|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
TRWord
|
01/06/2013 20:44 |
Davidwayne
I realize that with the multitude of Bible versions available today and with all that has been added to, and taken from the scripture, the purpose of these newer version is so that the believer can “explain away” whats written.
(Matthew 5:2-7:27) is known as “the Sermon on the Mount.”
Jesus began by saying:
Matt. 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus is teaching that nothing is to be added or taken from the law until it’s fulfilled.
Jesus came to take us from “life in the flesh” to “life in the Spirit” which requires a higher understanding. As He further explained our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
Matt. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So Jesus began giving this higher understanding of the law:
In each case, He presented the old understanding saying: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time.”
And then, He gave the new understanding by saying: “But I say unto you”
In this case, He gave the old understanding saying:
Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Then, He gave the new understanding saying:
Matt. 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
He commanded that “we resist not evil,” and then He gave three examples of evil.
You said:
“Jesus did not say do not resist evil in the context that you have presented. What He said was do not resist an evil person.”
I agree, the Bible version that you are using has presented what Jesus said in a totally different context than what’s written in the King James.
Mat 5:39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.
Mat 5:39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.
But even so, all evil that has ever manifested on this earth came through what you call “an evil person,” from Adolf Hitler to Charles Manson, so if from your perspective Jesus is saying to resist not evil persons. Is it not the same thing as resist not evil.
Jesus commanded us to resist not evil and He demonstrated it on the way to the cross. When the world threw every evil at Him He made not one single attempt to resist.
Gal. 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
|
| |
Davidwayne Lackey
|
01/06/2013 21:32 |
TRW,
you are correct in that the King James version does not add person in Matt 5:39. It is a clarification that was added in the newer translations. It is in fact implied in the King James as well in the context that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount. As you go on with the rest of the discourse it is abundantly clear that this is the case. Jesus was in fact talking about the evil people perpetrate and the reaction we should have to it, so the translation I quoted from is valid.
From the King James:
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Jesus was talking about a specific kind of evil, the evil that people do to one another. Notice too that Jesus did in fact fulfill the Law and in so doing made necessary changes in order to change the focus from the flesh under the Law to the spiritual, which is the higher calling.
People under the Law lived in the flesh which demanded an eye for an eye as it is written in the Mosaic Law. So even before Jesus was crucified he was making changes to the Law. Jesus did not do away with the Law but made the necessary changes while He was fulfilling the Law.
I never said nor did I intend to intimate that all evil comes from people. It was just in this case that I said it concerning the subject Jesus was addressing in Matt chapter 5 concerning the Mosaic Law and the change He made to it.
|
| |
TRWord
|
01/09/2013 20:57 |
Davidwayne
The scripture was given by inspiration to the prophets and the Apostles. The scribes of old were meticulous in copying the scriptures, they knew that the cardinal rule is, we are not suppose to add or take away from the scriptures.
I’m amazed at how casual you have said:
“you are correct in that the King James version does not add person in Matt 5:39. It is a clarification that was added in the newer translations.”
What you have missed is, not only did they add person but they have changed the punctuation of the verse to completely change it’s meaning.
Matt. 5:39 (KJV) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Notice, “That ye resist not evil:” ends with a colon.
A colon is used after a clause that can stand by itself. What ever follows the colon is further explanation of the clause.
Also the reason why “That ye resist not evil:” begins with the capital letter T is to tells us, “That ye resist not evil:” is a clause that stands on its own.
In your version what was a clause followed by it’s explanation has become one flowing sentence.
Mat 5:39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.
This is not a clarification this is a complete distortion of the word of God.
|
| |
Davidwayne Lackey
|
01/09/2013 23:39 |
It is in context and the intent is clear. It was not a colon but a comma and that makes the second part of the sentence part of the first, in The King James Version that I did post.
You were quoting half a sentence and therefore half a thought. It says evil and then goes on to describe what kind and the circumstances and the way to react to it. When you take only a part of a thought you are distorting God's word. You are guilty of this very thing. The first part of the sentence definitely does not stand alone.
|
| |
TRWord
|
01/10/2013 04:13 |
Davidwayne
There is no way around it.
When to use a colon?
Use a colon (:) before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself.
(Matt. 5:39 KJV) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
|
| |
Catholica
|
01/10/2013 08:10 |
TRWord,
There is no punctuation in the ancient manuscripts used to produce the KJV or any other Bible. All punctuation in the bible has been added. In addition, the Hebrew of the Old Testament contains no vowels. Thus all the vowels in the Old Testament have been added.
Cheers.
|
| |
Catholica
|
01/10/2013 08:29 |
Also all letters in the early Greek Biblical manuscripts were written in the same case. Thus you can't make an argument regarding the beginning and ending of a sentence, punctuation, etc, unless you have some evidence that what you believe is the correct separation is in concordance with the traditions handed down through word of mouth through the Christian Church that Jesus founded.
One resource that can help you is to study the works of the early Church fathers, like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and others who spread the faith preached by the apostles. Unlike the Gnostics, who couldn't keep their stories straight, the Christian faith was the same no matter where you encountered it in the early Church.
A good place to start might be to read Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" which was composed in AD. 180.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
|
| |
TRWord
|
01/10/2013 09:30 |
Catholica
We use punctuation in the English language do we not?
When the King James was translated back in 1611 the translator used a colon in the sentence, did he not?
The removal of the colon completely changes the meaning of the sentence does it not?
How do you decide which meaning is the correct one?
I use Isaiah’s method:
Is. 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
One part of the Bible must not contradict another, it must all come together to one understanding.
And Jesus statement: That ye resist not evil:
Is in harmony with His Father statement:
Gen. 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
|
| |
Catholica
|
01/10/2013 09:59 |
Nice dodge, Chris, but the King James translator was inserting punctuation and capitalization into the King James Bible that did not exist in the Greek or Hebrew bibles. He had to rely on his own traditional understanding of what the scriptures were saying. Which in short means that he would have rejected everything that you are saying.
Thus implying any sort of doctrine based on punctuation or word capitalization or sentence separation is perilous when done outside of understanding passed down through the ages, which you do not purvey, but rather reject.
How do I decide which meaning is the correct one? Certainly not by Sola Scriptura. I rely on the continuous teachings of the Catholic Church, the teachings of which can be found in the very earliest writings of the Church fathers which exist today. And these teachings make all the scriptures come together into one coherent whole without reducing the Bible to simply a spiritual interpretation removed from the literal. The only valid spiritual interpretation must be itself in coherence with the literal. Otherwise one can make the scriptures say whatever they want them to.
Genesis 2:17 is in more harmony with the following statement, pertaining to sin:
Philippians 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not _robbery to be equal with God:_
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and _became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross._
9 _Wherefore_ God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Paul connects the act in Genesis 2:17 to robbery, which is a _SIN_. Other translations use the word "grasped at" as you can see Adam and Eve "grasped at" the fruit to become more like God, aka "stealing" the fruit in attempt to become more like God. Rather than repeating the original sin, Jesus remained _obedient_ until death, which reversed the _disobedience_ (sin) of Adam and Eve, and _wherefore_ (because of THIS, NOT because of his teaching) God "highly exalted him" such that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord (a Lord being someone who is to be obeyed).
This is how Genesis 2:17 is connected with the life of Jesus, primarily through Jesus' obedience (His allowing the Father to exalt Him) reversed the disobedience of Adam (who tried to exalt himself to be like God). Not through Jesus' teaching, but by his obedience, even unto death on a cross. Jesus thereby redeemed not simply our minds, but our whole person, mind body soul and spirit.
|
| |
Davidwayne Lackey
|
01/11/2013 00:00 |
TRW, you said:
There is no way around it.
When to use a colon?
Use a colon (:) before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself.
You are correct, it does denote a list that can stand by itself. The beginning of the clause that starts before the list does not. In this case, that ye not resist evil, does not stand by itself but it's meaning depends on the rest of the list it headed. In other words the context is in the list and not the heading which is, that ye not resist not evil.
Also Andre is also correct in that there were no punctuations in the Greek or The Hebrew. The punctuations were added by the King James translators. Does this mean that the King James translators committed the sin of adding to the Scriptures?
|
(page
1
2
3)
|
