New Testament or New Covenant?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by R. J., Sep 17, 2004.

  1. R. J.

    R. J.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    A very strong scriptural case can be made that the New Testament IS NOT THE SAME DOCTRINALLY AS the New Covenant. The basic difference is evident when one considers with whom they are MADE. The New Testament is made with the world, as individuals (John 1:29). The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Hebrews 8, 10, Jeremiah 31).

    With that stated, I would like to present 6 verses where these terms are used. The verses, as they appear in the King James Bible are:

    Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

    The Greek word for "testament" is "διαθήκη". This is the Greek word that appears in the Greek manuscripts (i.e. TR1550, TR1894 & WHNU) concerning these verses. This can be confirmed by going to the web site, http://world.altavista.com/tr and translating the English word "testament" to Greek.

    Most modern versions of the bible translate this Greek word "διαθήκη" to the English word "covenant". Now some may say, "So what?" The answer is that there is a "falling away" from the traditional Pauline dispensationalism to an apostate position called "Progressive Dispensationalism" based upon this MISTRANSLATION. The use of "covenant" instead of "testament" in the verses quoted above have allowed the "Progressive Dispensationalist" to:

    (1) deny the parenthetical nature of the church,
    (2) deny the mysterious character of the church,
    (3) deny that the church was established following the postponement of the kingdom.

    The truth of the "Progressive Dispensationalist" position is that it is far closer to "Covenant Theology" than it is to "Dispensational Theology".
     
  2. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, you are arguing for a distinction that is not in the Greek. In essence, you are implying advanced revelation.

    Second, you are basing translation on interpretation (your eschatology driving translation), rather than the other way around (translate first, interpret second).

    Third, progressive dispensationalism is not apostate, nor derived on a mistranslation (see my first point).

    Fourth, if you want to debate eschatology, you're in the wrong forum. [​IMG]
     
  3. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look lower on the forum I just blasted this KJVO argument my friend. KJV actually uses covenant in the NT more than it does 'testament'. Look for 'Convenant or Testament' topic.

    1cross+3nails=4given
     
  4. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    In the KJV NT, the word "covenant" appears 20 times; the word "testament" occurs 14 times.
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    R.J. said:

    A very strong scriptural case can be made that the New Testament IS NOT THE SAME DOCTRINALLY AS the New Covenant.

    Both are a translation of the same Greek word, diatheke. The distinction between "covenant" and "testament" is a false one based on translation.
     
  6. R. J.

    R. J.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    False distinction? Perhaps, if you accept the blurring of the distinction by the modern versions of the bible. Having done that, you are then faced with the contradiction of these verses:

    Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

    Of course, if you believe the Church is spiritual Israel, that won't be a problem for you.

    The NEW TESTAMENT was MADE when the testator, Jesus Christ, shed His blood for every INDIVIDUAL in the entire WORLD (John 1:29).

    The NEW COVENANT is MADE with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, as a NATION (Jeremiah 31).
     
  7. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps, if you accept the blurring of the distinction by the modern versions of the bible.

    There is no blurring. The word is simply being translated consistently, just as the apostles wrote the same word consistently.

    Conversely, the KJV by translating one Greek term with a variety of English words, creates a distinction that does not exist in Greek. Good news for Dispensationalists trying to justify their existence, but no help for anyone else.

    Having done that, you are then faced with the contradiction of these verses [Heb. 8:8; 12:24]:

    Properly understood, there is no contradiction. The author is saying that God promised a new covenant, and that Christ is the mediator of the promised covenant.

    The "contradiction" is a product of your KJV-only and Dispensational assumptions, and therefore arguing in circles. Nothing more.
     
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    This is some of the most pathetic nonsense that I have ever seen on this message board. There is no such thing as “traditional Pauline dispensationalism” for the very simple reason that dispensationalism was not invented until centuries after Paul died. "Progressive Dispensationalism" is no more apostate than any other kind dispensationalism.

    The use of "testament" instead of "covenant" in the verses quoted above has caused the careless reader to go swimming is a cesspool of error, and this is a good example of the inadequacy of the King James translation of the Bible for today’s readers. The best translation in the six verses quoted above is obviously “covenant.”
     
  9. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The Church is NOT anymore parenthetical than Jesus!
     
  10. R. J.

    R. J.
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craigbythesea,

    This discussion has gone well beyond the bounds of civility. Please forgive my "striking a nerve" with my post, Craig.

    Since we are apparently light years apart in our basic beliefs and views, perhaps it is best to stop our discussion now.
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Politely exposing false doctrines is not "well beyond the bounds of civility," especially when those false doctrines are so ridiculous as those set forth in this thread.

    I shall briefly continue refuting the false doctrines set forth, and then leave this thread unless someone wishes to continue the discussion.
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The character of the Church is only mysterious to those who are so caught up in theological error that they no longer understand what the Bible teaches about the church.

    Why do some people refuse to believe the Bible?

    Matt. 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
    Matt. 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The Bible teaches only one kind of theology—and that one kind is not "Dispensational Theology" or "Covenant Theology," it is BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.

    Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
     
  14. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Following up on something I posted earlier, here's the problem with R. J.'s claim that:

    Having done that, you are then faced with the contradiction of these verses [Heb. 8:8; 12:24]

    The claim that there is a "contradiction" between these two verses is built on at least three layers of assumptions which I must buy into before I can accept it. That is, before he can argue that "testament" and "covenant" are two different things, R. J. must first demonstrate, in order, that:

    </font>
    1. Dispensationalism is the proper interpretive grid through which Scripture is to be understood.</font>
    2. Out of all the variations on the Dispensationalist theme, R. J.'s "Pauline dispensationalism" is the preferred one.</font>
    3. KJV-onlyism is correct; that is, the English rendition found in the KJV is to be preferred over the Greek sources from which it was translated.</font>
    4. The KJV translators' use of "testament" and "covenant" indicates a proper theological distinction and not mere stylistic variety.</font>
    Prove any assumption out of its proper order, and your point is not made. Fail to prove any assumption in the chain, and your point fails.

    So what are you waiting for? Get yer homework done!
     

Share This Page

Loading...