Quotes? References?
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Nida wrote: "Most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, interpret the references to the redemption of the believer by Jesus Christ, not as evidence of any commerical transaction by any quid pro quo between Christ and God or between the 'two natures of God' (his love and his justice), but as a figure of the 'cost,' in terms of suffering."
Nida also wrote: "Blood is used in this passage (Rom. 3:25) in the same way that it is used in a number of other places in the New Testament, that is, to indicate a violent death. Although this noun [propitiation] (and its related forms) is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation (that is, an act to appease or placate a god), it is never used this way in the Old Testament."
Nida is wrong. The sacrifice of Calvary required the offering of blood, NOT a violent death! Nida denies the blood atonement.
Missing Verses -- What's the Big Deal?
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by aefting, Jun 29, 2003.
Page 4 of 6
-
-
does requiring "the offering of blood, NOT a violent death!" mean that Jesus cld have given blood at a local blood bank w efficacious results?
does it mean that He didn't need to die, n it wld have sufficed as long as blood got shed?
affirming one aspect (n not overloading/underloading the target language), is one way of producing a closest natural equivalent. BUT it in no way "denies" the other aspects.
when the author of Heb says that u've not "resisted unto blood," does it mean that his reader had not pushed a bag of serum?
does "his blood be upon us" denote a request for face paint made of blood?
what does it mean? how best to communicate it? i'm all for discussion rather than shutting it down w a simple "Nida is wrong." well, he may be--but it's useful to talk abt it n find out. -
-
But yet again, you have run out of substance and chosen to attack my "scriptural knowledge." Why??
-
-
-
I'm being vague?
OK, here's what you need to do:
- Look up "deny" in a dictionary (very important!)
- provide context and/or book/page number for reference when quoting someone
- realize that the first quote you provided has nothing to do with Nida's view, but is simply Nida discussing the view of others.
- explain, using precise quoted text and the dictionary definition obtained in step one, where Nida denies the blood atonement in the second quote you provided. -
If Nida does deny blood atonement then this denial is a religious one, and no secular dictionaries are needed, at least they are not the primary standard for defining such a denial. Go to God's word and learn how the word arneomai is used by the inspiring Spirit of God. This verb is used e.g. in 2Peter 2:1, Jude 4 etc. God the Spirit used at least two words which versions do not so much distinguish between inasmuch as both are generally rendered alike, "deny". If you do what I told and still do not understand how the Spirit of the Almighty used arneomai then ask and I will tell.
Harald -
-
Translating does not require spiritual discernment. It is a task of taking the words from one language and putting them into another. No one has yet to show any case where spiritual life makes any difference in translation. Translation requires an in-depth knowledge of the language. -
it doesn't take a believer in the magical to accurately translate Alice in the Wonderland, Harry Potter, or Snow White. it does take someone with a command of languages, an understanding of people fr diverse cultural backgrounds, a desire to accurately convey the MEANING fr one language to another.
is it likely that a scientific-minded person smooth out the fantastic n magical elements in the literary texts he or she is translating?
hmm, not unless the translator doesn't value the job of the literary critic! if u remove a target in the translation, u don't have a target later.
which is why the liberals are often UNlikely to change the text, the doctrinal n the miraculous, in translation -- which they proceed to attack in their Commentary n Higher Critical works. -
-
-
If Jesus could not be tempted, He was not fully man. However, Jesus, though tempted in the flesh, submitted to the will of the Father. He is the ultimate servant. I would ask you, was Jesus not able to sin or able not to sin? I would say that He was able not to sin because the other option greatly reduces His humanity.
In Christ,
Neal -
riding the militant wagon furiously has its consequences. -
I agree with Harald's comment. -
BrianT. I will propound my view of arneomai. And what I say I firmly believe is what sound men of the past also understood, albeit they may not have expounded upon the original so much. Lexically if one looks up arneomai it is usually defined as "deny". And I do not deny that its meaning or sense is "deny". But a simple "deny" is unsatisfactory in many instance where the word is used. It had been better if the versions had been more specific. I believe arneomai is often used in the sense of "contradict", and some lexicon gave this as one meaning. When the NT speaks of people who "deny" God or Christ it very rarely, if ever, refers to people who mean like "there is no God", "there is no Messias". That is not the kind of denial arneomai is used to portray in general. The stronger word for "deny", aparneomai, is more likely to portray such denial. In John's first epistle arneomai is set as opposite to "confess", which is homologeô in the Greek. Look at homologeô in that epistle, and learn what the lexicons say about it, and contrast with arneomai, and you should learn what kind of denial is portrayed.
Unlearned men have a simplistic understanding of "confessing Christ" and "denying Christ". In my country most religious professors think "confessing Christ" is the same as verbally utter a catch phrase before men, like say "Jesus is Lord". If they find a person uttering that aloud they say he is confessing Christ and is a "born again" person. What utter stupidity! Even the pope of Rome, the Antichrist with capital A, says "Jesus is Lord", but every judicious person knows he is a chief servant of Satan. Likewise the professors think "denying Christ" is, generally taken, an act of publicly renouncing Christ, like saying, "there never was such a person as Jesus Christ, he is a myth". Such people get stigmatized as "antichrist" by dead professors who are more antichrist themselves albeit they "confess" Christ all the time inasmuch as they are able to repeat the same slogans like "Jesus is Lord", "Jesus is the Christ who became flesh" etc.
Titus 1:16 gives a good definition in brief of what it is to "deny" God. The person referred to there by Paul were not "atheists" or satanists or such like who are openly hostile to the Christian religion. No, the persons spoken of were professors of religion, men who claimed to know God and Christ. But yet Paul says they "deny" Him. How? Answer: by their works they deny God and Christ, being abominable and unto all good works reprobate. These were people who may have said "I am a born again believer in Christ", they claimed to know God. But their profession meant nothing seeing they denied the validity of their profession by their wicked works of disobedience. They did not verbally "deny" God, like satanists and atheists and devil worshippers etc., but by contradicting their own pious sounding profession through worthless works of their own contrivance. This is the plight of the vast majority today who profess Christ. Easy believism and all kinds of similar heresies run rampant. Such men do not openly disavow Christ or God, but by their contradictory works and beliefs etc. they deny Him.
"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them"
People who profess vital religion but who speak not according to God's word on a continual basis are deniers of God and of Christ, no matter how many thousand times they may have repeated phrases like "Jesus is Lord" etc.
Nida is manifestly a denier of God and Christ. His own Bible contradicting teachings (= heresies) and notions bespeak this fact. The same goes for a host of others linked with DE and modern versions. They are such evident wolves and vultures that there are no need to speak about sheep clothing in their case. The vast majority of the translators of the RSV were manifest Christ-denying heretics, men who denied many teachings of the Bible. Therefore it is not wonder that people in general rejected that perversion as corrupt. God is not mocked. Modernists cannot render God's words aright.
The greatest threat to wolves in sheep clothing is teaching and preaching the word of God under the unction and empowerment of God the Holy Spirit, in the authority of Christ, not as scholars and scribes, but as Christ, who did not teach like others, but He taught with all authority. And if the word of God is additionally taught with precision and minute accurateness there will be little ground left for deceivers to stand on. Mark my words.
Harald -
Askjo, show me. Make it clear. No more games. -
I have said before and repeat even now again. Anyone who believes in and trust a peccable Jesus has not Jesus at all. The word "peccable" commonly is said to mean "capable of sinning". The very Jesus testified of in the word of God was and is ever impeccable. Absolutely impeccable. In the course of the history of Christianity so called people who have denied the absolute impeccability of Christ Jesus have been called heretics. And so should they be called even today. If Jesus the Lord was impeccable, which He verily was during the days of His flesh, then how come can some say He experienced temptation to or towards sin within Himself? What kind of a Jesus have ye? A person who experiences temptation to commit sin must of necessity be possessed of something less than an absolutely holy nature. Such is the Jesus of the peccabilists. If Jesus had a defiled humanity then He experienced temptation to sin within Himself. But the Bible, the Book of God, testifies as to God's Jesus that He was absolutely undefiled and harmless and separate from sinners and in Him was no sin, and the prince of this world was come and he had nothing in Him. That is as impeccable as can get. Jesus Christ the Lord did not experience temptation to commit sin within. An absolutely holy and pure human nature, like Jesus the Nazarene, the Son of God, was and is possessed of, cannot possibly have any impure thoughts or sensations or propensities or motives or affections etc. within himself. Such things would testify of a depraved human nature. An depraved human nature, like the one I am possessed of, has all these base things and qualities (negative), but not an ounce of such in the impeccable son of Mary. If Jesus Christ felt or experienced temptation within that means His human nature was tainted with depravity to a lesser or greater degree. It is up to the peccabilitists to tell how much or how little He was depraved. I want to have nothing to do with such a phantom Jesus, he can save nobody.
To believe in a Jesus who was capable of sinning when upon earth is the same as to believe in a Jesus who is capable of the same while in heaven. But such a Jesus does not exist except as a figment of imagination in the minds of deluded souls. Jesus Christ's humanity was and is a 100 per cent humanity, yet apart from sin. Therefore He could not experience temptation to commit sin, wherefore He also said that the prince of this world has come "and has nothing in me". Peccabilitists by their belief rather say the Devil did have something in Christ. Who tells the truth? God is not the author of confusion, but of harmony and concord.
Harald
Page 4 of 6