Christians replies solicited: About the Way of Jesus

[Charity]

31 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

Regarding the translation of "anothen".    As per your link, there are exactly 13 occurrences of "anothen" in the Greek New Testament.   If I take as a given that only one meaning (one general one or one specific one) should be used for translation, then it's not fair to translate them selectively as different concepts.  It can't be both "from above" in some places and "anew" in other places. The concepts are different.  ("Again" and "anew" are the same thing, more or less, but they're not the same as "from above" no matter WHAT Thayer said.)   Naturally, it's possible for both translations to be WRONG and contradict, but only one of them could be correct.   A look down all 13 usages shows that more than 1/2 of them can't possibly be "again" or "anew" and have to be "from above" if they're either definition.  In one case, it may be a bit of a stretch, and 12 usages can easily be "from above."   I did my own work, long ago, (1989), and concluded "anothen" was "from above."  Looking at your link, I conclude I was right when I concluded that, and Thayer made an error.

 

32 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

Regarding the translation of "anothen".    As per your link, there are exactly 13 occurrences of "anothen" in the Greek New Testament.   If I take as a given that only one meaning (one general one or one specific one) should be used for translation, then it's not fair to translate them selectively as different concepts.  It can't be both "from above" in some places and "anew" in other places. The concepts are different.  ("Again" and "anew" are the same thing, more or less, but they're not the same as "from above" no matter WHAT Thayer said.)   Naturally, it's possible for both translations to be WRONG and contradict, but only one of them could be correct.   A look down all 13 usages shows that more than 1/2 of them can't possibly be "again" or "anew" and have to be "from above" if they're either definition.  In one case, it may be a bit of a stretch, and 12 usages can easily be "from above."   I did my own work, long ago, (1989), and concluded "anothen" was "from above."  Looking at your link, I conclude I was right when I concluded that, and Thayer made an error.

On the Bible Hub website, Thayer's Greek Lexicon is used to attach specific definitions or meanings of a word to specific verses.  According to this source, the meaning of "anothen" in John 3:3 is anew or over again, not "from above."  I can't always follow their reasoning like in the long list of references given under the (c.) option.

I accepted their reasoning based on Nicodemus not directly addressing Jesus' words by asking how one can be born from above but how one can be born from the womb a second time (i.e., again).  To me, this makes sense if Jesus had said "born again" or "born anew."

However, I can see how being born from above was so "out there" for Nicodemus that he possibly made reference in his reply to the only birth he knew of which is from the womb.  Jesus explains it further in the following verses. 

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Jesus is telling Nicodemus an earthly truth - you can't see the wind around and above you, but you know it's there because you can hear it.  So when one is born of the spirit (i.e., from above), it's the same - you won't see the spirit, but you will know you have it because you hear it?  

As a master of Israel, what should Nicodemus had understood about this but didn't?  Some commentaries say it's referring to when God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life and Adam became alive/a living soul.  Maybe it relates to how the spirit was described in the old testament. 

How do you see the above verses as explaining the meaning of being born from above in a way that Nicodemus should have understood?

 

[Charity]

1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

"The most concerning and obvious question in all of this is:  

Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being,...."

 

[I was under the impression that this wasn't going to be one of those threads.  If this is going to be one of those threads, I'll just see myself out.  I came to discuss content and translation, not engage in an angry shouting match that won't convince anyone of anything and will only waste time.  If this thread is going to change into one of those threads now that I am in it, I'm not sticking around.]

Was it the underlined sections that made you assume I was angry?  I used that option to focus on certain points - not to insinuate I'm absolute right in what I'm saying.

[WordWolf]

I wasn't primarily objecting to the tone. I was objecting to that sort of question being in this thread. I'll agree to participate in threads where we're playing nicer.  You're certainly welcome to post those threads, especially in the Atheism forum.  However, I'll be exercising my right to refrain from participating.  I felt the tone matched the question, and I objected to both- but more to the question showing up in this particular thread. I don't mind "discussing" in "discussion" threads.  I draw the line at shouting matches in contention threads.  They rarely change any minds, and people just get heated.  (At least, that's my current position.)

[WordWolf]

I agree that the general topic Jesus was expounding on was about being "born again", which is to say being born "of the spirit", which is second because we were all born in the usual manner much earlier, and this would be the second one. The following verses make that clear. Other verses address it.  The entire previous discussion was on that one verse, and what Nicodemus took away from it.   I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on it.  I see Nicodemus as having listened with the common "selective hearing", having heard Jesus say a man had to be born (at his age) to see the kingdom of God. and Nicodemus objected to a man who is old being born, and how he couldn't repeat his first birth and leave the womb. I see Jesus as trying to impart some new, important information at the time, and Nicodemus seizing on the wrong thing.  As for what "anothen" should be,  having examined all the occurrences of the word, I'm convinced it should be rendered "from above" and that's it.  I think that's the most sensible, consistent translation.  So, we should probably agree to disagree there as well.

[Charity]

On 12/4/2024 at 2:47 PM, Raf said:

I'm going to butt in and say that Christians and non-Christians alike have used the term "original" loosely in reference to the existing Greek manuscripts, and no one is suggesting these were the first manuscripts written by the original authors. We have copies of copies of copies, and while there are hundreds of discrepancies, most are minor. I wouldn't get hung up on the use of the word "original" in this context.

When I first read your post, I was surprised that the word "original" was being used in this manner.

So the term "original" can now apply to all existing manuscripts regardless of when they were written, by whom they were written, where they were found, or how different they might be from one another. 

And the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition for "original" (that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made) can now include copies of copies of copies. 

And this has become the acceptable norm among some people in the field of biblical study.

Serious question here - is this what is meant by utilizing critical thinking and analysis skills?  If so, I just don't get it.  

 

Edited December 6 by Charity

[WordWolf]

"Am I missing something here?  What "original" do you and Hampson think exists?"

 

On 12/4/2024 at 4:47 PM, Raf said:

I'm going to butt in and say that Christians and non-Christians alike have used the term "original" loosely in reference to the existing Greek manuscripts, and no one is suggesting these were the first manuscripts written by the original authors. We have copies of copies of copies, and while there are hundreds of discrepancies, most are minor. I wouldn't get hung up on the use of the word "original" in this context.

[Actually, we're using the word "original" in a much more simple manner than that.  If we were discussing pfal, someone might speak of what was actually in the Orange Book or class as being "in the original", as opposed to what was later said about pfal. (One poster seemed obsessed with the differences at times.)  Another poster might react angrily, because pfal was, in general, plagiarized and cobbled together from the works of other writers (Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon...), so using the word "original" in reference to pfal could result in that response. 

In the case of Hampson and myself, I think I can speak with confidence that it is generally accepted that, when we look at modern English Bibles, regardless of the version, that virtually all of them are taken from the Greek texts, as opposed to the Latin, the  Syriac, and so on.   Whenever I did a "word study" or wanted to know what was said "in the original", I went back a step. I pulled out a Greek-English Interlinear of the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text, and followed along in the Greek. I found that many problems with an English version were simply because the critical Greek Text was clear, but the English version did something that added a difficulty.  So, it was an error in translation from Greek to English.  So, when I'm addressing the translation into English of a modern Bible, I can compare the English version in my hand to the Greek Text from which it was translated, and refer to the Greek Text as "the original", since it was from this that the version was translated. It doesn't mean that the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text was the original text of all the writings, since obviously they proceeded from other texts- but of the translation in my hand, it was the original.

I've also had a chance to read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in Spanish.  I've mentioned I prefer to read it in the original. Nobody supposed I meant I had a copy of Orwell's first print run of the book. Like any word in any language, the word "original" can be used in different contexts and still be accurate- within that context. If we weren't discussing the Bible, this wouldn't even be questioned.]

 

[WordWolf]

3 hours ago, Charity said:

When I first read your post, I was surprised that the word "original" was being used in this manner.

So the term "original" can now apply to all existing manuscripts regardless of when they were written, by whom they were written, where they were found, or how different they might be from one another. 

And can now include copies of copies of copies. 

And this has become the acceptable norm among some people in the field of biblical study.

Serious question here - is this what is meant by utilizing critical thinking and analysis skills?  If so, I just don't get it.  

 

[In case it's not clear, Raf and I are very different people. (We've been mistaken for each other, on and off, for much of our adult lives, but we don't even live in the same country, and we disagree on some pretty fundamental things.)  So, no, I wasn't using the word "original" in the manner he mentioned. (I just posted my explanation a minute ago.) I doubt he had the time to follow back and read over the post where I was going into this. 

"the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition for "original" (that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made)"

[Merriam-Webster's definition matches what I explained a post ago.]

 

"So the term "original" can now apply to all existing manuscripts regardless of when they were written, by whom they were written, where they were found, or how different they might be from one another. 

And can now include copies of copies of copies. 

And this has become the acceptable norm among some people in the field of biblical study.

Serious question here - is this what is meant by utilizing critical thinking and analysis skills?  If so, I just don't get it."

 

[Since we can all now see clearly that none of this was the case in any post, I'm confident we can call off the witch hunt now. There was just a misunderstanding.]

[Raf]

Wrote out a long reply. Decided it wasn't worth it. Deleted it.

Main idea: WW said what I was trying to say about "originals" and I would gladly adopt his language given the original question was about what HE meant.

[Charity]

17 hours ago, WordWolf said:

I wasn't primarily objecting to the tone. I was objecting to that sort of question being in this thread. I'll agree to participate in threads where we're playing nicer.  You're certainly welcome to post those threads, especially in the Atheism forum.  However, I'll be exercising my right to refrain from participating.  I felt the tone matched the question, and I objected to both- but more to the question showing up in this particular thread. I don't mind "discussing" in "discussion" threads.  I draw the line at shouting matches in contention threads.  They rarely change any minds, and people just get heated.  (At least, that's my current position.)

I've shared a few times before on threads that I want to get better at expressing my atheism in a respectful, unheated manner while also being able to ask about certain Christian doctrines which I once accepted but now question.  I call it the "practice makes progress" concept and it is why I appreciate all feedback.

It was helpful when you gave me a reason for why my question about God's choice of how to communicate his will should not be on this thread, and I agreed, deleted it and later moved it to the "Deconversion" thread.

You did not explain though how my tone was off putting.  If it was the underlined portions in the question, I explained in a post why I used that option.  If it wasn't that then I won't know what you found wrong with the tone unless you tell me (like Nathan_Jr specifically did in his first post on this thread).

Finally, I'm grateful for all your posts WordWolf on this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Charity]

18 hours ago, WordWolf said:

I agree that the general topic Jesus was expounding on was about being "born again", which is to say being born "of the spirit", which is second because we were all born in the usual manner much earlier, and this would be the second one. The following verses make that clear. Other verses address it.  The entire previous discussion was on that one verse, and what Nicodemus took away from it.   I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on it.  I see Nicodemus as having listened with the common "selective hearing", having heard Jesus say a man had to be born (at his age) to see the kingdom of God. and Nicodemus objected to a man who is old being born, and how he couldn't repeat his first birth and leave the womb. I see Jesus as trying to impart some new, important information at the time, and Nicodemus seizing on the wrong thing.  As for what "anothen" should be,  having examined all the occurrences of the word, I'm convinced it should be rendered "from above" and that's it.  I think that's the most sensible, consistent translation.  So, we should probably agree to disagree there as well.

In my last reply to you on this topic, I wrote, "However, I can see how being born from above was so "out there" for Nicodemus that he possibly made reference in his reply to the only birth he knew of which is from the womb."  So, I am in agreement with what you say above about Nicodemus.

Concerning "anothen," I began with accepting Thayer's Lexicon specific definition for this word in John 3:3 as being "anew/again" just as it was correctly translated "again" in Gal 4:9.  Now, although I don't completely understand John 3:7-8, I do think the way Jesus compares the movement of the wind with being born of the spirit can support the "born from above" definition. 

So, in the end, I am not in disagreement with your conclusion.  Thank you for all your posts on this matter.

[Charity]

16 hours ago, WordWolf said:

"Am I missing something here?  What "original" do you and Hampson think exists?"

 

[Actually, we're using the word "original" in a much more simple manner than that.  If we were discussing pfal, someone might speak of what was actually in the Orange Book or class as being "in the original", as opposed to what was later said about pfal. (One poster seemed obsessed with the differences at times.)  Another poster might react angrily, because pfal was, in general, plagiarized and cobbled together from the works of other writers (Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon...), so using the word "original" in reference to pfal could result in that response. 

In the case of Hampson and myself, I think I can speak with confidence that it is generally accepted that, when we look at modern English Bibles, regardless of the version, that virtually all of them are taken from the Greek texts, as opposed to the Latin, the  Syriac, and so on.   Whenever I did a "word study" or wanted to know what was said "in the original", I went back a step. I pulled out a Greek-English Interlinear of the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text, and followed along in the Greek. I found that many problems with an English version were simply because the critical Greek Text was clear, but the English version did something that added a difficulty.  So, it was an error in translation from Greek to English.  So, when I'm addressing the translation into English of a modern Bible, I can compare the English version in my hand to the Greek Text from which it was translated, and refer to the Greek Text as "the original", since it was from this that the version was translated. It doesn't mean that the Stephens Text or the Nestle Text was the original text of all the writings, since obviously they proceeded from other texts- but of the translation in my hand, it was the original.

I've also had a chance to read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in Spanish.  I've mentioned I prefer to read it in the original. Nobody supposed I meant I had a copy of Orwell's first print run of the book. Like any word in any language, the word "original" can be used in different contexts and still be accurate- within that context. If we weren't discussing the Bible, this wouldn't even be questioned.]

 

Thank you for clarifying - it's much appreciated.  I’m assuming this is how you believe Hampson uses the word "original" as well.

[Charity]

16 hours ago, WordWolf said:

[Since we can all now see clearly that none of this was the case in any post, I'm confident we can call off the witch hunt now. There was just a misunderstanding.]

Please do tell, exactly what kind of "witch hunt" do you believe was happening?

Edited December 6 by Charity

[WordWolf]

[It looked to me like you were...going somewhere with your posts, somewhere specific and antagonistic.  Since then, you've taken it down several notches, and it's obvious you're not going there. (At least not now, and "now" is all I have to go by. so, it's all good.) ]

[Rocky]

On 12/4/2024 at 12:47 PM, Raf said:

I'm going to butt in and say that Christians and non-Christians alike have used the term "original" loosely in reference to the existing Greek manuscripts, and no one is suggesting these were the first manuscripts written by the original authors. We have copies of copies of copies, and while there are hundreds of discrepancies, most are minor. I wouldn't get hung up on the use of the word "original" in this context.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55271743-forgery-and-memory-at-the-end-of-the-first-millennium