Are you referring to a commentary on the book of Revelation perhaps written by John Schoenheit? I know John and consider him a good bible teacher. However, regarding the book of Revelation I consider myself more a student of the Apostle Paul. I think whoever, wrote the book of Revelation should have been more of a student of the Apostle Paul also. Yes, you can learn some things from it, but it has also resulted in a lot of doctrinal disagreements and even doctrinal error because of the figurative and not clear language used. Below is information on the book of Revelation from one of the articles that I have written on Age and the Greek Words
Before any verse is quoted from the book of Revelation it is important to see that this book is written with figurative and not literal language. The following is one paragraph from a reference book that I learn from, the Nelson’s Bible Dictionary.
Like its counterparts, the Book of Revelation depicts the end of the present age and the coming of God's future kingdom through symbols, images, and numbers. These symbols include an angel whose legs are pillars of fire, men who ride on horses while smiting the earth with plagues of destruction, and a fiery red dragon with seven heads and ten horns who crouches before a heavenly woman about to deliver a child.
The question is why was the book of Revelation written so vaguely with figurative imagery and not literal language? One possible reason is that books of the bible then were written in dangerous times under the Roman empire who were persecuting the church of God. A number of apostles may have even been killed, which for no offense and with no punishment for this crime is the equivalent of legal murder. This includes the apostle Paul a Roman citizen, who may have been beheaded by Roman authorities. Because of unjust things like this in future years historically we saw the Roman empire abolished, done away with and come to an end. Although an understanding of what many of these figurative symbols represented has been lost a truthful foundation of knowledge can still be understood. God is all powerful and eventually all the deception of the devil, the god of this age will be destroyed and cease to exist with Jesus Christ, who loves all of humanity and who I love reigning as king and Lord of all.
Thanks for the information. In reading some of the chapters that I have studied in detail and written biblical commentaries on. Their biblical version seems fine and legitimate. Of course, I am not saying it is better or worse than other bible versions. I appreciate the work involved in all biblical versions. Here is some historical information that I have researched and then written on how the King James Version was researched and then written.
I appreciate all versions of the bible and learn from them, but none of them are perfectly written after being translated from the original biblical languages to the language of English for our understanding. The work involved in the King James Version for example started in the year 1603 or thereafter and was finally completed for publishing in the year 1611. This was written by an estimate of 47 translators. In contrast, the individual writings of what we see in today's New Testament, for example the apostle Paul's church epistles, were likely originally written by the authors in Koine (common Greek). This was a language that could be understood by almost anyone, educated or not in the years written, 50 to 100 AD. Writing involves editing to be factual and accurate or in the case of bible versions for truthfulness. Again I appreciate all versions of the bible, but all are not the original writings of the authors and editing for original truth and clarity should continue. For example, every time I write a biblical article or commentary after writing the original draft, I see improvement with my additional editing.
MRAP: Over the years I grew particularly fond of the American Standard Version (I think), which I found accessible to modern readers. I was grateful that it largely retained the use of italics to signify when words were added that were not part of the original text. Most of the time, the inclusion of such words was an innocent attempt to clarify what the verses meant to say. Are they biased? Sure. They assume the inclusion of the added words provides greater clarity, which is a judgment call. All judgment calls are subjective by definition.
Having said that, I'm curious to know what you think of the REV. Perhaps if we start looking at particular verses and translations, we'll get a better conversation going.
For example, do we really think the writer of John 1 intended to use the pronoun "it" throughout the chapter rather than "he"? There are multiple ways to approach that question. First and foremost, we need to analyze the language itself. What word is used? Is there room to make that change (from "he" to "it") while being faithful to the text and not reading into it? Is it fair to impose the Biblical Unitarian Christology on a text that was written nearly 2,000 years ago? What is John really meant "he"? Does that signify that non-Trinitarians are wrong? Or does it open the door to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation (that Jesus existed as an angel before his birth, but was never God)?
The REV makes no apologies for the fact that the bias of the "translators" played a role in the translation. In that, I think they're just being honest where previous translators have feigned objectivity. But what would an unbiased translation look like?
Please share some of your thoughts? And I'm certain others would love to chime in.
P.S. There's a fine line between seeking to understand the original intent of the writers of the Bible and calling its divine inspiration into question. I am deliberately not addressing the matter of divine inspiration. Getting at what the writers originally intended to convey is one thing. Getting to whether they were correct in the grand scheme of things is quite another.
When I questioned John Schoenheit as to why he felt the need to "go there" in rewriting a new testament, he said to me said that the purpose of the REV was to support the doctrine of STF(I). He believes any trinitarian bias in current translations is intentional and dishonest, so he's done the same thing to remove that bias. Whether he has handled scripture "honestly" in the process is up for debate. Let's just say that my experience is that John doesn't play well with others if his research methodology is criticized. I find that John lacks the ability to be objective and that spills over into his "research". I am particularly dismayed by his unwillingness to give credit where it is due.
So, my bias is that I would take his work with a salt lick.
Feel free to do a search on me. I have written extensively about my long experience with CES/STFI. It has been 9 10 years since I've had any contact with any of them, and quite frankly, I have not missed any of them the drama a bit.
The church I attend has migrated from the NIV to the ESV. Since I find many of the differences between versions to be semantical in nature and not worth fussing over, I don't have a favorite.
MRAP: Over the years I grew particularly fond of the American Standard Version (I think), which I found accessible to modern readers. I was grateful that it largely retained the use of italics to signify when words were added that were not part of the original text. Most of the time, the inclusion of such words was an innocent attempt to clarify what the verses meant to say. Are they biased? Sure. They assume the inclusion of the added words provides greater clarity, which is a judgment call. All judgment calls are subjective by definition.
Having said that, I'm curious to know what you think of the REV. Perhaps if we start looking at particular verses and translations, we'll get a better conversation going.
For example, do we really think the writer of John 1 intended to use the pronoun "it" throughout the chapter rather than "he"? There are multiple ways to approach that question. First and foremost, we need to analyze the language itself. What word is used? Is there room to make that change (from "he" to "it") while being faithful to the text and not reading into it? Is it fair to impose the Biblical Unitarian Christology on a text that was written nearly 2,000 years ago? What is John really meant "he"? Does that signify that non-Trinitarians are wrong? Or does it open the door to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation (that Jesus existed as an angel before his birth, but was never God)?
The REV makes no apologies for the fact that the bias of the "translators" played a role in the translation. In that, I think they're just being honest where previous translators have feigned objectivity. But what would an unbiased translation look like?
Please share some of your thoughts? And I'm certain others would love to chime in.
P.S. There's a fine line between seeking to understand the original intent of the writers of the Bible and calling its divine inspiration into question. I am deliberately not addressing the matter of divine inspiration. Getting at what the writers originally intended to convey is one thing. Getting to whether they were correct in the grand scheme of things is quite another.
Raf,
you're thinking of the NASB-The New American Standard Bible (version.)
Last I heard, the Bibles that add the italics for that are the KJV, New KJV, and the NASB,
and the JW's "New Kingdom Translation" version uses brackets to serve the same purpose.
Of those, I think the NASB would serve a modern audience best.
The KJV's language is 500 years old, and the phraseology is archaic.
That's fine for us Shakespeare fans, but for everyone else?
A source independent of twi and ex-twi groups really talked up the NASB, and I've found
it's the version I recommend now.
================
As for my opinion on how the REV renders John 11, I can't form one because they posted
Matthew but not John online. So, their version is not available.
Unless this was some sort of attempt to boost sales of the book,
we're at an impasse about anything except Matthew.
Click around that site, WW. It does indeed have John 1 in it. I think it has the whole NT.
And yes, it was NASB I was thinking of. Thank you. I seem to recall being the first to bring it to your attention, but I could easily be wrong about that.
Click around that site, WW. It does indeed have John 1 in it. I think it has the whole NT.
And yes, it was NASB I was thinking of. Thank you. I seem to recall being the first to bring it to your attention, but I could easily be wrong about that.
*checks*
It does indeed. My browser security settings tripped me up there.
Somehow, it let me in to Matthew, but nothing else, until I made some changes.
You recall correctly.
You probably recall my surprise upon hearing another version used the italics.
It was later that I read a book that gave some information on a number of
versions. It looked like they were trying to say the NIV was tops, but they
highlighted all the things I wanted in a paper Bible- and they all applied
to the NASB but not all to the NIV. The only things I don't like about the
NASB: A) It refuses to call itself a "version", and I find that pretentious
B) it's not public domain, so there's limits on where and how it can be found
Those don't stop me from buying copies or using it online, I use it despite
Are you referring to a commentary on the book of Revelation perhaps written by John Schoenheit? I know John and consider him a good bible teacher. However, regarding the book of Revelation I consider myself more a student of the Apostle Paul. I think whoever, wrote the book of Revelation should have been more of a student of the Apostle Paul also. Yes, you can learn some things from it, but it has also resulted in a lot of doctrinal disagreements and even doctrinal error because of the figurative and not clear language used. Below is information on the book of Revelation from one of the articles that I have written on Age and the Greek Words
No Sir, REV, is about the Revised English Version but it does include the book of Revelation.
MRAP: Over the years I grew particularly fond of the American Standard Version (I think), which I found accessible to modern readers. I was grateful that it largely retained the use of italics to signify when words were added that were not part of the original text. Most of the time, the inclusion of such words was an innocent attempt to clarify what the verses meant to say. Are they biased? Sure. They assume the inclusion of the added words provides greater clarity, which is a judgment call. All judgment calls are subjective by definition.
Having said that, I'm curious to know what you think of the REV. Perhaps if we start looking at particular verses and translations, we'll get a better conversation going.
For example, do we really think the writer of John 1 intended to use the pronoun "it" throughout the chapter rather than "he"? There are multiple ways to approach that question. First and foremost, we need to analyze the language itself. What word is used? Is there room to make that change (from "he" to "it") while being faithful to the text and not reading into it? Is it fair to impose the Biblical Unitarian Christology on a text that was written nearly 2,000 years ago? What is John really meant "he"? Does that signify that non-Trinitarians are wrong? Or does it open the door to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation (that Jesus existed as an angel before his birth, but was never God)?
The REV makes no apologies for the fact that the bias of the "translators" played a role in the translation. In that, I think they're just being honest where previous translators have feigned objectivity. But what would an unbiased translation look like?
Please share some of your thoughts? And I'm certain others would love to chime in.
P.S. There's a fine line between seeking to understand the original intent of the writers of the Bible and calling its divine inspiration into question. I am deliberately not addressing the matter of divine inspiration. Getting at what the writers originally intended to convey is one thing. Getting to whether they were correct in the grand scheme of things is quite another.
Raf: I did post the question of the portion in Rev that went into the raising of Lazarus but have not yet gotten back to that - I have been on a road trip checking out the eagles between Red Wing,MN and Debuque, Iowa.
I just read that section in John 11 and I don't see exactly what you're getting at.
The only verse that got my attention was v. 26
"and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?”
Other translations read a variation of:
"and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
So the issue here is the apparent addition of a qualifier: "in the age to come."
Did Jesus mean to say that people who believe in him would never die? Or was he saying something more realistic, that they would die temporarily, but would someday inherit eternal life?
I think our presumptions go a long way toward interpreting this verse, but the most important thing to evaluate is the actual language used, which I do not have the inclination to research. Which is the more accurate translation?
If the traditional translation is more accurate, then Jesus spoke something that is quite obviously not literally true. However, it is reasonable to conclude that even if he spoke the traditional sentence, he meant what is recorded in the REV. Clearly Jesus knew that believers would die. He said as much elsewhere, didn't he? I'll have to check. But I can't imagine he did not know that people who believed in him would someday die.
The alternative is preposterous: Jesus literally believed that people who believed in him would live forever, uninterrupted, never to die. This interpretation is possible only if Jesus was not too bright. He would have spoken a false prophecy, and would therefore lack credibility as a spokesman for God.
So I think, whether it is literally an accurate translation or not, the REV articulates a Biblically true statement by adding the words "in the age to come." If Jesus didn't mean that, his statement is a false prophecy, regardless of the actual words used.
If you DON'T presume Jesus must have been right, the absurdity of his literal statement (assuming it is an accurate translation) becomes evidence that he was not who he claimed to be. That would make him a cocky, arrogant so-called prophet with no more credibility than Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts. This presumption entails that he is not the Son of God and that the Bible's stories about him, by extension, are not reliable. I won't explore that further because I don't think such an examination is the purpose of your question or your thread. It is an alternative way of looking at the Biblical record, but I suspect it's a view you did not intend to explore or entertain.
I looked up John 11:26 using my biblical software. The word for age which is Strong's number 165 is part of John 11:26. For biblical versions to leave this Greek word "Aion" out of this verse shows a lack of understanding by the translators. Here is a more literal biblical version, which may not be clearly written, but at least places this Greek word in this verse.
John 11:26- Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
26 and every one who is living and believing in me shall not die -- to the age;
Greek words literally used right next to "age" Strong's number 1519, means "of a place entered, or of entrance into a place, into" and another Greek word which is translated "the, this, that, one, he, she, it, it, etc." which is Strong's number 3588. The definitions for these Greek words are from the Thayer's Greek Lexicon.
From the actual Greek words used in this verse and my detailed study of the Greek words for "Age" as used in the New Testament with link above. This translation is more accurate.
verse. 26
"and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?”
And stated again. The translation of three Greek words as seen in John 11:26 using the Strong's numbering system, with definitions above is in this order, "1519", "3588", "165". To then only translate this as the English "Never" shows a lack of understanding and perhaps also doctrinal bias.
Raf, thank you for mentioning the scripture John 11:26 to look up and research. I have very good bible study software, which makes biblical studies not difficult for me.
Now onto more difficult work related stuff for me.
Like I said, it was the only thing in the REV concerning the Lazarus story that got my attention. It may not even be the subject of MRAP's concern. I hope he clarifies. That was fun.
The initial issue I had regarding the raising of Lazarus had to do with the time span of 4 days; after going back over this a few more times, I'm OK with the math though I might be thinking something closer to 3 days - the point would be moot either way you do that math so long as it was at least 3. As to the commentary by the REV as to why Christ waited - I found that enlightening. I think I posted something in the Caiaphas Prophecy forum regarding Lazarus so won't repeat that here.
Raf, John 11:26 has never been an issue for me: in the KJV I had always took this to mean in the age to come. The REV's addition of that bit of info, to me, was not necessary; I have seen throughout the REV that the phrases: in the age to come and in the millenial kingdom are added. As with John 11:26, the addition of such phrases seems un-necessary for the most part, at least for me, but maybe not others (why not state the obvious to avoid confussion).
As far as that not seeing death concept, I recass TWI stating that if a person had a perfectly renewed mind, then that was attainable - don't thik I need to go down that rabbit hole.
Maybe I'm dense. I'll try again: What aspect of the raising of Lazarus is covered differently in the REV than it is in other Bibles? What does the REV have in that story, either in the verses or in the commentary, that one cannot find elsewhere? Why are you calling attention to it? What is your question? I'm not seeing a question.
This looks like fun! What Tzaia says is true, very much depends on the meaning Schoenheit assigns to the word "age", since the biblical use doesn't square with dispensational use.
STF's take on scripture is very "to whom it is written" oriented. IMO, that theory of study goes out the window the minute one takes into account that the "gospels" were written after the epistles - something TWI / Bullinger never acknowledges. The gospel narrative was never simply "for our information" nor was the OT. Jesus himself never advocated a turning away from the law. His approach was simply a kinder, gentler approach.
Paul, on the other hand, took Jesus in an entirely different direction. The only way one can resolve what Paul has to say about Jesus and to keep the bible (somewhat) "inerrant" is to divide up the bible into ages.
My pastor calls these diametrically opposed views "tension". But it goes way beyond "tension". If you ignore Paul's filling in the blanks on Jesus, you come up with a very different Jesus.
When Wierwille did the segment on "to whom addressed" in foundational PFAL, he preached truth about paying attention to whom a passage of scripture is addressed, but he taught error in the very same segment. Wierwille introduced the topic by looking at Romans 11:20b, "Be not highminded, but fear:" and saying that could not have been addressed to Christians after what we had read in Romans 8:31-39. Wierwille "resolved" this "apparent contradiction" by stating that Romans 9:1-11:12 was addressed to the Jews, and Romans 11:12-25 was addressed to Gentiles. If we had simply read those passages of scripture, we would have seen that Romans 9:1-11:12 is ABOUT the Jews, but is not addressed TO them. Likewise, Romans 11:12-25 is addressed TO the members of the Roman congregation who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, TO members of the Church of God.
Why didn't Wierwille want Romans 11:20b to be addressed to Christians? Because he himself was highminded, and did not fear the Lord.
Instead of recognizing and correcting this error, Schoenheit doubled down on it in the STFI material.
In the first semester of Literature and History of the New Testament, we used Ehrman's The New Testament to study the gospels. There was NO ATTEMPT to harmonize the gospels, and we focused attention on how the needs of the different first century communities would have given rise to the real differences in the gospel accounts.
In the second semester we spent our time reading Paul, and we used N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God as our text. What an impressive work Wright has done! about 1500 pages! Wright went into tremendous detail describing what the expectations of the Pharisees would have been, and Paul was indeed, a Pharisee of the Pharisees for his entire life. The Pharisees were expecting to see the glory of God return to Jerusalem and the Temple in the same way it had left in Ezekiel 9 and 10. They were expecting the age to come beginning with the general resurrection of Israel. What shocked Paul on the road to Damascus, was the idea that the glory of God had returned in the form of a human being, and that individual person, Jesus of Nazareth had been resurrected by himself, before anybody else. Paul spent the next few years reinterpreting EVERY expectation he had been trained to have, in light of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and his elevation to position of Lord of Glory.
First century "Christianity" was a vastly different thing from the suppositions of Reformation systematic theology, and also vastly different from how Wierwille fantasized it to be!
The Pharisees mixed religion with politics all the time in their quest for religious/political power. In contrast, Jesus Christ was very service to mankind oriented and never did seek to gain political power. And with this Jesus got along well with everyone he met and saw, except for the pharisees and the scribes. A number of gospel scriptures show this. Even a section where Jesus casts out harmful demonic spirits from people needing healing with the people being thankful, while in contrast the pharisees saying he did this through the use of the same demonic spirits. Jesus let them know they were ignorant and perhaps making them look like bias political religious idiots was a form of entertainment for Jesus. Here is one of my online teachings showing Mark 3:22-30. Here the religious power hungry people are referred to as teachers of the law. The scribes and pharisees were teachers of the law.
Simple Queston here: do or do not administrations/dispisations exist in the Bible? Please, no VPW quotes and I don't really think that the order of when gospels and epistiles were written adds credence to the validity of the question, then, if that should matter, I want to hear it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
16
17
17
Popular Days
Apr 22
6
Feb 25
5
Mar 17
5
Feb 4
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 9 posts
Steve Lortz 16 posts
MRAP 17 posts
TLC 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 22 2015
6 posts
Feb 25 2016
5 posts
Mar 17 2015
5 posts
Feb 4 2017
5 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
MRAP - We are old farts together, you and I. I hope you are holding up as well as I am. One time, I wrote a haiku for credit in one of my Old Testament classes on the book of Ecclesiastes. It went lik
Steve Lortz
Thank you for your friendship, Raf! Three years ago, I was in intensive care for nearly a week because of a potassium overdose. I took some kidney and heart damage. About a year and a half ago, I
Steve Lortz
Some thoughts regarding Schoenheit's REV: In the 1600s, Descartes proposed an idea as the very basis the scientific method, to begin by finding a fundamental truth (which was assumed), to proceed
Mark Sanguinetti
Are you referring to a commentary on the book of Revelation perhaps written by John Schoenheit? I know John and consider him a good bible teacher. However, regarding the book of Revelation I consider myself more a student of the Apostle Paul. I think whoever, wrote the book of Revelation should have been more of a student of the Apostle Paul also. Yes, you can learn some things from it, but it has also resulted in a lot of doctrinal disagreements and even doctrinal error because of the figurative and not clear language used. Below is information on the book of Revelation from one of the articles that I have written on Age and the Greek Words
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I believe this is what MRAP is talking about-
http://www.stfonline.org/rev
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Thanks for the information. In reading some of the chapters that I have studied in detail and written biblical commentaries on. Their biblical version seems fine and legitimate. Of course, I am not saying it is better or worse than other bible versions. I appreciate the work involved in all biblical versions. Here is some historical information that I have researched and then written on how the King James Version was researched and then written.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
MRAP: Over the years I grew particularly fond of the American Standard Version (I think), which I found accessible to modern readers. I was grateful that it largely retained the use of italics to signify when words were added that were not part of the original text. Most of the time, the inclusion of such words was an innocent attempt to clarify what the verses meant to say. Are they biased? Sure. They assume the inclusion of the added words provides greater clarity, which is a judgment call. All judgment calls are subjective by definition.
Having said that, I'm curious to know what you think of the REV. Perhaps if we start looking at particular verses and translations, we'll get a better conversation going.
For example, do we really think the writer of John 1 intended to use the pronoun "it" throughout the chapter rather than "he"? There are multiple ways to approach that question. First and foremost, we need to analyze the language itself. What word is used? Is there room to make that change (from "he" to "it") while being faithful to the text and not reading into it? Is it fair to impose the Biblical Unitarian Christology on a text that was written nearly 2,000 years ago? What is John really meant "he"? Does that signify that non-Trinitarians are wrong? Or does it open the door to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation (that Jesus existed as an angel before his birth, but was never God)?
The REV makes no apologies for the fact that the bias of the "translators" played a role in the translation. In that, I think they're just being honest where previous translators have feigned objectivity. But what would an unbiased translation look like?
Please share some of your thoughts? And I'm certain others would love to chime in.
P.S. There's a fine line between seeking to understand the original intent of the writers of the Bible and calling its divine inspiration into question. I am deliberately not addressing the matter of divine inspiration. Getting at what the writers originally intended to convey is one thing. Getting to whether they were correct in the grand scheme of things is quite another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
When I questioned John Schoenheit as to why he felt the need to "go there" in rewriting a new testament, he said to me said that the purpose of the REV was to support the doctrine of STF(I). He believes any trinitarian bias in current translations is intentional and dishonest, so he's done the same thing to remove that bias. Whether he has handled scripture "honestly" in the process is up for debate. Let's just say that my experience is that John doesn't play well with others if his research methodology is criticized. I find that John lacks the ability to be objective and that spills over into his "research". I am particularly dismayed by his unwillingness to give credit where it is due.
So, my bias is that I would take his work with a salt lick.
Feel free to do a search on me. I have written extensively about my long experience with CES/STFI. It has been 9 10 years since I've had any contact with any of them, and quite frankly, I have not missed any of them the drama a bit.
The church I attend has migrated from the NIV to the ESV. Since I find many of the differences between versions to be semantical in nature and not worth fussing over, I don't have a favorite.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Raf,
you're thinking of the NASB-The New American Standard Bible (version.)
Last I heard, the Bibles that add the italics for that are the KJV, New KJV, and the NASB,
and the JW's "New Kingdom Translation" version uses brackets to serve the same purpose.
Of those, I think the NASB would serve a modern audience best.
The KJV's language is 500 years old, and the phraseology is archaic.
That's fine for us Shakespeare fans, but for everyone else?
A source independent of twi and ex-twi groups really talked up the NASB, and I've found
it's the version I recommend now.
================
As for my opinion on how the REV renders John 11, I can't form one because they posted
Matthew but not John online. So, their version is not available.
Unless this was some sort of attempt to boost sales of the book,
we're at an impasse about anything except Matthew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Click around that site, WW. It does indeed have John 1 in it. I think it has the whole NT.
And yes, it was NASB I was thinking of. Thank you. I seem to recall being the first to bring it to your attention, but I could easily be wrong about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The whole REV NT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*checks*
It does indeed. My browser security settings tripped me up there.
Somehow, it let me in to Matthew, but nothing else, until I made some changes.
You recall correctly.
You probably recall my surprise upon hearing another version used the italics.
It was later that I read a book that gave some information on a number of
versions. It looked like they were trying to say the NIV was tops, but they
highlighted all the things I wanted in a paper Bible- and they all applied
to the NASB but not all to the NIV. The only things I don't like about the
NASB: A) It refuses to call itself a "version", and I find that pretentious
B) it's not public domain, so there's limits on where and how it can be found
Those don't stop me from buying copies or using it online, I use it despite
disliking those aspects.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
No Sir, REV, is about the Revised English Version but it does include the book of Revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Raf: I did post the question of the portion in Rev that went into the raising of Lazarus but have not yet gotten back to that - I have been on a road trip checking out the eagles between Red Wing,MN and Debuque, Iowa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I just read that section in John 11 and I don't see exactly what you're getting at.
The only verse that got my attention was v. 26
"and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?”
Other translations read a variation of:
"and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
So the issue here is the apparent addition of a qualifier: "in the age to come."
Did Jesus mean to say that people who believe in him would never die? Or was he saying something more realistic, that they would die temporarily, but would someday inherit eternal life?
I think our presumptions go a long way toward interpreting this verse, but the most important thing to evaluate is the actual language used, which I do not have the inclination to research. Which is the more accurate translation?
If the traditional translation is more accurate, then Jesus spoke something that is quite obviously not literally true. However, it is reasonable to conclude that even if he spoke the traditional sentence, he meant what is recorded in the REV. Clearly Jesus knew that believers would die. He said as much elsewhere, didn't he? I'll have to check. But I can't imagine he did not know that people who believed in him would someday die.
The alternative is preposterous: Jesus literally believed that people who believed in him would live forever, uninterrupted, never to die. This interpretation is possible only if Jesus was not too bright. He would have spoken a false prophecy, and would therefore lack credibility as a spokesman for God.
So I think, whether it is literally an accurate translation or not, the REV articulates a Biblically true statement by adding the words "in the age to come." If Jesus didn't mean that, his statement is a false prophecy, regardless of the actual words used.
If you DON'T presume Jesus must have been right, the absurdity of his literal statement (assuming it is an accurate translation) becomes evidence that he was not who he claimed to be. That would make him a cocky, arrogant so-called prophet with no more credibility than Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts. This presumption entails that he is not the Son of God and that the Bible's stories about him, by extension, are not reliable. I won't explore that further because I don't think such an examination is the purpose of your question or your thread. It is an alternative way of looking at the Biblical record, but I suspect it's a view you did not intend to explore or entertain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I looked up John 11:26 using my biblical software. The word for age which is Strong's number 165 is part of John 11:26. For biblical versions to leave this Greek word "Aion" out of this verse shows a lack of understanding by the translators. Here is a more literal biblical version, which may not be clearly written, but at least places this Greek word in this verse.
John 11:26- Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
26 and every one who is living and believing in me shall not die -- to the age;
Here is a link to an article that I have written pertaining to the New Testament Greek word for age.
Greek words literally used right next to "age" Strong's number 1519, means "of a place entered, or of entrance into a place, into" and another Greek word which is translated "the, this, that, one, he, she, it, it, etc." which is Strong's number 3588. The definitions for these Greek words are from the Thayer's Greek Lexicon.
From the actual Greek words used in this verse and my detailed study of the Greek words for "Age" as used in the New Testament with link above. This translation is more accurate.
verse. 26
"and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?”
And stated again. The translation of three Greek words as seen in John 11:26 using the Strong's numbering system, with definitions above is in this order, "1519", "3588", "165". To then only translate this as the English "Never" shows a lack of understanding and perhaps also doctrinal bias.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Good work!
MRAP, was that what you were referring to in John 11? Or was there something else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Raf, thank you for mentioning the scripture John 11:26 to look up and research. I have very good bible study software, which makes biblical studies not difficult for me.
Now onto more difficult work related stuff for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Like I said, it was the only thing in the REV concerning the Lazarus story that got my attention. It may not even be the subject of MRAP's concern. I hope he clarifies. That was fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
The initial issue I had regarding the raising of Lazarus had to do with the time span of 4 days; after going back over this a few more times, I'm OK with the math though I might be thinking something closer to 3 days - the point would be moot either way you do that math so long as it was at least 3. As to the commentary by the REV as to why Christ waited - I found that enlightening. I think I posted something in the Caiaphas Prophecy forum regarding Lazarus so won't repeat that here.
Raf, John 11:26 has never been an issue for me: in the KJV I had always took this to mean in the age to come. The REV's addition of that bit of info, to me, was not necessary; I have seen throughout the REV that the phrases: in the age to come and in the millenial kingdom are added. As with John 11:26, the addition of such phrases seems un-necessary for the most part, at least for me, but maybe not others (why not state the obvious to avoid confussion).
As far as that not seeing death concept, I recass TWI stating that if a person had a perfectly renewed mind, then that was attainable - don't thik I need to go down that rabbit hole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Maybe I'm dense. I'll try again: What aspect of the raising of Lazarus is covered differently in the REV than it is in other Bibles? What does the REV have in that story, either in the verses or in the commentary, that one cannot find elsewhere? Why are you calling attention to it? What is your question? I'm not seeing a question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
STF is dispensational, so there would be a lot of calling out that aspect in notes and what not.
[edit] As I've stated before, JWS was clear in that he needed a version/translation that agreed more with his theology.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
This looks like fun! What Tzaia says is true, very much depends on the meaning Schoenheit assigns to the word "age", since the biblical use doesn't square with dispensational use.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
STF's take on scripture is very "to whom it is written" oriented. IMO, that theory of study goes out the window the minute one takes into account that the "gospels" were written after the epistles - something TWI / Bullinger never acknowledges. The gospel narrative was never simply "for our information" nor was the OT. Jesus himself never advocated a turning away from the law. His approach was simply a kinder, gentler approach.
Paul, on the other hand, took Jesus in an entirely different direction. The only way one can resolve what Paul has to say about Jesus and to keep the bible (somewhat) "inerrant" is to divide up the bible into ages.
My pastor calls these diametrically opposed views "tension". But it goes way beyond "tension". If you ignore Paul's filling in the blanks on Jesus, you come up with a very different Jesus.
Try it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When Wierwille did the segment on "to whom addressed" in foundational PFAL, he preached truth about paying attention to whom a passage of scripture is addressed, but he taught error in the very same segment. Wierwille introduced the topic by looking at Romans 11:20b, "Be not highminded, but fear:" and saying that could not have been addressed to Christians after what we had read in Romans 8:31-39. Wierwille "resolved" this "apparent contradiction" by stating that Romans 9:1-11:12 was addressed to the Jews, and Romans 11:12-25 was addressed to Gentiles. If we had simply read those passages of scripture, we would have seen that Romans 9:1-11:12 is ABOUT the Jews, but is not addressed TO them. Likewise, Romans 11:12-25 is addressed TO the members of the Roman congregation who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, TO members of the Church of God.
Why didn't Wierwille want Romans 11:20b to be addressed to Christians? Because he himself was highminded, and did not fear the Lord.
Instead of recognizing and correcting this error, Schoenheit doubled down on it in the STFI material.
In the first semester of Literature and History of the New Testament, we used Ehrman's The New Testament to study the gospels. There was NO ATTEMPT to harmonize the gospels, and we focused attention on how the needs of the different first century communities would have given rise to the real differences in the gospel accounts.
In the second semester we spent our time reading Paul, and we used N.T. Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God as our text. What an impressive work Wright has done! about 1500 pages! Wright went into tremendous detail describing what the expectations of the Pharisees would have been, and Paul was indeed, a Pharisee of the Pharisees for his entire life. The Pharisees were expecting to see the glory of God return to Jerusalem and the Temple in the same way it had left in Ezekiel 9 and 10. They were expecting the age to come beginning with the general resurrection of Israel. What shocked Paul on the road to Damascus, was the idea that the glory of God had returned in the form of a human being, and that individual person, Jesus of Nazareth had been resurrected by himself, before anybody else. Paul spent the next few years reinterpreting EVERY expectation he had been trained to have, in light of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah and his elevation to position of Lord of Glory.
First century "Christianity" was a vastly different thing from the suppositions of Reformation systematic theology, and also vastly different from how Wierwille fantasized it to be!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The Pharisees mixed religion with politics all the time in their quest for religious/political power. In contrast, Jesus Christ was very service to mankind oriented and never did seek to gain political power. And with this Jesus got along well with everyone he met and saw, except for the pharisees and the scribes. A number of gospel scriptures show this. Even a section where Jesus casts out harmful demonic spirits from people needing healing with the people being thankful, while in contrast the pharisees saying he did this through the use of the same demonic spirits. Jesus let them know they were ignorant and perhaps making them look like bias political religious idiots was a form of entertainment for Jesus. Here is one of my online teachings showing Mark 3:22-30. Here the religious power hungry people are referred to as teachers of the law. The scribes and pharisees were teachers of the law.
See Mark 3:22-30
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Simple Queston here: do or do not administrations/dispisations exist in the Bible? Please, no VPW quotes and I don't really think that the order of when gospels and epistiles were written adds credence to the validity of the question, then, if that should matter, I want to hear it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.