the Father.
"the Word was God"
This VERB is IMPERFECT TENSE as in John 1:1a. There is no ARTICLE (which identifies the SUBJECT, see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, p. 66) with Theos, but Theos is placed first in the Greek phrase for emphasis.
This verse and John 1:18 are strong statements of the full deity of the pre-existent Logos (cf. John 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 14:9; 17:11; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1). Jesus is fully divine as well as fully human (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). He is not the same as God the Father, but He is the very same divine essence as the Father.
The NT asserts the full deity of Jesus of Nazareth, but protects the distinct personhood of the Father. The one divine essence is emphasized in John 1:1; 5:18; 10:30,34-38; 14:9-10; and 20:28, while their distinct persons are emphasized in John 1:2,14,18; 5:19-23; 8:28; 10:25,29; 14:11,12,13,16.
1:2 This is parallel to John 1:1 and emphasizes again the shocking truth in light of monotheism (cf. Deut. 6:4-6) that Jesus, who was born around 6-5 B.C., has always been with the Father and, therefore, is Deity.
1:3 "All things came into being through Him" The Logos was the Father's agent of creation of both the visible and the invisible (cf. John 1:10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). This is similar to the role wisdom plays in Ps. 104:24 and Pro. 3:19; 8:12-23 (in Hebrews "wisdom" is a FEMININE GENDER NOUN
A review on Mounce-
Review of Bill Mounce's Article Literal Translations and Paraphrases - Christian Publishing House Blog
William D. Mounce is a scholar of New Testament Greek. He is the son of noted scholar Robert H. Mounce. He is the President of BiblicalTraining, a non-profit organization offering educational resources for discipleship in the local church. Bill is the founder and President of...
christianpublishinghouse.co
Thanks @Aunty Jane
J.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Edward Andrews
No, this is not true. Mounce is trying to redefine translations by calling a Bible study tool (interlinear) a translation like J. Scott Duvall and J. Danial Hays in their 2012 Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible
There has become a pattern for those who favor a dynamic equivalent translation, to use an interlinear Bible, which is not a translation, and refers to it as a word for word translation because they know that this phrase is tied to translations like the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, and NASB. Below is an example from Duvall and Hays in the third edition of Grasping God’s Word (GGW).
Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays is a great book, so please take what is said with a grain of salt. However, what is quoted below is very misleading, and shows the length one will go to, to biasedly express their preference in translation philosophy. Within the table below are the egregious words from GGW.
Approaches to Translating God’s Word
The process of translating is more complicated than it appears. Some people think that all you have to do when making a translation is to define each word and string together all the individual word meanings. This assumes that the source language (in this case, Greek or Hebrew) and the receptor language (such as English) are exactly alike. If life could only be so easy! In fact, no two languages are exactly alike. For example, look at a verse chosen at random–from the story of Jesus healing a demon-possessed boy (Matt. 17:18). The word-for-word English rendition is written below a transliteration of the Greek:
Matthew 17:18 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
18 καὶAnd ἐπετίμησενhe gave rebuke αὐτῷto it ὁtheἸησοῦς,Jesus, καὶand ἐξῆλθενcame out ἀπ’from αὐτοῦhim τὸthe δαιμόνιον·demon; καὶand ἐθεραπεύθηwas cured ὁthe παῖςboy ἀπὸfrom τῆςthe ὥραςhour ἐκείνης.that.
Matthew 17:18 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
Should we conclude that the English line is the most accurate translation of Matthew 17:18 because it attempts a literal rendering of the verse, keeping also the word order? Is a translation better if it tries to match each word in the source language with a corresponding word in a receptor language? Could you even read an entire Bible “translated” in this way? – Duvall, J. Scott; Hays, J. Daniel (2012-05-01). Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Kindle Locations 494-507). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Because these authors, like Bill Mounce, favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy, they misrepresent the literal translation philosophy here, to the extent of being disingenuous.
They give you, the reader, an interlinear (study tool) rendering of Matthew 17:18, and then refer or infer that it is a literal translation, which by association would include the ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and the UASV. Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek.
What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays are being sly at best, let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.
ASV NASB UASV
18 And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour. 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once. 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
RSV ESV CSB
18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly. 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly. 18 Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that moment the boy was healed.
As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays tried to pawn off on us as a word-for-word translation, i.e., a literal translation.
Bill Mounce
An interlinear will list the Greek words in Greek word order, and under each Greek word there will be a gloss for its meaning. See Romans 3:22 in the graphic above.
Edward Andrews
Here it is again for your convenience
Romans 3:22 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
22 δικαιοσύνηrighteousness δὲbut θεοῦof God διὰthrough πίστεωςfaith (trust) Ἰησοῦof Jesus Χριστοῦ,Christ, εἰςinto πάνταςall τοὺςthe πιστεύοντας,(ones) believing (trusting), οὐnot γάρfor ἐστινthere is διαστολή.distinction.
Romans 3:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Bill Mounce
Is it understandable? Barely. Is it translation? No. As much as I would like the word “literal” to go away, I doubt it will. Will people start to use the word accurately? I hope so. But please, do not believe the marketing hype: there is no such thing as a “literal” translation. The very idea is linguistic nonsense.
DEFENDING OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORSHIP Agabus Cover BIBLICAL CRITICISM
Edward Andrews
Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that Mounce is moving the translation goal post like J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Mounce used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.
ASV NASB UASV
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
RSV ESV CSB
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 22 The righteousness of God is through faithin Jesus Christ to all who believe,since there is no distinction.
As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Mounce is trying to pawn off on us as a word-for-word literal translation, i.e., a literal translation.
Notice @Aunty Jane-I don't criticize him.
Shalom
J.
No, this is not true. Mounce is trying to redefine translations by calling a Bible study tool (interlinear) a translation like J. Scott Duvall and J. Danial Hays in their 2012 Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible
There has become a pattern for those who favor a dynamic equivalent translation, to use an interlinear Bible, which is not a translation, and refers to it as a word for word translation because they know that this phrase is tied to translations like the KJV, ASV, RSV, ESV, and NASB. Below is an example from Duvall and Hays in the third edition of Grasping God’s Word (GGW).
Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays is a great book, so please take what is said with a grain of salt. However, what is quoted below is very misleading, and shows the length one will go to, to biasedly express their preference in translation philosophy. Within the table below are the egregious words from GGW.
Approaches to Translating God’s Word
The process of translating is more complicated than it appears. Some people think that all you have to do when making a translation is to define each word and string together all the individual word meanings. This assumes that the source language (in this case, Greek or Hebrew) and the receptor language (such as English) are exactly alike. If life could only be so easy! In fact, no two languages are exactly alike. For example, look at a verse chosen at random–from the story of Jesus healing a demon-possessed boy (Matt. 17:18). The word-for-word English rendition is written below a transliteration of the Greek:
Matthew 17:18 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
18 καὶAnd ἐπετίμησενhe gave rebuke αὐτῷto it ὁtheἸησοῦς,Jesus, καὶand ἐξῆλθενcame out ἀπ’from αὐτοῦhim τὸthe δαιμόνιον·demon; καὶand ἐθεραπεύθηwas cured ὁthe παῖςboy ἀπὸfrom τῆςthe ὥραςhour ἐκείνης.that.
Matthew 17:18 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
Should we conclude that the English line is the most accurate translation of Matthew 17:18 because it attempts a literal rendering of the verse, keeping also the word order? Is a translation better if it tries to match each word in the source language with a corresponding word in a receptor language? Could you even read an entire Bible “translated” in this way? – Duvall, J. Scott; Hays, J. Daniel (2012-05-01). Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible (Kindle Locations 494-507). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Because these authors, like Bill Mounce, favor the dynamic equivalent translation philosophy, they misrepresent the literal translation philosophy here, to the extent of being disingenuous.
They give you, the reader, an interlinear (study tool) rendering of Matthew 17:18, and then refer or infer that it is a literal translation, which by association would include the ASV, RSV, NASB, ESV, and the UASV. Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek.
What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays are being sly at best, let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.
ASV NASB UASV
18 And Jesus rebuked him; and the demon went out of him: and the boy was cured from that hour. 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once. 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him and the boy was healed from that hour.
RSV ESV CSB
18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly. 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly. 18 Then Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and from that moment the boy was healed.
As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Duvall and Hays tried to pawn off on us as a word-for-word translation, i.e., a literal translation.
Bill Mounce
An interlinear will list the Greek words in Greek word order, and under each Greek word there will be a gloss for its meaning. See Romans 3:22 in the graphic above.
Edward Andrews
Here it is again for your convenience
Romans 3:22 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
22 δικαιοσύνηrighteousness δὲbut θεοῦof God διὰthrough πίστεωςfaith (trust) Ἰησοῦof Jesus Χριστοῦ,Christ, εἰςinto πάνταςall τοὺςthe πιστεύοντας,(ones) believing (trusting), οὐnot γάρfor ἐστινthere is διαστολή.distinction.
Romans 3:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Bill Mounce
Is it understandable? Barely. Is it translation? No. As much as I would like the word “literal” to go away, I doubt it will. Will people start to use the word accurately? I hope so. But please, do not believe the marketing hype: there is no such thing as a “literal” translation. The very idea is linguistic nonsense.
DEFENDING OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORSHIP Agabus Cover BIBLICAL CRITICISM
Edward Andrews
Again, an interlinear is not a Bible translation; it is a Bible study tool for persons who do not read Hebrew or Greek. What is placed under the Greek is the lexical rendering, while not considering grammar and syntax, i.e., they are the words in isolation. Now, to demonstrate that Mounce is moving the translation goal post like J. Scott Duvall and Daniel J. Hays let us look at the literal translations, to see if they read anything like the interlinear that Mounce used; or rather, do the literal translations consider grammar and syntax when they bring the Greek over into their English translation.
ASV NASB UASV
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
RSV ESV CSB
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 22 The righteousness of God is through faithin Jesus Christ to all who believe,since there is no distinction.
As can be clearly seen from the above four literal translations (ASV, NASB, UASV, and the RSV) and the essentially literal ESV and the optimally literal CSB, they are nothing like the interlinear that Mounce is trying to pawn off on us as a word-for-word literal translation, i.e., a literal translation.
Notice @Aunty Jane-I don't criticize him.
Shalom
J.
- Status
Similar threads
