Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How do we determine whether the Bible is the Word of God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    According to Matthew, Jesus' paternal grandfather (Joseph's father) was named Jacob.
    According to Luke, Jesus' paternal grandfather was Heli.
    And there might have been adoption in Jesus' lineage, thus the need to trace two lines.

    but not all of the Bible's scripture is inspired by God.
    But 2 Timothy 3:16, which you mentioned, declares just that. And the context bears it out:

    ... from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Ti 3:15–17)

    We are talking about "the sacred writings" in "all Scripture", which is profitable to equip us for every good work.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #17
      And if not everything in scripture is inspired by God, the whole argument based on nothing more than a single verse (which might itself be wrong) becomes futile.

      While I did cite that verse, I also stated that the translation is highly questionable - which is to say "suspect."

      Where "is inspired" can in the English be interpreted as a verb, in the Koine Greek, it is an adjective: "Every scripture is inspired by God" means "Every inspired-by-God Scripture," or, to phrase it more naturally, "every scripture that is inspired by God." or "Every scripture inspired by God (is ...)"


      And beyond that certainty, it is highly probable that the entire "sentence" describes the "writings that Timothy has known since infancy:" i.e. it would be an adjectival phrase, which would make any insertion of "is" in the translation invalid.

      No verb is used in that phrase - "is" has been interpolated not just once (which might be justified), but twice (which can't be justified.)
      Last edited by tabibito; 11-02-2017, 12:41 AM.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        And there might have been adoption in Jesus' lineage, thus the need to trace two lines.


        But 2 Timothy 3:16, which you mentioned, declares just that. And the context bears it out:

        ... from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Ti 3:15–17)

        We are talking about "the sacred writings" in "all Scripture", which is profitable to equip us for every good work.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        The sacred writings which Timothy knew from childhood could have only referred to the Tanakh, in context. None of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Physiocrat View Post
          So what your saying is that the God we know from general revelation is consistent with the God of the scriptures? I think that's certainly a fruitful way of inquiry but the problem would be to distinguish truths about God and explicit truths from God.
          In my view, the Word of God is God's revelation. We should respond to that revelation with faith. Truths about God are truths from God. We can dissect the Bible into individual words and maybe even individual historical events, but I don't think that is what the scriptures are really about. The scriptures are about ideas that lead to God and are inspired by God. When Jesus asked the lawyer how he read the law the lawyer gave an answer by summarizing the first two commandments.

          Luk 10:25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
          Luk 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
          Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
          Luk 10:28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

          Rather than breaking the law into various things, Jesus confirmed the answer. The whole is greater than the parts. I think the idea is from God and about God. It is faith that determines true obedience.
          The Capitol Insurrection And Religion

          https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t_bibl_vppi_i0

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            And if not everything in scripture is inspired by God, the whole argument based on nothing more than a single verse (which might itself be wrong) becomes futile.
            Well, no, "the Scripture cannot be broken", said Jesus (John 10:35).

            And beyond that certainty, it is highly probable that the entire "sentence" describes the "writings that Timothy has known since infancy:" i.e. it would be an adjectival phrase, which would make any insertion of "is" in the translation invalid.
            But why can't an adjective be used in this way (e.g. "all Scripture is blue").

            No verb is used in that phrase - "is" has been interpolated not just once (which might be justified), but twice (which can't be justified.)
            But you just said the second "is" is valid, so why not the first? And "kai" seems to me startling if "theopneustos" is simply an adjective here.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              The sacred writings which Timothy knew from childhood could have only referred to the Tanakh, in context. None of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child.
              Yes, though by implication, "all Scripture" would seem to include all subsequent Scripture too. I just wanted to make it clear that all Scripture was meant.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Yes, though by implication, "all Scripture" would seem to include all subsequent Scripture too. I just wanted to make it clear that all Scripture was meant.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                Or it's possible we're looking at it the wrong way. Instead of Paul having a given set of writings in mind, he could be setting down the criteria for determining what is scripture.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Or it's possible we're looking at it the wrong way. Instead of Paul having a given set of writings in mind, he could be setting down the criteria for determining what is scripture.
                  Could be! Good point...

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Physiocrat View Post
                    Not sure if this is the best sub-forum but hey ho.

                    I'm from a Protestant background and recently came across a Roman Catholic argument that we could determine that the scriptures were highly reliable using the standard tools of history and logic but it couldn't tell us that they were the inspired Word of God. The article claimed that they only way we can be sure that it is the Word of God because the Church (capital C for a reason) was founded by Christ so has the authority to declare it to be so. However this still doesn't answer the fundamental epistemological question of how does one move from solid truthful documents to the inspired Word of God.

                    My tentative suggestion is that prophets of God are accompanied with signs and wonders to declare they're God's agent however we would likley only have the testimony of the prophet to distinguish between what were his words alone and those inspired by God.

                    Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
                    I think the Catholic analysis you saw is incomplete. I certainly agree that we can use historical criteria to look at the historical accuracy of Scripture. But we can also assess in an objective way that Scripture is the only primary source we have for the story of how God worked with Israel, and for Jesus.

                    It's a matter for personal decision whether believe that story or not, but that's not the question you're looking at.

                    There are plenty of questions about the books. Probably some of the NT letters weren't written by their claimed authors. And of course the Gospel writers have their own viewpoints, and their accounts don't completely coincide. But this kind of thing is true of all historical sources. We still have good enough evidence to know what Jesus was about, and how he affected the people who experienced him.

                    We have faith in God and in Christ. That faith is in part based on what we know historically about Jesus, but in part on the experiences of his followers, historical, current, and even our own experience. In that sense the Catholic position has some validity. Not that the role of the Bible as primary source material depends upon the Church, but that our reaction to it does to some extent depend upon seeing how Jesus has affected the lives of his people. There's a similar Protestant idea, that Scripture doesn't really become Scripture for us without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

                    You can argue that it was the Church that chose the specific documents that form the NT. (The OT, of course, was chosen by Jewish tradition.) But the Gospels were accepted from as early as we know, and it's hard to see how anyone could have decided otherwise. (No, there are no other Gospels with claim to be anywhere near as good evidence as the canonical ones.) Similarly, Paul's letters are the earliest writings we have by anyone who experienced the consequences of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. On the other letters, I'm actually not sure the Church made such good decisions. It's pretty clear that some of the letters aren't by the claimed authors. Indeed I think they accepted some letters as Paul's that weren't. But historical judgement is based on weighing sources, so having a collection of varied sources isn't a problem as long as we assess them critically. I'm not aware of any other sources that might reasonably have been included, except maybe the Didache.
                    Last edited by hedrick; 11-04-2017, 04:33 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, no, "the Scripture cannot be broken", said Jesus (John 10:35).
                      Yup - it do say that. So Michael is God (also a claim made in scripture). Does "the scripture cannot be broken" refer to the scripture in question, or to scripture generally? The scripture cites God as saying "you are gods" - so the scripture in question is either inspired by God, or false. Given that Jesus gives it the thumbs up, I'll accept it as inspired.


                      But why can't an adjective be used in this way (e.g. "all Scripture is blue").
                      "All scripture is blue" does not mean the same thing as "all blue scripture" or "all scripture that is blue." The last two allow for the existence of scripture that is not blue, the first does not. Given that Paul records that one passage (and others) is his very own personal opinion, we have in undeniable existence at least one passage of scripture that was not inspired by God.


                      But you just said the second "is" is valid, so why not the first? And "kai" seems to me startling if "theopneustos" is simply an adjective here.
                      It is a run on, complex sentence ... when the sentence is simplified the και is not at all surprising. The second "is" can be valid - as a matter of reducing the length of the sentence for acceptable English grammar: "Every scripture inspired by God is useful ..." doesn't change the meaning (though it does impact on nuance).

                      "From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures that are able to give you the wisdom you need for salvation through faith in the Messiah Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good action."



                      So, "From childhood, you have known the holy writings ... every scripture inspired by God and useful ... "
                      Last edited by tabibito; 11-05-2017, 05:47 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Does "the scripture cannot be broken" refer to the scripture in question, or to scripture generally?
                        I think it means Scripture generally, as in the NIV rendering "If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—".

                        Given that Paul records that one passage (and others) is his very own personal opinion, we have in undeniable existence at least one passage of scripture that was not inspired by God.
                        "Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches." (1 Co 7:17)

                        So this does not appear to be just a matter of Paul's opinion, these were directions for all the churches, and thus authoritative, and thus inspired.

                        It is a run on, complex sentence ... when the sentence is simplified the και is not at all surprising. The second "is" can be valid - as a matter of reducing the length of the sentence for acceptable English grammar: "Every scripture inspired by God is useful ..." doesn't change the meaning (though it does impact on nuance).
                        But the "kai" comes into English as "all Scripture inspired by God is also useful..." which is a little surprising.

                        So, "From childhood, you have known the holy writings ... every scripture inspired by God and useful ... "
                        Source: Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 45–46.


                        Now the case stands thus. The Revisers have translated eight of these passages, which we have cited, on the same principles as the A.V., i.e., supplying in italics the verb substantive “is” and “are” respectively, and taking the copulative καὶ, “and,” as joining together the two predicates. But when the Revisers come to the ninth passage (2 Tim. 3:16), they separate the two conjoined predicates, making the first a part of the subject, and then are obliged to translate the καὶ in the sense of “also,” when there is nothing antecedent to it. Thus:—
                        “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable.”
                        Now, if the Revisers had translated the other eight passages in the same way, the renderings would have been consistent, whatever else they might not have been.
                        Rom. 7:12 would have been—
                        “The holy commandment is also just.”
                        1 Cor. 11:30 would have been—
                        “Many weak ones are also sickly.”
                        2 Cor. 10:10 would have been—
                        “His weighty letters are also powerful.”
                        1 Tim. 1:15 and 4:9 would have been—
                        “The faithful saying is also worthy of all acceptation.”
                        1 Tim. 2:3 would have been—
                        “This good thing is also acceptable.”
                        1 Tim. 4:4 would have been—
                        “Every good creature of God is also nothing to be refused.”
                        Heb. 4:13 would have been—
                        “All naked things are also opened,” etc.
                        But the Revisers do not translate them thus! And the fact that they render the whole of these eight passages as in the A.V., and single out 2 Tim. 3:16 for different treatment, forbids us to accept the inconsistent rendering, and deprives it of all authority.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The argument is not one that I have previously encountered.
                          However, the rendering
                          “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable.”
                          also is one that I have not previously encountered.

                          This will take a little investigation.

                          However, one can readily be eliminated from further enquiry:
                          “Every good creature of God is also nothing to be refused.”
                          This actually makes more sense than the standard translation – there are a number of creatures that are rather poisonous if ingested. Others need to be treated with extreme care if sudden death is not to result from consumption: fugu, for example.
                          Last edited by tabibito; 11-08-2017, 11:09 PM.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            ... Given that Paul records that one passage (and others) is his very own personal opinion, we have in undeniable existence at least one passage of scripture that was not inspired by God.
                            No, it's not undeniable. It is probably not the case that, in 1 Cor. 7:12, Paul is saying, "Now this part is just my opinion." Rather, he is probably clarifying that he is expanding on and applying what the Lord taught as recorded in the Gospels (vv. 10-11).
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                              I think the Catholic analysis you saw is incomplete. I certainly agree that we can use historical criteria to look at the historical accuracy of Scripture. But we can also assess in an objective way that Scripture is the only primary source we have for the story of how God worked with Israel, and for Jesus.

                              It's a matter for personal decision whether believe that story or not, but that's not the question you're looking at.

                              There are plenty of questions about the books. Probably some of the NT letters weren't written by their claimed authors. And of course the Gospel writers have their own viewpoints, and their accounts don't completely coincide. But this kind of thing is true of all historical sources. We still have good enough evidence to know what Jesus was about, and how he affected the people who experienced him.

                              We have faith in God and in Christ. That faith is in part based on what we know historically about Jesus, but in part on the experiences of his followers, historical, current, and even our own experience. In that sense the Catholic position has some validity. Not that the role of the Bible as primary source material depends upon the Church, but that our reaction to it does to some extent depend upon seeing how Jesus has affected the lives of his people. There's a similar Protestant idea, that Scripture doesn't really become Scripture for us without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

                              You can argue that it was the Church that chose the specific documents that form the NT. (The OT, of course, was chosen by Jewish tradition.) But the Gospels were accepted from as early as we know, and it's hard to see how anyone could have decided otherwise. (No, there are no other Gospels with claim to be anywhere near as good evidence as the canonical ones.) Similarly, Paul's letters are the earliest writings we have by anyone who experienced the consequences of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. On the other letters, I'm actually not sure the Church made such good decisions. It's pretty clear that some of the letters aren't by the claimed authors. Indeed I think they accepted some letters as Paul's that weren't. But historical judgement is based on weighing sources, so having a collection of varied sources isn't a problem as long as we assess them critically. I'm not aware of any other sources that might reasonably have been included, except maybe the Didache.

                              Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think I read that argument on Catholic Answers website.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Source: Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898), 45–46.

                                Now the case stands thus. The Revisers have translated eight of these passages, which we have cited, on the same principles as the A.V., i.e., supplying in italics the verb substantive “is” and “are” respectively, and taking the copulative καὶ, “and,” as joining together the two predicates. But when the Revisers come to the ninth passage (2 Tim. 3:16), they separate the two conjoined predicates, making the first a part of the subject, and then are obliged to translate the καὶ in the sense of “also,” when there is nothing antecedent to it. Thus:—
                                “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable.”
                                Now, if the Revisers had translated the other eight passages in the same way, the renderings would have been consistent, whatever else they might not have been.
                                θεοπνευστος is a true adjective in Koine Greek, but it necessarily becomes a verbal adjective in English. The difference between a true adjective and a verbal adjective is critical to a correct rendering.
                                Rom. 7:12 would have been—
                                “The holy commandment is also just.”
                                Not a verbal adjective
                                The law is indeed holy and the holy commandment is righteous and good. (note: There is no problem with rendering these as “the law is holy,” and “the commandment is holy:” neither will be mistaken for a perfect tense, which (as I have previously pointed out) will happen for “every scripture is inspired by God.” “Every scripture inspired by God” is therefore a necessary rendering for the sake of disambiguation.


                                1 Cor. 11:30 would have been—
                                “Many weak ones are also sickly.”
                                Not verbal adjectives


                                2 Cor. 10:10 would have been—
                                “His weighty letters are also powerful.”
                                Not verbal adjectives

                                1 Tim. 1:15 and 4:9 would have been—
                                “The faithful saying is also worthy of all acceptation.
                                πιστος, αξιος. Not verbal adjectives.

                                1 Tim. 2:3 would have been—
                                “This good thing is also acceptable.
                                καλον, αποδεκτον : Not verbal adjectives.

                                1 Tim. 4:4 would have been—
                                “Every good creature of God is also nothing to be refused.”
                                This actually makes more sense than the standard translation – there are a number of creatures that are rather poisonous if ingested. Others need to be treated with extreme care if sudden death is not to result from consumption: fugu, for example.

                                Heb. 4:13 would have been—
                                “All naked things are also opened,” etc.
                                This one almost makes the cut. Grammatical issues arise because of the contrast that is established with the first phrase.

                                But the Revisers do not translate them thus! And the fact that they render the whole of these eight passages as in the A.V., and single out 2 Tim. 3:16 for different treatment, forbids us to accept the inconsistent rendering, and deprives it of all authority.
                                No surprise in that – rendering true adjectives and verbal adjectives in the same way will usually result in problems.

                                The author has not demonstrated his claim to be accurate. Relevant grammatical issues have not been fully examined, resulting in an unsound argument.

                                So then, does
                                Matt 7:17 παν δενδρον αγαθον καρπους καλους ποιει “every good tree bears good fruit”
                                have the same meaning when rendered as “every tree is good”? (and note: even “good” is a true adjective.)

                                And now to verbal adjectives, as a matter of comparing apples with apples, rather than with oranges:

                                Matt 12:25 πασα βασιλεια μερισθεισα καθ εαυτης ερημουται – “every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste” … does the meaning not change if it is rendered as “every kingdom is divided against itself”?

                                What happens to
                                Matt 13:52 … πας γραμματευς μαθητευθεις εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων “every scribe who is trained for the kingdom of heaven,”
                                if that “who” is elided?

                                there is a slightly limited conceptual similarity between “every scripture inspired by God” and “every word that is being issued☆ from the mouth of God.” It makes as much sense to render
                                Matt 4:4 παντι ρηματι εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου
                                as “every word is being issued from the mouth of God” as it does to render
                                2 Tim 3:16 πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος
                                as “every scripture is inspired by God.”

                                ☆ note that though both are verbal adjectives, the verbal adjective “inspired” is not a participle, where “being issued” is.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X